upvote

points

by tootie22 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby WorldPeas19 hours ago|
next
[-]
...and up to that point, first world countries should not be complaining about developing nations using coal. It's a lot more shock resistant than diesel and natural gas, which is especially important for those that are so much more sensitive to inflation. From what I've seen coal, solar (hydro too, but that's land-dependent) and micromobility are save harbors. Not much they can do about the fertilizer shortfalls though.
reply
upvoteby sneak17 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
The US/China trade war is intensely relevant to the large scale deployment of renewables in the US.
reply
upvoteby glitchc21 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
It's the other way around: Renewables will remain a fantasy until we achieve energy independence.
reply
upvoteby blackcatsec21 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
When it comes to fossil fuels, there's no such thing as 'energy independence' because fossil fuels are traded on a global market. In addition, not all oil is the same. So you have to trade it because what you can extract may not be what is useful to you, but useful to someone else.

In short, the US cannot functionally be independent on fossil fuels even if we extracted every drop of oil within our borders--because we literally cannot use all of it, and most of it would be wasted just sitting around.

reply
upvoteby cman144416 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In extreme scenarios it is certainly possible for the US to ban exports of certain fossil fuels, effectively making an internal US market that is isolated from the rest of the world and basically energy independent.

Yes, we would need to build more refining capacity to use it all effectively, but in a cataclysmic event (i.e. a world war or something) the US would be much much better off than most other countries.

reply
upvoteby tootie21 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That makes no sense at all. We just had a post about several countries with energy independence who had done it with zero extractable resources. For them, the magic key was having tons of hydro and a small population. They just stopped importing. Countries like the US will need a lot more power and a lot more diversity of generation but it can be done if there was enough will to do it.
reply
upvoteby nine_k21 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
The US, or Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela, or Russia could very well be energy independent on fossil fuels alone, even though that won't be wise.

Europe, or China, or India could not though.

reply
upvoteby don_esteban21 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
China is making great strides in renewables and investing in nuclear (and in electrification of transport). It can be energy independent in not too distant future.

India has geography for solar, and the human/industrial capability for nuclear.

Southern Europe can go solar as well.

Northern Europe has it tougher (except Norway, with its abundant hydro). Nuclear could work. Or long range DC cables from South Europe or North Africa (if ever Europe helps them to put their act together - not easy or fast, but definitely in their best interest).

reply
upvoteby ccozan20 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
This is already happening [1]. I think even an UK connection is in works.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain-Morocco_interconnection

reply
upvoteby cjblomqvist18 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Northern Europe, at least Scandinavia, is already at 90%+ non carbon electricity generation. (88-100%)

Central and Eastern Europe have it tougher.

reply
upvoteby don_esteban6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Central/Eastern Europe is rather into nuclear (Austria on renewables) and not too heavy on fossil, exceptions being Poland/Czechs/Germany with too much coal.

The Balkans are quite fossil-heavy, but solar should be quite feasible there.

reply
upvoteby tootie21 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
How? Being a net exporter implies we make more than we use. Great. How do we force companies to not export until domestic demand is met? And how do we ensure that doesn't raise prices more than just running the system as-is?
reply
upvoteby nine_k21 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If foreign supply is cut, we (assuming the US) can still do fine, even though is a sub-optimal way. The US crude is heavy, the Middle Eastern crude is light, so oil processing would need to adapt, the efficiency would go down, and prices would go up. But we'd still be up and running independenty.

If foreign oil supply were cut from China or India, they'd be in a much bigger trouble.

reply
upvoteby tootie14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If foreign supply is cut, the price goes up for everybody everywhere. Even net exporters. That's the whole point of this thread. Every drop of oil, gas or coal extracted (and not under sanction) will be sold to the highest bidder anywhere in the world.
reply
upvoteby adrianN21 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Self sufficiency generally comes at a cost. The whole promise of globalization is that it makes things cheaper.
reply