| ▲ | adriand 2 hours ago |
| Fortunately, fossil fuels are a stable and geopolitically risk-free source of energy. |
|
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| They're a relatively stable and risk-free source of money for a certain kind of politician. The energy part is incidental. |
| |
|
| ▲ | MikeNotThePope 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They are also organic, all-natural, and fat-free! And renewable on geological timescales. |
| |
| ▲ | skywal_l 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Contrary to windmills, which slows down the rotation of the earth. | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Doesn't that depend whether you point them east or west? Point them north and you'll increase Earth's axial tilt. | | |
| ▲ | hedgehog an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think you just solved both leap seconds and daylight savings time. |
| |
| ▲ | munk-a an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Won't someone think of the ~children~ birds?! |
|
|
|
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This will not be a learned more robustly in the US until one or both of the only two (edit: major) gas turbine manufacturers in the world (GE Vernova, Siemens Energy) suffer a tail risk event causing their failure. Backlog for new gas turbines is ~7 years, as of this comment. Continued production capacity is a function of how fragile those two companies are. The White House’s Bet on Fossil Fuels Is Already Losing - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-10-28/white-... | https://archive.today/vpvch - October 28th, 2025 Gas-Turbine Crunch Threatens Demand Bonanza in Asia - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-10-07/gas-tu... | https://archive.today/z4Ixw - October 7th, 2025 AI-Driven Demand for Gas Turbines Risks a New Energy Crunch - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-bottlenecks-gas-turb... | https://archive.today/b8bhn - October 1st, 2025 (think in systems) |
| |
| ▲ | bluGill an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Both of those are big wind tubine manufactres as well. | | | |
| ▲ | skywal_l 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Isn't there Ansaldo Energia too? | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but their production volume is limited (imho) compared to the two companies I mentioned. Good callout regardless. I'll have a post put together to share here enumerating and comparing. (i track global fossil generation production capacity as a component of tracking the overall rate of global energy transition to clean energy and electrification, but some of my resources are simply an excel spreadsheet) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rapnie 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And clean. Really, really clean. Just look at coal. A no-brainer. Go for it. |
| |
| ▲ | kube-system 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You mean "clean coal", right? Of course it's clean, it's right in the name. | | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku an hour ago | parent [-] | | People laugh at this, but anthracite genuinely is cleaner than other coal in every regard save CO2 emissions. People just think it's a joke because they've come to believe that CO2 is the only coal emission worth caring about, which definitely isn't true. | | |
| ▲ | kube-system an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | No, the criticism isn't because people get caught up about CO2 -- it's because "cleaner than other coal" is a very low bar to meet to be calling something "clean" full stop. Also "clean coal" is not a type of coal being burnt (although that does matter too) but pollution control systems added to coal plants. | | |
| ▲ | terminalshort a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | The doesn't cause acid rain version is called "clean" and that seems pretty fair to me when the other version causes acid rain. | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Anthracite burns clean enough to use in a pizza oven. If your neighbor told you he was going to install a new furnace and offered you the choice of it burning wood pellets or anthracite, from a smell standpoint you should absolutely choose the anthracite. Anthracite, in these regards, is very different from bituminous coal. | | |
| ▲ | hatthew an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | And both are very different from not burning anything. | | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Undoubtedly. Doesn't change the fact that one kind of coal burns smokeless with a clean blue flame while the other will cover everything for miles in a film of soot and tar. |
| |
| ▲ | kube-system an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Anthracite burns clean enough to use in a pizza oven. Yeah, so does wood, which is horribly polluting. | | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The smell of wood might be nice for flavor, but that's beyond the point of anthracite being clean. That particulate pollution from wood burning is severe compared to the smoke you'll get off anthracite, which is virtually nonexistent. | | |
| ▲ | kube-system 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Regardless of how good it might be at being the cleanest dirty thing, it's not what the US trope of "clean coal" refers to anyway. Anthracite is not used in the US to generate power because it is too expensive. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | hatthew an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Clean coal" is like saying "a fast snail". Sure it can be faster than other snails, but even if it's twice as fast as the second fastest snail, it's still a snail and I'll still laugh when an ant runs circles around it. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | thecarbonista 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | ecshafer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The US (with Canada and Mexico) is self-sufficient with fossil fuel energy. |
| |
| ▲ | munk-a an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It's awesome the US hasn't destabilized one of those neighbors and alienated the other one by declaring it the prospective 51st state. Soft power really is America's super power. | |
| ▲ | jwr 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Unfortunately, we share the planet and the atmosphere with it. | | | |
| ▲ | eecc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’d wager the US is self sufficient also in terms of renewable energies. | |
| ▲ | krige 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The US (with Canada and Mexico) is self-sufficient with fossil fuel energy. Oh boy can't wait for the reenactment of third reich intervening peacefully in czechoslovakia, for their own safety and wellbeing of course, and not at all for the resources they're hoarding, the filthy hoarders. | |
| ▲ | Mashimo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But it gets traded globally. That means if the price goes up in Asia, it also goes up in NA. | |
| ▲ | idle_zealot 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure, if we build out refining capacity for the next ten years. Then we're golden until we run out of the finite well of combustible dead algae. So if you think we can revitalize American manufacturing and resource processing starting now, and you're okay with those investments being worthless in a few decades, and you don't give a shit about rendering the planet significantly less habitable to human life, then yeah, we're totally self-sufficient with fossil fuels. Or we could, you know, pull energy out of the air and sun, a strategy which will be viable until our star dies. | | |
| ▲ | bryanlarsen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Alberta tar sands have hundreds of years worth of reserves. They're also expensive and incredibly dirty to extract and emit significantly more CO2 during processing than a light oil well will. (The tar is usually melted by heating with natural gas). I'm quite confident cheap renewable alternatives will make the tar sands inviable far before they run out. | | |
| ▲ | munk-a an hour ago | parent [-] | | Some good news though, with the war in Iran the spiking oil price means that Albertan executives can ramp up operations and stay quite profitable! Push the price to 200/barrel and we'll just strip mine the entire province after airlifting out Calgary and Edmonton. |
| |
| ▲ | saidnooneever 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | another option is not to shit on all countires who do have resources driving the prices up for everyone. |
| |
| ▲ | Barrin92 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I do find the slow Sovietization of America funny, both mentally and economically. The year is 2050, autarky on energy has been established, the markets cut off, politics in the hands of erratic and geriatric leaders. Americans proudly drive 30 year old Fords the way people used to drive Ladas, while China exports green energy, cars and infrastructure to the world. | |
| ▲ | IncreasePosts an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ireland during the famine was self sufficient with food production but that didn't stop people from sending food to the highest bidders abroad. | |
| ▲ | HDThoreaun 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US is unable to implement export controls so consuming less than it creates doesnt mean theres enough since producers will export if international prices are better | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | exe34 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
|
