mooreds5d ago

Iran war energy crisis is a renewable energy wake-up call

https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-wars-renewable-energy-asia-4b5fe0693ce5816472c905db85f7da6e

Iran war energy crisis is a renewable energy wake-up call

The Iran war is exposing how much the global economy still depends on fragile fossil fuel supplies. The conflict has virtually choked off the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane for a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas. That's shaking up markets and pushing prices higher. Countries reliant on imported fossil fuels — from wealthy industrial economies to poorer developing nations — are facing major disruptions that can quickly ripple through utility bills, food prices, transport costs and electrical grids. Analysts say the crisis is a stark reminder that energy security is not just about stockpiles and shipping, but also about the lagging transition to renewable energy.

AP News
Show threadstared5d ago

See a wider perspective on how energy sources shape geopolitics: "The pivot" by Charlie Stross https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45621074.

And yes, solar energy is not only greener (less CO2, less PM2.5), but also frees us from dependency on other countries. The future can be less centralized.

Some countries (Russia included) will lose their bargaining chip. Other countries (USA included) will lose the incentive to 'democratize' the Middle East.

The pivot | Hacker News

Show threadremarkEon

>but also frees us from dependency on other countries

It does not. It moves the dependency to the manufacturing source of the panels. That is China. No thanks.

Can we please just build more reactors? The insistence on solar is becoming a cargo cult (thanks, Elon Musk).

Mar 23 at 2:12amWeb
Show threadAnthonyMouse5d ago

China can't stop you from using solar panels you've already installed and you could manufacture new ones somewhere else.

Solar actually makes a lot of sense for a significant fraction of the grid. It's specifically excellent for electrifying transportation, because most cars are stationary at an office park during the majority of sunlight hours. Install chargers there and you solve the problem of people in apartments not having them at home and you don't have to worry about the intermittency because you're literally using it to charge batteries. Solar is cheaper at the cost of intermittency, so for the things where intermittency doesn't really matter it makes obvious sense.

When it sucks is when you need reliable power in winter at night. Which is what nuclear is good at. But then... you can use both, each one for the thing it's better at.

Show threadtriceratops5d ago

This is gas brain thinking.

Solar panels are not gas. You don't burn them to make energy.

There is no dependency on solar panel manufacturers. Once you install a panel it's going to make electricity for the next 25 years. At least. After that you can recycle it and use it another 25 years.

Reactors on the other hand require fuel that is consumed. Unless you can mine it yourself, you're just trading an oil dependency for a uranium dependency.