> The wealthy prefer fossil fuels because a mine or an oil well is and always has been a massive wealth concentrator.

lots of wealthy people are anti-fossil fuel.

> Build a solar farm and it... just produces electricity.

it needs land. It increases the value of land. Wealthy people own lots of land.

The main objections for switching to wind and solar are variability in output and the cost of building all the new stuff.

> Spain could become the energy powerhouse of Europe here. It's one of the most southernmost European countries and has plentiful sunshine.

Fine if you are Spanish. Not so good if you are from the north of Europe or somewhere with less spare land.

> It's worth adding that the privatization era of the 1980s and 1990s was a massive problem. Every utility in Europe should be nationalized. It's easier to subsidize energy shocks when you own the companies that are profiting from them.

I think it would have the opposite effect. Its tempting to sustain the profits when you get them.

I wonder whether the British government would be so keen on moving away from fossil fuels if it still owned BP?

▲

jmyeet 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> lots of wealthy people are anti-fossil fuel.

They're really not. Or it's just perfrmative environmentalism. Because they continue to support to politicians and the system that maintains the status quo.

> Fine if you are Spanish.

Please read the whole paragraph. Transmitting power, which is what UHVDC lines are for and something China builds to transmit power thousands of kilometers from the Western half of the country to the Eastern half where everybody lives, exists [1]. Standard transmission lines lose 4-10%/1000km. UHVDC loses 1-3%/1000km.

Europe loves importing electricity. It's the key to greenwashing. Why not build solar where it's most efficient and import that instead?

> I wonder whether the British government would be so keen on moving away from fossil fuels if it still owned BP?

The UK has spent hudnreds of billions of pounds subsidizing electricity that goes straight into the pockets of the shareholders of natural gas companies and private utilities. Is that better?

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OcsvNZeB0

▲

graemep 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> They're really not. Or it's just perfrmative environmentalism. Because they continue to support to politicians and the system that maintains the status quo.

There are a lot of wealthy people spending serious money on lobbying against fossil fuels:

https://spectator.com/article/revealed-the-shady-funding-of-...

> Europe loves importing electricity. It's the key to greenwashing

Yes, its also a potential problem transmitting .

> The UK has spent hudnreds of billions of pounds subsidizing electricity that goes straight into the pockets of the shareholders of natural gas companies and private utilities.

It has spent a lot of money subsidising wind power. The UK has hugely cut its CO2 emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-kingdom

▲

jmyeet 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh... I understand now. You're right wing and quoting a right-wing dish rag like the Spectator to play into a conspiracy that "dark money" is pushing some "net zero" agenda, somehow at the expense of the UK. Got it.

According to one study, the UK's investments in wind power have saved consumers 100 billion pounds since 2010 [1] all while spending 16-20 billion pounds a year on subsiizing natural gas [2] plus more on an emergency energy bill in 2020-2022.

[1]: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/oct/analysis-wind-power-has-...

[2]: https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/uk-government-subsidis...

▲

graemep 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Your first link (the credible one) says "This massive expansion of UK offshore wind is partly due to UK government subsidies." so it proves me right.

The other one is a campaign group who say there are subsidies but fail to name a single specific one.

Insulting people who come up with facts that do not suit your case does not prove anything, and there are guidelines on HN about personal attacks and assuming bad faith. Saying "Spectator bad" does not disprove anything it says either. Believing publications that take a line you agree with and disbelieving those that disagree with you is not a great way of learning facts.

	▲	jmyeet an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> The other one is a campaign group who say there are subsidies but fail to name a single specific one. It seems deliberately obtuse to try and deny there are significant energy (and thus natural gas) subsidies in the UK. Ok, try the Office of Budget Responsibility [1]: > By the time of our November 2022 forecast, the Government announced a series of additional measures to support households and business, which increased our forecast of the total cost of energy support in 2022-23 to £67.1 billion (2.7 per cent of GDP). > Insulting people who come up with facts So you're not right wing? Cry-bullying about "personal attacks" for using an accurate political label correctly isn't helping your defense. Pushing a conspiracy theory that a cabal of dark money is pushign renewable power and using The Spectator as a source is the UK equivalent of quoting Sean Hannity. [1]: https://obr.uk/box/the-cost-of-the-governments-energy-suppor...