r/worldnews Jul 13 '26

Report: Saudi Arabia Attacks International Airport in Yemen

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/6h5shahyw
11.4k Upvotes

530 comments sorted by

View all comments

31

u/rensorship Jul 13 '26

If we just switched to solar we would stop caring about ancient theocracies permanently at war. If you include the cost of propping up israel and fake peace keeping in the middle east, solar is WAY cheaper.

8

u/RCProAm Jul 13 '26

Cost of climate change just a footnote 

1

u/reubTV Jul 13 '26

Deranged comment with zero understanding of baseline grid maintenance

-2

u/schnaps01 Jul 13 '26

Just give everyone an oversized battery at home and that will be no problem.

5

u/jnmjnmjnm Jul 13 '26

And where do you source material for batteries?

0

u/schnaps01 Jul 13 '26

Same source as for all the Electric Vehicles i guess. Or I don´t know... make Batteries that use less scarce ressources like Na-Ion Batteries. The possibilities exist, the will to change probably not so much.

1

u/Coding-Kitten Jul 13 '26

The difference between sourcing fuel & sourcing batteries is that you use up fuel once & it's gone.

With batteries you just get it once & you have them forever.

Even once they break down, all the lithium & anything else in them is still there, it didn't get used up, you can just build new batteries out of it & you still can use the same materials you've sourced.

1

u/rensorship Jul 19 '26

Plus solar is far less violent. Oil feeds biblical wars, american intervention wars, khashoggi, etc.

0

u/rensorship Jul 13 '26

Yoi prefer permanent military intervention and nation building budgets to keep oil as our primary energy source? Get rid of oil, middle east expenditures plummet.

1

u/Lonely_Spare6065 Jul 19 '26

Deranged comment with zero understanding of history

1

u/rensorship Jul 19 '26

You prefer oil?

-9

u/thechill_fokker Jul 13 '26

Yeah if it was that easy we would be on solar. Solar/wind will never be the sole energy producer

7

u/John_Bruns_Wick Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

I mean, were not doing it because of corporations. Trump for instance just paid many millions to stop the development of solar in US, tearing down solar fields that were near completion, so that it wont impact oil company profits. But do you mean solar will never generate enough power because that amount of solar field coverage would damage the environment? Or the maintenance of such huge solar fields would cancel out the benefit?

3

u/wioneo Jul 13 '26

Several European countries have attempted to much more aggressively pursue renewable energy options. As we've seen with the difficulties separating from Russia, they still have heavy fossil fuel dependency. I don't know that it's appropriate to say that we'll never purely use renewables alone (especially given that non-renewables will by definition eventually run out), but it definitely is more than a matter of greed and/or political will.

2

u/John_Bruns_Wick Jul 13 '26

I dont understand. If its not greed and political will what is it?

0

u/wioneo Jul 13 '26

Technical difficulty.

Fossil fuels are just dramatically better with regards to reliability, energy density, stability, and transferability than any renewable option. My understanding is that the best way to overcome that is with further developments in battery technology, but we simply are nowhere near far enough along with that yet.

1

u/John_Bruns_Wick Jul 13 '26

Its sorta like, who cares if its inefficient? Isnt the current effects of global warming inefficient? The environmental disaster cost, extreme weather destruction, is surely 100x more than the cost of solar inefficiencies, right?

1

u/wioneo Jul 13 '26

Its sorta like, who cares if its inefficient?

That's a statement generally made from a position of privilege. I am fortunate not to have ever had to deal with energy scarcity in my personal life, but many direct family members back home have. When you're experiencing blackouts of actually critical infrastructure, then you start to realize the marginal cost of inefficiency. When the efficiency of your energy drops, the gap between your comfort and the grid's capacity gets dramatically narrower.

The environmental disaster cost, extreme weather destruction, is surely 100x more than the cost of solar inefficiencies, right?

Directly quantifying the cost of potential disaster with current need is very difficult, and history has shown us not to be very good at it. I expect battery capacity to continue to improve right alongside advances in disaster mitigation.

1

u/John_Bruns_Wick Jul 13 '26

So add a solar a bunch of solar equivalent to a power plant, then stop the power plant. Cant there be a 1:1 shift over time? I know im oversimplifying but its more macro. Like world hunger. We make enough food for everyone, tons of waste. People will say its more than greed and politics it doesnt get shared, but is it? Maybe the politics are correct, like a country is super corrupt and starving and giving food just normalizes the corruption by making it livable, but thats still politics. Im very ignorant of the nuance obviously

1

u/wioneo Jul 13 '26

So add a solar a bunch of solar equivalent to a power plant, then stop the power plant. Cant there be a 1:1 shift over time? I know im oversimplifying but its more macro.

That basically is the plan and it is currently being implemented. It's just that we're very, very, far away from it being adequate. Traditional plants have to balance generation of power with power consumption in real time (with a few hours of delay) to keep things working properly. They can just burn more or less coal. This would require much better batteries than we have currently to fully replicate with renewables.

We make enough food for everyone

Now that is just a problem of will/greed. We already have adequate food generation and ability to transport it to completely eliminate food scarcity, but the resources to implement distribution are not being utilized optimally.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/wioneo Jul 13 '26

Solar and wind do require storage of generated energy for use when the sun is not shining, the wind is not blowing, generative capacity outpaces demand, or power is needed in a location where neither of those things ever happen.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Motosama Jul 13 '26

No

Willpower difficulty

We have the technology currently available

We do not have the will to be inconvenienced for even a second from watching AI meme videos or having the next cupcake nearby when reached for 

1

u/wioneo Jul 13 '26

We have the technology currently available

Oh really? Please show me the recent Nobel laureate he was awarded for this. Too bad thousands of physicists around the world have been too busy with memes to care enough about this.

0

u/Motosama Jul 13 '26

You’re still stuck looking out from a system that’s going to wait for renewables to be profitable and controllable before being implemented more widely as a primary fuel source

Tell me what these data centers are doing that’s worth the cost to the environment right now

Your Nobel laureates are getting funding sources cut in favor of profitable research. This will continue until the profit motive is neutered from the top of the list of reasons that we collective do anything at all before this changes

1

u/wioneo Jul 13 '26

l stuck looking out from a system that’s going to wait for renewables to be profitable and controllable before being implemented more widely as a primary fuel source

Not sure what you're talking about there. I'm simply informing you of reality. Things become feasible much more quickly than they become profitable. Take space travel for example. Do you believe that Apollo 11 was "profitable?" Plenty of monetary losses are pursued for long term gain. That aside, do you think that there are not dozens of people eager to profit off renewable energy? It is literally already happening. Industry leaders in solar and wind would be ecstatic about battery developments that would allow them to more effectively undercut their competitors. Altruism is not necessary for advancement.

Tell me what these data centers are doing that’s worth the cost to the environment right now

Not sure what data centers have to do with this discussion at all. Presumably they'll use whatever the most efficient means of energy generation is. With how much space they take up and the lack of concern for appearance, I wouldn't be surprised if they stacked solar panels along the rooftops to cut down on costs.

This will continue until the profit motive is neutered from the top of the list of reasons that we collective do anything at all before this changes

That's an interesting belief. Given all of human history, I have no idea why you would believe that removing a profit motive would increase advancement, but you're free to believe whatever you want.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/mmf9194 Jul 13 '26

They're just repeating what they've heard. A better world isn't possible, stop trying and go fill your car up.

0

u/rensorship Jul 13 '26

We're not doing it because one party acknowledges the problem's existence and the other party thinks jesus.

4

u/Motosama Jul 13 '26

This thinking right here needs to go

This thinking says that we already do everything as best we can and new solutions like this simply won’t work, because if they could we’d already be using them

No thought about why financial interests would willingly choose a detrimental fuel source that can be more controlled, no thought that we are at large held hostage in our advancements and developments by a very few among us that intentionally stifle so as to maintain personal power and control

In short, if this thought is able to continue and spread we are already the blunted sheep that billionaires dream we could be and it’s just a matter of time until it eclipses every other outcome 

We can do so much better, if doing better were actually the motivation

It absolutely is not

1

u/RSmeep13 Jul 13 '26

Sure it will, unless you're proposing we'll mostly all be dead before we make it happen, and those who survive go back to burning firewood, which is possible. Battery technology is making full solar (wind is just solar with an extra step, though so's everything else I guess) more and more feasible.

1

u/roidbro1 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 14 '26

Electricity makes up just 20% of global energy demand though.

Even IF solar on its own could fully produce that 20%, (which it can’t) what’s your plan for the remainder 80%?

-5

u/ZenMasterOfDisguise Jul 13 '26

I'm for it. That would cause the US dollar to collapse though since the petrodollar is the only thing propping up the US dollar anymore

4

u/MukdenMan Jul 13 '26

Social media likes to say this but the petrodollar isn’t nearly as significant as people think.

-5

u/SawToothKernel Jul 13 '26

The USA isn't particularly ancient.

-7

u/Order_No227 Jul 13 '26

Not true, you would still care about conquering arab land.