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

The US is in an excellent position to massively harness wind and solar and yet right now it's dialing up the coal usage. I am comfortable celebrating Iceland's decision to not be maliciously dependent on fossil fuels.


> yet right now it's dialing up the coal usage

Reference? This seems to be false. Coal is still on decline, while solar is what's ramping up [1][2]

[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67005

[2] https://ieefa.org/resources/energy-information-administratio...


Trump had a few executive orders that derailed phase out plans and the DoE released a coal plant refurbishing subsidy[1].

1. https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-...


So, in both cases it's helping sustain. "Ramping up" means increasing.

Is there something I'm missing here?


I consider minimizing a natural decline with artificial subsidies as ramping up - maybe a fairer phrase would be "dragging out production" but either way the administration is putting a thumb on their scale to counter natural market forces to perpetuate a dumb thing.

To hell with the US


We've banned this account for continually posting comments like this that are unsubstantive and clearly in breach of the guidelines and HN's intended use.

I mean, the EIA says "U.S. generation fueled by coal increased by 13% in 2025 to 731 BkWh"

The article you linked is mostly about a model of 2026 and 2027 and sure, in the model coal goes away but that's not a fact about coal it's just a model.


Yes with the next sentence explaining why, and how future years are planned to decrease.

"Ramping up" means planned to increase.

Feel free to provide a reference that supports that it's "ramping up". I, and parent, couldn't find one. This is a super boring factual thing that I was curious about, where opinion has no place or purpose.


> "Ramping up" means planned to increase.

No it doesn't. It means increasing.


Sure, but increasing something like fucking coal power plants isn't some instantaneous event that could start and stop at any time, putting some ambiguity at the moment between "increased" and "increasing". If plants are or will be built, it's because it's planned for development. That '-ing' isn't just present tense, it's there for the continuous/progressive aspect of it.

If they produced 13% more energy from coal in 2025 than 2024, the latest point at which we have real numbers rather than projections, it's fair to say that production of energy from coal is increasing rather than decreasing.

as the references point out (please re-read this chain), it increased but is not increasing. the context of what your replying to:

> The US is in an excellent position to massively harness wind and solar and yet right now it's dialing up the coal usage

they are not "dialing it up", they instead have planned reduction.


> as the references point out (please re-read this chain), it increased but is not increasing.

As I pointed out (please re-read my comment), it was increasing as of the most recent time for which we have data (not projections) available.


> ... celebrating Iceland's decision to not ...

Okay, but you're celebrating make-believe virtues. Iceland is also not destroying its tropical coral reefs. That sounds nice...but it has none. Nor any sort of tradition or incentive to try doing that.

The US coal thing is all about widespread memories (and myths) of sustained good economic times, in large areas of the country which now feel destitute. Millions of voters feeling that they have no future. If not that the elites want them to hurry up and die.

To paraphrase Munger - if you want different outcomes there, then you need to change the incentives.




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

Search: