<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>ricw</author><text>This argument is one massive false assumption. Renewable energy sources are becoming cheaper and are already cheaper than coal and nuclear. Cheap means they will become pervasive and replace the majority of existing sources. There is technically no reason we couldn&amp;#x27;t do it [3], rather &amp;quot;the key roadblocks are: climate change denial, the fossil fuels lobby, political inaction, unsustainable energy consumption, outdated energy infrastructure, and financial constraints&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s only a question of time until renewables will kill fossil fuels. If only we&amp;#x27;d stop subsidising fossil fuels [2].&lt;p&gt;The report you&amp;#x27;re quoting is itself highly questionable. Just as an example, wind speed averages are based on Cambridge, which isn&amp;#x27;t anywhere near the coast where wind turbines should live. Anything from a comprehensive report. Furthermore, he compares the energy to a random amount of energy (50% of energy consumed by cars). The report itself seems a little bit of warm air.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Energy_transition_in_Germany&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Energy_transition_in_Germany&lt;/a&gt;
[2] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;#x2F;energywise&amp;#x2F;energy&amp;#x2F;fossil-fuels&amp;#x2F;in-2040-fossil-fuels-still-reign&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;spectrum.ieee.org&amp;#x2F;energywise&amp;#x2F;energy&amp;#x2F;fossil-fuels&amp;#x2F;in-2...&lt;/a&gt;
[3] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nature.com&amp;#x2F;scientificamerican&amp;#x2F;journal&amp;#x2F;v301&amp;#x2F;n5&amp;#x2F;full&amp;#x2F;scientificamerican1109-58.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nature.com&amp;#x2F;scientificamerican&amp;#x2F;journal&amp;#x2F;v301&amp;#x2F;n5&amp;#x2F;ful...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>pilom</author><text>The problem is scale. Here is a really good analysis of renewable resources in the UK: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.withouthotair.com&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.withouthotair.com&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: The UK doesn&amp;#x27;t receive enough sunlight or have enough wind&amp;#x2F;waves&amp;#x2F;tidal pools&amp;#x2F;land to grow food, power cars (of any kind) and meet other energy needs. The UK can never get all of their energy carbon free without nuclear or importing power. The US is in a better place because of solar in the Southwest but we still don&amp;#x27;t have the technology&amp;#x2F;infrastructure to transport all of that power.</text></item><item><author>T-A</author><text>&amp;gt; We already know that today’s energy sources cannot sustain a future we want to live in.&lt;p&gt;Is this really true? In Lazard&amp;#x27;s 2014 comparison of total cost per MWh, both wind and solar beat coal and nuclear [1]. Costs have fallen so much that it&amp;#x27;s becoming hard to justify continued subsidies [2].&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;energyinnovation.org&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;levelized-cost-of-energy&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;energyinnovation.org&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;levelized-cost-of-ene...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.treehugger.com&amp;#x2F;renewable-energy&amp;#x2F;us-energy-secretary-solar-and-wind-energy-cost-competitive-without-subsidies.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.treehugger.com&amp;#x2F;renewable-energy&amp;#x2F;us-energy-secreta...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The New Atomic Age We Need</title><url>https://nytimes.com/2015/11/28/opinion/the-new-atomic-age-we-need.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Retric</author><text>BS, solar is not great in the UK, but your comparing electric generation at 2009 efficiency levels with powering cars, heating using resistance heating etc.  (Heat pumps break 100% nominal efficiency by extracting heat from outside air.) It&amp;#x27;s also perfectly reasonable for the UK to continue to import significant amounts of energy in one form or another and or increase efficiency levels.&lt;p&gt;EX: We can manufacture 40+% efficient solar cells, sure there expensive, but saying the only thing possible is some lower efficiency level is clearly BS. [They use 10% as some sort of arbitrary limit on page 41.]&lt;p&gt;PS: &lt;i&gt;Photovoltaic panels with
20% efficiency are already close to the theoretical limit (see this chapter’s
endnotes&lt;/i&gt;  Current, world record for concentrated solar is 46%.</text><parent_chain><item><author>pilom</author><text>The problem is scale. Here is a really good analysis of renewable resources in the UK: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.withouthotair.com&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.withouthotair.com&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conclusion: The UK doesn&amp;#x27;t receive enough sunlight or have enough wind&amp;#x2F;waves&amp;#x2F;tidal pools&amp;#x2F;land to grow food, power cars (of any kind) and meet other energy needs. The UK can never get all of their energy carbon free without nuclear or importing power. The US is in a better place because of solar in the Southwest but we still don&amp;#x27;t have the technology&amp;#x2F;infrastructure to transport all of that power.</text></item><item><author>T-A</author><text>&amp;gt; We already know that today’s energy sources cannot sustain a future we want to live in.&lt;p&gt;Is this really true? In Lazard&amp;#x27;s 2014 comparison of total cost per MWh, both wind and solar beat coal and nuclear [1]. Costs have fallen so much that it&amp;#x27;s becoming hard to justify continued subsidies [2].&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;energyinnovation.org&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;levelized-cost-of-energy&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;energyinnovation.org&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;levelized-cost-of-ene...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.treehugger.com&amp;#x2F;renewable-energy&amp;#x2F;us-energy-secretary-solar-and-wind-energy-cost-competitive-without-subsidies.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.treehugger.com&amp;#x2F;renewable-energy&amp;#x2F;us-energy-secreta...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The New Atomic Age We Need</title><url>https://nytimes.com/2015/11/28/opinion/the-new-atomic-age-we-need.html</url></story>