Hacker News Reader

Comment by fsckboy | Hacker News Reader

>In Europe we don't have much fossil fuels, so our "hippiness" is not really a choice

this argument relies on the false-but-widely-held idea that "natural resources" are commercial wealth and if you don't hold them you are poor. Look at Japan, has very limited natural resources and not hippies but has built a world-class economy on knowledge work. Look at resource rich 3rd world countries, why are they poor?

If Europe needs oil, they can buy it, it's completely fungible and sold at auction in huge volumes every day. The reason for the switch to wind and solar is the global warming argument, not the "we don't have our own oil" fallacy.

View on HN

You chose oil for your example, but what about natural gas? If Europe needs natural gas, they can just buy it… and give money directly to their enemy, Russia. Just buying what you need isn’t without second order effects. The second order effects of solar and energy diversification are more palatable than directly funding an enemy.

“Look at Japan”. Ok, let’s look. They attacked the US in 1941 because of the US oil embargo. Their current situation is predicated on the US continuing to be the world’s policeman, ensuring that shipments get from point A to B. There will come a time when that assumption will not hold.

Things change.

> If Europe needs oil, they can buy it, it's completely fungible and sold at auction in huge volumes every day

That didn't end well when the oil and gas supplier decided to invade Europe. They even run clips showing how Europe will freeze in the winter and be poor if keep supporting the invaded ally.

Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvdBzZVVovc

If EU wasn't heavily invested in green tech and efficiency, the Russians film might have had become a reality.

Just use the fusion in the skies.

Energy independence. The US fought wars for oil before fracking. Supply chains are complex and disruptable. Dependence on Russia for fuel leads to... dependence on Russia. Or Iran. Or Saudi. Whatever country it may be, it's dependence, and dependence can always be weaponized. This is pure geopolitics. "You can just buy oil" is deeply foolish.

We now see it's not sensible to depend on other countries be it for oil, ore, nuclear umbrella or cloud computing providers.

I think we cannot buy oil and gas only from sane countries or we would already.

How can you regain sovereignty? Installing solar and heat pumps is part of this process.

> The reason for the switch to wind and solar is the global warming argument

I hate this argument. Why should one care about global warming in order to switch to solar? It just makes sense economically. Even if you think that the world is flat, solar energy is still cheaper than anything else.

Because there are uses of fossil fuels where solar won't be cheaper to replace them, but that still must be eliminated to avoid eventual disaster.

Because it's a fact. When your interlocutor doesn't care about facts there's no particular reason they should care it's cheaper, that's just another fact.

You say "OK, Joe thinks the Earth is flat but he should still use Solar" and Joe doesn't follow. Joe's number one news source is "Jenny Truth Sayer" on TikTok and Jenny just told him that the solar panels attract Venusian Space Clowns, and he has to smash them with a hammer or else his genitals will explode

There are greedy assholes for whom it doesn't matter why the line is going up. But it turns out they don't like wind or solar because they're too democratic. Those assholes are - like most capitalist asshole, used to a system where you own stuff (a mine, a well, a pipeline, a ship) and you get infinite money, but newer systems aren't about owning stuff. You can't own the sunlight, or the wind, well then it's no good is it? The big oil companies stepped back from "We're part of the transition" and doubled down on fossil fuels, because that means more money for them, and if we all die well, too bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com