6 ms·

Scanning some of the early comments here, and acting as-if the oil and LNG disruptions is just a question of renewable investment is naive. This is the worst e

Scanning some of the early comments here, and acting as-if the oil and LNG disruptions is just a question of renewable investment is naive. This is the worst energy crisis in modern history, and little of the western world has really started feeling the effects yet: https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/dispatch-energy/iran-war-energy-crisis-hormuz/ https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/dispatch-energy/iran-war-... Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cooking oils, lubricants, cosmetics. Dow chemical just doubled the cost of polyethylene as of April 1st. Taiwan relies on LNG for 40% of its energy production and has 11 days of LNG storage--meaning it may have to consider limiting industrial electricity use if things persist. I will clarify based on a reply, this doesn't mean they'll run out in that time, but that they have limited runway that will have deleterious effects as time goes on: > Yeh Tsung-kuang, a professor in the Department of Engineering and System Science at National Tsing Hua University, said Taiwan's maximum LNG inventory is only 11 days but that does not mean the island will run out of fuel or face outages within that time period. Even if the Strait saw normal traffic today (and Iran is incentivized and well-positioned to keep it closed for a while), it would take quite a while to recover lost supply. Iran continues to employ a tit-for-tat strategy and Israel just targeted steel industry in the country -- I'm not even taking into account more deliberate damage to energy infrastructure in the Mid east. This is a scary crisis wherein the most movable actor (the US) is not going to accept Iran's terms. It could collapse the global economy, and that crucially includes the AI industry this forum loves to focus on almost exclusively. The US and the majority of the west has essentially no fiscal room compared to the comparably lesser 1970s crises either. This could easily spiral out of control and cause a level of suffering across the world (esp the global south) most of us on this forum have not lived to see.

jmyeet 6mo ago
Most people just don't understand what a monumental rewrite of global politics this is and (IMHO) it will go down as the worst foreign policy mistake in US history and it's not even close. Some might say "what about Vietnam?" No, this is worse, geopolitically. WhY/ Because there was never any possibility of success. The US simply doesn't have the military capability to depose the regime or open the Strait and Pentagon military planners all knew this beforehand. The big winners are: - China. They're already going renewable at a rapid pace. They have a massive stockpile of oil (~1.4B barrels) and they're still receiving oil from Iran. This diminishes US influence in the the world and increases China's influence; - Russia: this crisis will probably force the West to make peace with Russia and they'll retain any current Ukrainian territory just to secure Russian energy exports, particularly natural gas; - Iran: the sanctions are over. Prior to all this Iran was selling oil to China for below market rate, less than $50/barrel. Now? They're legally able to sell it and get market rates, which are more like ~$120/barrel. Iran may well still get a regime of charging ships to traverse the Strait after the war is over; Who are the losers? - Europe: this is going to massively increase energy costs for years; - Ukraine: see above (Russia); - The US: massively decreased influence, particularly in the Middle East; - Israel: there will be no regime change in Iran, Iran will come out in a better position and this may well be the first crack in the US-Israel relationship because Israel dog-walked the US into this war. The Iron Dome has shown to be not as impenetrable as once thought; - The Gulf states: they face a tough choice between remaining US client states or breaking free. Breaking free probably means their monarchies and despotic regimes will fall. The myth of the US security guarantee has been broken. These regimes will probably stick with the US for their own survival and we may see some of them fall anyway (eg Bahrain). I agree with your main point: "just go renewable" is both naive and utterly useless advice. That's a decades-long project. Also, who makes all the solar panels (and probably windmills)? China. It is a little different because the US is a net energy exporter now and definitely wasn't in the 1970s. Still, there will be higher prices for everything and the US can't realistically block exports to keep prices low because other countries will stop sending us stuff. Were the president anyone else, they would be impeached and removed from office. That's how bad this is. But we live in a post-truth world the the president is the leader of a cult.
- 12lak-123 6mo ago
  Yes, but is it a mistake or deliberate? The Iran war has been planned since GW Bush. Now we have a president who hates the EU and Ukraine more than he hates Russia and China and he has Greenland ambitions. He is currently dragging out the war and Rubio was in the EU to string people along yet again. If he drags out the war long enough, the EU might need to make concessions on certain issues. What the EU should do but is too stupid to do: It should immediately negotiate with China and Russia to create jealousy (that is what Trump does, he understands that) and say: While you are doing your extended Iran adventure, we'll drop sanctions on Russian gas and import LNG. That is literally the only language Trump understands and then the deep state will put him on a leash. Trump would hate nothing more than EU overtures to Putin while he is left out of the negotiations. Sometimes you have to use all options to get things done.
  - youngtaff 6mo ago
    Why should the EU drop sanctions on Russian gas and oil – that’s just appeasing an aggressor and abandoning Ukraine?
- oblio 6mo ago
  > Russia: this crisis will probably force the West to make peace with Russia and they'll retain any current Ukrainian territory just to secure Russian energy exports, particularly natural gas; The West is not the only party in this war and Ukraine has shown many times that it can do its own thing. Ukraine was supposed to roll over and die in 3 days and it has just managed to liberate about 500sqkm of territory, 4 years after the start of the war. Plus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22xoretdhbm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22xoretdhbm
  - jmyeet 6mo ago
    Ukraine is completely dependent on arms from the US and Europe to sustain the war effort. Ukraine is running out of men to serve in the Army. Ukraine has no path to reclaim the territory it's lost. I'm not making a judgment about whether or not this is right. This is just a sober analysis of the situation. And that is that the war is stalemated and the only way this gets resolved is to declare peace at the current borders. This grand misadventure by the US and Israel in Iran just made that more likely.
MattGaiser 6mo ago
> Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cooking oils, lubricants, cosmetics. Dow chemical just doubled the cost of polyethylene as of April 1st. Taiwan relies on LNG for 40% of its energy production and has like 10 days of fuel left--semis are implicated. This is, on the high end, 20% of the use of fossil fuels. We overwhelmingly burn oil and gas. If we displaced the burning, Hormuz would not matter (or would minimally matter for a few molecules) and the world would be awash in abundant supplies. Renewable investment would solve/would have prevented this crisis.
- mono442 6mo ago
  You can't provide heating in winter using renewables.
  - brendoelfrendo 6mo ago
    ...you can? Electric heaters exist?
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 6mo ago
      Always worth mentioning we should be using heat pumps, not straight resistive heating.
      - brendoelfrendo 6mo ago
        For sure. Heat pumps aren't the best option everywhere (though modern heat pumps probably function acceptably at lower temperatures than most people realize), but if you need to do electric heating, they are the best option most places.
        fc417fc802 6mo ago
        For "human" temperatures don't they just degrade back to the efficiency of resistive heating? Or are some places actually cold enough to push the factor below 1?
skybrian 6mo ago
Before calling it "the worst", I'd like more detail on how to do the comparison with the oil crises of the 1970's. My guess is that modern economies might be somewhat less oil-dependent than they were then, because the alternatives are more developed.
- UncleOxidant 6mo ago
  They are more developed, sure, and the US (from a US centric view) is producing a lot of oil now. However, consider that pretty much all of the goods you see in the supermarket got there via diesel (trains, semi-trucks). The percentage of semi-trucks operating on electricity is still miniscule at this point. Air transport? All petroleum. Consider also other things like fertilizers - we're heavily dependent on nitrogen fertilizers derived from petroleum and planting season in the northern hemisphere is starting right about now. Yes we're producing a lot more electricity with renewables, but demand is also up.
  - IsTom 6mo ago
    Oil going through Hormuz is 20%, not 80% of global supply. It's true that demand is pretty inelastic, but it's not like it can't be cut at all.
    - UncleOxidant 6mo ago
      Who mentioned 80%? During the 1973–74 Arab oil embargo, the disruption removed approximately 4.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) from the market, which constituted about 7% of the global oil supply at the time. This disruption significantly impacted global supplies. 20% is a lot more than 7%. This could be worse than 1973-74. As a 10year-old in 1973 I remember spending a lot of time in the backseat of the station wagon as we were waiting line line for gas. For context, during the first COVID spring (March-June 2020) oil demand fell by 20%. Because nobody was driving or flying anywhere. That's what it took to cut 20%.
      - poopinurmouth 6mo ago
jddj 6mo ago
How many days' fuel does Taiwan keep in reserve outside of this type of situation?
thrownawaysz 6mo ago
>This could easily spiral out of control and cause a level of suffering across the world (esp the global south) most of us on this forum have not lived to see. Daily anxiety attack thanks. As a european I think we are way too vulnerable. Countries divided, rich getting richer, more and more poor people who can barely afford food, and that's in Europe let alone talk about what happens with the poor in Africa and Asia. Sooner or later we will need a global reset but that sounds worse than everything else
- kpil 6mo ago
  We don't "need a global reset" It's an apocalyptical mind-bug. All times have an eschatology - ours seems to be climate collapse. It used to be nuclear war. The media is selling a story. In reality everything is still getting better. People are healthier, richer, and better off in almost every measurable way, all over the world, including Africa and Asia. Yes, there are some dark clouds. A long list. But the problems - even a long war in the middle east, are bumps in the road, not a cliff. If the clouds turns out to be a really bad storm, people will buckle down and sort it.
  - crubier 6mo ago
    > If the clouds turns out to be a really bad storm, people will buckle down and sort it. 100% this. People need to understand this.
    - bombcar 6mo ago
      The other thing is that it is WAY too easy to distract yourself from your solvable problems by focusing on the big ones - you have to fight that with ferocity. Why get out of debt? The country is a brazillian trillion in debt we’re doomed. Why invest for retirement or save? The market is fraud anyway. Why exercise and lose weight? The planet is doomed anyway.
      - t0bia_s 6mo ago
        Why are you in debt? Why you need investment for later? Why are you overweight? It sounds like cause of problems are overlooked.
01100011 6mo ago
On the plus side, Trump is helping Europe and Asia meet their climate goals. <ducks for cover> I hear diesel is running out in NSW and Queensland Australia. Good thing you don't need diesel to run mining operations. Oh wait..
- tpm 6mo ago
  Mining companies have started to invest into EV mining trucks, guess that will be even more popular now.
- WastedCucumber 6mo ago
  I was just talking to a kiwi yesterday about diesel. The price has more than doubled already there. So there goes large chunk of the US beef supply.
  - 01100011 6mo ago
    According to Unusual Whales on Twitter, Australia just ordered an emergency fuel shipment from the US: https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/2037650368390144243 https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/2037650368390144243
    - defrost 6mo ago
      Unusual Whales paraphrased a Sky News article (Fox-lite) which quoted sans context Lurion De Mello of Macquarie University (the Transforming Energy Markets Research Centre) who himself sourced infomation from LSEG * https://theconversation.com/australia-has-plenty-of-diesel-for-now-but-running-out-could-upend-our-economy-278981 https://theconversation.com/australia-has-plenty-of-diesel-f... * https://www.lseg.com/en https://www.lseg.com/en Lurion De Mello thinks (to the best of his human recall) that would be the first US shipment of processed fuel (bowser ready) in decades (although he factors in he might be wrong about that) but acknowledged that US shipments of crude (unrefined) are more common.
codethief 6mo ago
> Taiwan relies on LNG for 40% of its energy production and has like 10 days of fuel left--semis are implicated. The "10 days left" thing seems to be a hoax(?) https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/international-relations/mideast-war-fuels-disinformation-about-taiwan-s-gas-supply/ar-AA1ZrzKg https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/international-relations/m... https://www.malaymail.com/news/world/2026/03/26/is-taiwan-running-out-of-gas-the-truth-behind-the-viral-11-day-lng-scare/213972 https://www.malaymail.com/news/world/2026/03/26/is-taiwan-ru...
- SirensOfTitan 6mo ago
  Oh I'm sorry, that was actually my mistake, I should have been much more specific, and I will update the comment if I still can. My intention was to emphasize that Taiwan may have to start limiting electricity to its industrial sector based on its current runway. Per the article you listed: > Yeh Tsung-kuang, a professor in the Department of Engineering and System Science at National Tsing Hua University, said Taiwan's maximum LNG inventory is only 11 days but that does not mean the island will run out of fuel or face outages within that time period EDIT: updated comment to be more specific.
  - UncleOxidant 6mo ago
    > said Taiwan's maximum LNG inventory is only 11 days but that does not mean the island will run out of fuel or face outages within that time period I guess I read that as "we've got 11 days supply of LNG and we won't face any shortages during that 11 days" - how is that a better situation?
- UncleOxidant 6mo ago
  > Yeh Tsung-kuang, a professor in the Department of Engineering and System Science at National Tsing Hua University, said Taiwan's maximum LNG inventory is only 11 days but that does not mean the island will run out of fuel or face outages within that time period So he's saying they've got an 11 day supply and that they won't face any shortages during that 11 days... but what about after 11 days? I guess I'm not sure how that's different, how it's a hoax?
baxtr 6mo ago
If the price of the blockade is as high as you outline, the price to secure the strait military might look comparatively lower. And, looking at the scenario you’re describing, it could be the most sane thing to do at this point.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 6mo ago
  It is asymmetrical warfare. A hundred plus ships went through the straight daily. Attackers only need to occasionally damage a ship to make the crossing look deeply unappealing. No military intervention can promise 100% defense to passing vessels.
  - toomuchtodo 6mo ago
    Whatever Iran wants is the cheapest course to resolution.
    - nickff 6mo ago
      We could achieve "peace for our time"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
      - toomuchtodo 6mo ago
        All peace is transient, the question is for how long per unit of investment of blood, treasure, and time. Invest efficiently.
      - vkou 6mo ago
        If you don't like making those kinds bargains in the future, maybe next time don't upset the status quo[1] by starting a war that you then go on to lose[2], which forces you to bargain from a position of weakness. Everyone in the DoD with triple-digit IQ knew that this would be the most likely outcome of starting a war with Iran, but all of those people got purged by Trump last year. --- [1] The status quo was that Iran was not in control of the strait, and all shipping traffic could pass through it. [2] Iran has so far accomplished it's objectives in the war, the US and Israel did not. It didn't get regime-changed, and its in now in control of the strait.
holoduke 6mo ago
The world is way too stable for a real crisis. The west is much more resilient than a lot of people think. Nothing will really change. Life will go on.
- joquarky 6mo ago
  That depends on how wealthy you are.
singleshot_ 6mo ago
> Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cooking oils, Really! What petroleum-based oil do you cook with?
- AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
  Plant-based ones that were harvested by machines that burn petroleum.
  - singleshot_ 6mo ago
    That’s a pretty amazing definition of upstream. I imagine you probably understand that plastics, pharmaceuticals, and fertilizers are made out of petroleum derivatives, right? Since you seem pretty smart: are there petroleum based cooking oils?
    - phs318u 6mo ago
      The machinery to make them, the fertilisers to grow them, the plastic to package them, the transport to deliver them. It ain’t just cooking oils that will be massively impacted. The entire food chain in the western world is reliant on petrochemicals. The only question is the lag between now and when those impacts start being felt and this translates into bumped prices and/or shortages. EDIT: corrected an autocorrection.
      - falcor84 6mo ago
        Is there anything in that chain that actually requires petroleum and couldn't be replaced with alternative with similar properties and prices?
        nine_k 6mo ago
        Yes: the time. It's spring time, when most crops are being sowed, of have been sowed and started growing actively. They won't wait several months until the production of fertilizers switches to electrically produced hydrogen, and tractors are upgraded to run off electric power. As the crops ripen, they won't wait until combine harvesters and trucks are converted to run off electric power. Nobody in the agricultural world has a few billions lying around to build massive solar capacity, battery capacity, and redesign the agricultural machinery, all at impossibly breakneck pace. Instead I suggest that they will buy the fuel at higher prices, and sell less produce, and also milk and meat which are downstream from feed crops, at higher prices. More than that, in a bout of bitter irony, the West might need to lift sanctions from Russian oil, and maybe ask Russia to drill and sell more. This, or the US should somehow defeat IRGC and defeat / appease the Iranian Army, and unblock the strait. I wonder if it's going to cost less even along the monetary dimension.
pwarner 6mo ago
Missing in discussion is that the loss of mideastern oil is being offset by releases from strategic reserves. But those will end, creating even more shortages.
userbinator 6mo ago
Just Stop Oil got their wish! Now everyone else gets to suffer the effects.
- platevoltage 6mo ago
  Could you be any more bad faith?
  - brigandish 6mo ago
    What is "bad faith" here? I'd love to see an explanation.
    - unethical_ban 6mo ago
      Acting like most people who advocate getting away from fossil fuels desire a global economic collapse rather than an intentional, well thought and executed transition.
      - userbinator 6mo ago
        The point is that it's impossible without huge suffering which people would rather not have.
        unethical_ban 6mo ago
        I do not believe that is true. Solar and EV technology are advancing rapidly, and with investment in grid infrastructure and incentives for generators to go renewable we could be along with Europe and China in reducing FF dependence for power. Instead the current administration is actively sabotaging the US position on renewable energy.
        array_key_first 6mo ago
        It is absolutely not impossible to transition away from fossil fuels without suffering. Fossil fuels aren't risk-free. Even if you don't care about CO2, fossil fuels are extremely inefficient in the long run because they're not renewable. Once you extract them and burn them, they're gone, forever. This IS NOT the case with renewable energy, which means that, as time goes on, renewables will be much cheaper than fossil fuels. Already, today, solar is much cheaper than petroleum per unit of energy. In addition, every country on Earth can make use of renewables. Most countries cannot use fossil fuels directly, because they don't have them. This means they expose themselves to geopolitical risk. Exhibit A: this. If the transition is done slowly, you end up saving money, not losing it. That means less suffering, not more.
gzread 6mo ago
> the US is not going to accept Iran's terms There's no reason to assume it won't. It might not voluntarily but it looks a lot like it's either going to be forced to accept them, or it's going to become an irrelevant actor one way or another leaving Iran to set terms by default. Other countries are switching to the yuan global reserve currency and petrocurrency in order to be allowed passage through Hormuz. The US has no counter to this (besides ending the war, which it won't) and with how much the US relies on these two things to be globally relevant, if this continues then oil prices will return to normal, will be traded in yuan, and there will no longer be a US. A complete own goal and possibly the fastest self destruction by unforced error in all of human history. Europe will lag behind the trend because of its alliance with the US but it will turn eventually in order to get low oil prices. When the US attempted to force Europe to sanction Iran several years ago, Europe invented a system to evade them (INSTEX). US bond markets have just locked up this week. The US found itself unable to borrow more money at any price - nobody wants to lend it. Banks turned off their automated trading systems because they can't work in this environment. This is a symptom of global dedollarization. While this shock may only last a few days the frequency of this sort of this sort of thing is rapidly increasing, and when a government can't borrow money any more it has no choice but to print it to pay its debts, and we know where that leads: Weimar-style hyperinflation.
- genxy 6mo ago
  Clearly the US needs to start bombing ships that switch to the yuan.
  - brigandish 6mo ago
    Yes, it seems like the next logical move would be for the US to blockade the strait. Ironic.
ThePowerOfFuet 6mo ago
>Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: [...] cooking oils Wait, what?
- ndsipa_pomu 6mo ago
  Petro is often used to transport cooking oils from the farmers to the retailers, so without it, cooking oil is going to be hard to source.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

jmyeet 6mo ago

Most people just don't understand what a monumental rewrite of global politics this is and (IMHO) it will go down as the worst foreign policy mistake in US history and it's not even close. Some might say "what about Vietnam?" No, this is worse, geopolitically. WhY/ Because there was never any possibility of success. The US simply doesn't have the military capability to depose the regime or open the Strait and Pentagon military planners all knew this beforehand. The big winners are: - China. They're already going renewable at a rapid pace. They have a massive stockpile of oil (~1.4B barrels) and they're still receiving oil from Iran. This diminishes US influence in the the world and increases China's influence; - Russia: this crisis will probably force the West to make peace with Russia and they'll retain any current Ukrainian territory just to secure Russian energy exports, particularly natural gas; - Iran: the sanctions are over. Prior to all this Iran was selling oil to China for below market rate, less than $50/barrel. Now? They're legally able to sell it and get market rates, which are more like ~$120/barrel. Iran may well still get a regime of charging ships to traverse the Strait after the war is over; Who are the losers? - Europe: this is going to massively increase energy costs for years; - Ukraine: see above (Russia); - The US: massively decreased influence, particularly in the Middle East; - Israel: there will be no regime change in Iran, Iran will come out in a better position and this may well be the first crack in the US-Israel relationship because Israel dog-walked the US into this war. The Iron Dome has shown to be not as impenetrable as once thought; - The Gulf states: they face a tough choice between remaining US client states or breaking free. Breaking free probably means their monarchies and despotic regimes will fall. The myth of the US security guarantee has been broken. These regimes will probably stick with the US for their own survival and we may see some of them fall anyway (eg Bahrain). I agree with your main point: "just go renewable" is both naive and utterly useless advice. That's a decades-long project. Also, who makes all the solar panels (and probably windmills)? China. It is a little different because the US is a net energy exporter now and definitely wasn't in the 1970s. Still, there will be higher prices for everything and the US can't realistically block exports to keep prices low because other countries will stop sending us stuff. Were the president anyone else, they would be impeached and removed from office. That's how bad this is. But we live in a post-truth world the the president is the leader of a cult.

12lak-123 6mo ago
Yes, but is it a mistake or deliberate? The Iran war has been planned since GW Bush. Now we have a president who hates the EU and Ukraine more than he hates Russia and China and he has Greenland ambitions. He is currently dragging out the war and Rubio was in the EU to string people along yet again. If he drags out the war long enough, the EU might need to make concessions on certain issues. What the EU should do but is too stupid to do: It should immediately negotiate with China and Russia to create jealousy (that is what Trump does, he understands that) and say: While you are doing your extended Iran adventure, we'll drop sanctions on Russian gas and import LNG. That is literally the only language Trump understands and then the deep state will put him on a leash. Trump would hate nothing more than EU overtures to Putin while he is left out of the negotiations. Sometimes you have to use all options to get things done.
- youngtaff 6mo ago
  Why should the EU drop sanctions on Russian gas and oil – that’s just appeasing an aggressor and abandoning Ukraine?
oblio 6mo ago
> Russia: this crisis will probably force the West to make peace with Russia and they'll retain any current Ukrainian territory just to secure Russian energy exports, particularly natural gas; The West is not the only party in this war and Ukraine has shown many times that it can do its own thing. Ukraine was supposed to roll over and die in 3 days and it has just managed to liberate about 500sqkm of territory, 4 years after the start of the war. Plus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22xoretdhbm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22xoretdhbm
- jmyeet 6mo ago
  Ukraine is completely dependent on arms from the US and Europe to sustain the war effort. Ukraine is running out of men to serve in the Army. Ukraine has no path to reclaim the territory it's lost. I'm not making a judgment about whether or not this is right. This is just a sober analysis of the situation. And that is that the war is stalemated and the only way this gets resolved is to declare peace at the current borders. This grand misadventure by the US and Israel in Iran just made that more likely.

MattGaiser 6mo ago

> Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cooking oils, lubricants, cosmetics. Dow chemical just doubled the cost of polyethylene as of April 1st. Taiwan relies on LNG for 40% of its energy production and has like 10 days of fuel left--semis are implicated. This is, on the high end, 20% of the use of fossil fuels. We overwhelmingly burn oil and gas. If we displaced the burning, Hormuz would not matter (or would minimally matter for a few molecules) and the world would be awash in abundant supplies. Renewable investment would solve/would have prevented this crisis.

mono442 6mo ago
You can't provide heating in winter using renewables.
- brendoelfrendo 6mo ago
  ...you can? Electric heaters exist?
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 6mo ago
    Always worth mentioning we should be using heat pumps, not straight resistive heating.
    - brendoelfrendo 6mo ago
      For sure. Heat pumps aren't the best option everywhere (though modern heat pumps probably function acceptably at lower temperatures than most people realize), but if you need to do electric heating, they are the best option most places.
      - fc417fc802 6mo ago
        For "human" temperatures don't they just degrade back to the efficiency of resistive heating? Or are some places actually cold enough to push the factor below 1?

skybrian 6mo ago

Before calling it "the worst", I'd like more detail on how to do the comparison with the oil crises of the 1970's. My guess is that modern economies might be somewhat less oil-dependent than they were then, because the alternatives are more developed.

UncleOxidant 6mo ago
They are more developed, sure, and the US (from a US centric view) is producing a lot of oil now. However, consider that pretty much all of the goods you see in the supermarket got there via diesel (trains, semi-trucks). The percentage of semi-trucks operating on electricity is still miniscule at this point. Air transport? All petroleum. Consider also other things like fertilizers - we're heavily dependent on nitrogen fertilizers derived from petroleum and planting season in the northern hemisphere is starting right about now. Yes we're producing a lot more electricity with renewables, but demand is also up.
- IsTom 6mo ago
  Oil going through Hormuz is 20%, not 80% of global supply. It's true that demand is pretty inelastic, but it's not like it can't be cut at all.
  - UncleOxidant 6mo ago
    Who mentioned 80%? During the 1973–74 Arab oil embargo, the disruption removed approximately 4.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) from the market, which constituted about 7% of the global oil supply at the time. This disruption significantly impacted global supplies. 20% is a lot more than 7%. This could be worse than 1973-74. As a 10year-old in 1973 I remember spending a lot of time in the backseat of the station wagon as we were waiting line line for gas. For context, during the first COVID spring (March-June 2020) oil demand fell by 20%. Because nobody was driving or flying anywhere. That's what it took to cut 20%.
    - poopinurmouth 6mo ago

jddj 6mo ago

How many days' fuel does Taiwan keep in reserve outside of this type of situation?

thrownawaysz 6mo ago

>This could easily spiral out of control and cause a level of suffering across the world (esp the global south) most of us on this forum have not lived to see. Daily anxiety attack thanks. As a european I think we are way too vulnerable. Countries divided, rich getting richer, more and more poor people who can barely afford food, and that's in Europe let alone talk about what happens with the poor in Africa and Asia. Sooner or later we will need a global reset but that sounds worse than everything else

kpil 6mo ago
We don't "need a global reset" It's an apocalyptical mind-bug. All times have an eschatology - ours seems to be climate collapse. It used to be nuclear war. The media is selling a story. In reality everything is still getting better. People are healthier, richer, and better off in almost every measurable way, all over the world, including Africa and Asia. Yes, there are some dark clouds. A long list. But the problems - even a long war in the middle east, are bumps in the road, not a cliff. If the clouds turns out to be a really bad storm, people will buckle down and sort it.
- crubier 6mo ago
  > If the clouds turns out to be a really bad storm, people will buckle down and sort it. 100% this. People need to understand this.
  - bombcar 6mo ago
    The other thing is that it is WAY too easy to distract yourself from your solvable problems by focusing on the big ones - you have to fight that with ferocity. Why get out of debt? The country is a brazillian trillion in debt we’re doomed. Why invest for retirement or save? The market is fraud anyway. Why exercise and lose weight? The planet is doomed anyway.
    - t0bia_s 6mo ago
      Why are you in debt? Why you need investment for later? Why are you overweight? It sounds like cause of problems are overlooked.

01100011 6mo ago

On the plus side, Trump is helping Europe and Asia meet their climate goals. <ducks for cover> I hear diesel is running out in NSW and Queensland Australia. Good thing you don't need diesel to run mining operations. Oh wait..

tpm 6mo ago
Mining companies have started to invest into EV mining trucks, guess that will be even more popular now.
WastedCucumber 6mo ago
I was just talking to a kiwi yesterday about diesel. The price has more than doubled already there. So there goes large chunk of the US beef supply.
- 01100011 6mo ago
  According to Unusual Whales on Twitter, Australia just ordered an emergency fuel shipment from the US: https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/2037650368390144243 https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/2037650368390144243
  - defrost 6mo ago
    Unusual Whales paraphrased a Sky News article (Fox-lite) which quoted sans context Lurion De Mello of Macquarie University (the Transforming Energy Markets Research Centre) who himself sourced infomation from LSEG * https://theconversation.com/australia-has-plenty-of-diesel-for-now-but-running-out-could-upend-our-economy-278981 https://theconversation.com/australia-has-plenty-of-diesel-f... * https://www.lseg.com/en https://www.lseg.com/en Lurion De Mello thinks (to the best of his human recall) that would be the first US shipment of processed fuel (bowser ready) in decades (although he factors in he might be wrong about that) but acknowledged that US shipments of crude (unrefined) are more common.

codethief 6mo ago

> Taiwan relies on LNG for 40% of its energy production and has like 10 days of fuel left--semis are implicated. The "10 days left" thing seems to be a hoax(?) https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/international-relations/mideast-war-fuels-disinformation-about-taiwan-s-gas-supply/ar-AA1ZrzKg https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/international-relations/m... https://www.malaymail.com/news/world/2026/03/26/is-taiwan-running-out-of-gas-the-truth-behind-the-viral-11-day-lng-scare/213972 https://www.malaymail.com/news/world/2026/03/26/is-taiwan-ru...

SirensOfTitan 6mo ago
Oh I'm sorry, that was actually my mistake, I should have been much more specific, and I will update the comment if I still can. My intention was to emphasize that Taiwan may have to start limiting electricity to its industrial sector based on its current runway. Per the article you listed: > Yeh Tsung-kuang, a professor in the Department of Engineering and System Science at National Tsing Hua University, said Taiwan's maximum LNG inventory is only 11 days but that does not mean the island will run out of fuel or face outages within that time period EDIT: updated comment to be more specific.
- UncleOxidant 6mo ago
  > said Taiwan's maximum LNG inventory is only 11 days but that does not mean the island will run out of fuel or face outages within that time period I guess I read that as "we've got 11 days supply of LNG and we won't face any shortages during that 11 days" - how is that a better situation?
UncleOxidant 6mo ago
> Yeh Tsung-kuang, a professor in the Department of Engineering and System Science at National Tsing Hua University, said Taiwan's maximum LNG inventory is only 11 days but that does not mean the island will run out of fuel or face outages within that time period So he's saying they've got an 11 day supply and that they won't face any shortages during that 11 days... but what about after 11 days? I guess I'm not sure how that's different, how it's a hoax?

baxtr 6mo ago

If the price of the blockade is as high as you outline, the price to secure the strait military might look comparatively lower. And, looking at the scenario you’re describing, it could be the most sane thing to do at this point.

0cf8612b2e1e 6mo ago
It is asymmetrical warfare. A hundred plus ships went through the straight daily. Attackers only need to occasionally damage a ship to make the crossing look deeply unappealing. No military intervention can promise 100% defense to passing vessels.
- toomuchtodo 6mo ago
  Whatever Iran wants is the cheapest course to resolution.
  - nickff 6mo ago
    We could achieve "peace for our time"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
    - toomuchtodo 6mo ago
      All peace is transient, the question is for how long per unit of investment of blood, treasure, and time. Invest efficiently.
    - vkou 6mo ago
      If you don't like making those kinds bargains in the future, maybe next time don't upset the status quo[1] by starting a war that you then go on to lose[2], which forces you to bargain from a position of weakness. Everyone in the DoD with triple-digit IQ knew that this would be the most likely outcome of starting a war with Iran, but all of those people got purged by Trump last year. --- [1] The status quo was that Iran was not in control of the strait, and all shipping traffic could pass through it. [2] Iran has so far accomplished it's objectives in the war, the US and Israel did not. It didn't get regime-changed, and its in now in control of the strait.

holoduke 6mo ago

The world is way too stable for a real crisis. The west is much more resilient than a lot of people think. Nothing will really change. Life will go on.

joquarky 6mo ago
That depends on how wealthy you are.

singleshot_ 6mo ago

> Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cooking oils, Really! What petroleum-based oil do you cook with?

AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
Plant-based ones that were harvested by machines that burn petroleum.
- singleshot_ 6mo ago
  That’s a pretty amazing definition of upstream. I imagine you probably understand that plastics, pharmaceuticals, and fertilizers are made out of petroleum derivatives, right? Since you seem pretty smart: are there petroleum based cooking oils?
  - phs318u 6mo ago
    The machinery to make them, the fertilisers to grow them, the plastic to package them, the transport to deliver them. It ain’t just cooking oils that will be massively impacted. The entire food chain in the western world is reliant on petrochemicals. The only question is the lag between now and when those impacts start being felt and this translates into bumped prices and/or shortages. EDIT: corrected an autocorrection.
    - falcor84 6mo ago
      Is there anything in that chain that actually requires petroleum and couldn't be replaced with alternative with similar properties and prices?
      - nine_k 6mo ago
        Yes: the time. It's spring time, when most crops are being sowed, of have been sowed and started growing actively. They won't wait several months until the production of fertilizers switches to electrically produced hydrogen, and tractors are upgraded to run off electric power. As the crops ripen, they won't wait until combine harvesters and trucks are converted to run off electric power. Nobody in the agricultural world has a few billions lying around to build massive solar capacity, battery capacity, and redesign the agricultural machinery, all at impossibly breakneck pace. Instead I suggest that they will buy the fuel at higher prices, and sell less produce, and also milk and meat which are downstream from feed crops, at higher prices. More than that, in a bout of bitter irony, the West might need to lift sanctions from Russian oil, and maybe ask Russia to drill and sell more. This, or the US should somehow defeat IRGC and defeat / appease the Iranian Army, and unblock the strait. I wonder if it's going to cost less even along the monetary dimension.

pwarner 6mo ago

Missing in discussion is that the loss of mideastern oil is being offset by releases from strategic reserves. But those will end, creating even more shortages.

userbinator 6mo ago

Just Stop Oil got their wish! Now everyone else gets to suffer the effects.

platevoltage 6mo ago
Could you be any more bad faith?
- brigandish 6mo ago
  What is "bad faith" here? I'd love to see an explanation.
  - unethical_ban 6mo ago
    Acting like most people who advocate getting away from fossil fuels desire a global economic collapse rather than an intentional, well thought and executed transition.
    - userbinator 6mo ago
      The point is that it's impossible without huge suffering which people would rather not have.
      - unethical_ban 6mo ago
        I do not believe that is true. Solar and EV technology are advancing rapidly, and with investment in grid infrastructure and incentives for generators to go renewable we could be along with Europe and China in reducing FF dependence for power. Instead the current administration is actively sabotaging the US position on renewable energy.
      - array_key_first 6mo ago
        It is absolutely not impossible to transition away from fossil fuels without suffering. Fossil fuels aren't risk-free. Even if you don't care about CO2, fossil fuels are extremely inefficient in the long run because they're not renewable. Once you extract them and burn them, they're gone, forever. This IS NOT the case with renewable energy, which means that, as time goes on, renewables will be much cheaper than fossil fuels. Already, today, solar is much cheaper than petroleum per unit of energy. In addition, every country on Earth can make use of renewables. Most countries cannot use fossil fuels directly, because they don't have them. This means they expose themselves to geopolitical risk. Exhibit A: this. If the transition is done slowly, you end up saving money, not losing it. That means less suffering, not more.

gzread 6mo ago

> the US is not going to accept Iran's terms There's no reason to assume it won't. It might not voluntarily but it looks a lot like it's either going to be forced to accept them, or it's going to become an irrelevant actor one way or another leaving Iran to set terms by default. Other countries are switching to the yuan global reserve currency and petrocurrency in order to be allowed passage through Hormuz. The US has no counter to this (besides ending the war, which it won't) and with how much the US relies on these two things to be globally relevant, if this continues then oil prices will return to normal, will be traded in yuan, and there will no longer be a US. A complete own goal and possibly the fastest self destruction by unforced error in all of human history. Europe will lag behind the trend because of its alliance with the US but it will turn eventually in order to get low oil prices. When the US attempted to force Europe to sanction Iran several years ago, Europe invented a system to evade them (INSTEX). US bond markets have just locked up this week. The US found itself unable to borrow more money at any price - nobody wants to lend it. Banks turned off their automated trading systems because they can't work in this environment. This is a symptom of global dedollarization. While this shock may only last a few days the frequency of this sort of this sort of thing is rapidly increasing, and when a government can't borrow money any more it has no choice but to print it to pay its debts, and we know where that leads: Weimar-style hyperinflation.

genxy 6mo ago
Clearly the US needs to start bombing ships that switch to the yuan.
- brigandish 6mo ago
  Yes, it seems like the next logical move would be for the US to blockade the strait. Ironic.

ThePowerOfFuet 6mo ago

>Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: [...] cooking oils Wait, what?

ndsipa_pomu 6mo ago
Petro is often used to transport cooking oils from the farmers to the retailers, so without it, cooking oil is going to be hard to source.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]