Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Renewables aren't "new sources" by now though. They are existing sources. So if production demands more energy and renewables are the cheapest existing sources of energy, then you would build more renewable generation, not more coal generation.

I think what actually happened is that people with agendas pushed this deception to fool people into acting and voting against their own best interests.



My comment was more based on recent reading about the relationship between oil and coal (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/17/why-cant...):

> But oil didn't displace coal, it helped us mine it more effectively and stimulated more technologies that raised energy demand overall. So coal use kept rising too – and oil use in turn kept increasing as cleaner gas, nuclear and hydro came on stream, helping power the digital age, which unlocked more advanced technologies capable of opening up harder-to-read fossil-fuel reserves.

With renewables I agree it isn't the same. What is the same is we're only going to get out of this by turning away from growth-at-all-costs mentality. For instance, this article describes how the Gulf states are making huge investments in renewables _to sell more oil and gas_ (https://www.tni.org/en/article/a-transition-to-where-the-gul...):

> The Gulf states see no contradiction between an embrace of ‘low-carbon solutions’ and pursuing the path of accelerating fossil fuel production ... With very high levels of energy consumption at home, the domestic substitution of oil and gas with alternative energy sources means that more fossil fuels can be made available for export. Indeed, such reasoning is explicitly behind Saudi Arabia’s plan to generate half of the country’s electricity from renewables by 2030 ...


That article is 10-11 years old a lot has changed since then.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: