4 ms·
> Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cooking oils, lubricants, cosmetics. Dow chemical just doubled the cost o
by 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 agoYou can't provide heating in winter using renewables.
- brendoelfrendo 6mo ago...you can? Electric heaters exist?
- 0cf8612b2e1e 6mo agoAlways worth mentioning we should be using heat pumps, not straight resistive heating.
- brendoelfrendo 6mo agoFor 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 agoFor "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?
- magicalhippo 6mo ago> Or are some places actually cold enough to push the factor below 1? Probably some far north, but not that many. My Kaiteki 6600 has[1] a SCOP of 5.1 and a factory guaranteed COP at -25C (-13F) of 3.1. [1]: https://mee.no/privat/produktkategori/luft-luft-varmepumper/kaiteki/kaiteki-6600/#tab-spec https://mee.no/privat/produktkategori/luft-luft-varmepumper/...
- gpm 6mo agoYou can, and should, over the entirety of europe apart from the northern parts of the nordic countries electric heat pumps are now simply more efficient than gas powered furnaces. This is true even if powered by gas based electricity - but obviously makes it possible to power them via renewables as well. People in Quebec (Canada), which is colder than just about all of Europe, have been providing heating in winter using renewables for decades (thanks to an excess of renewables).
- mono442 6mo agomost of the countries don't have enough hydro to make it feasible
- gpm 6mo agoYeah, but now wind and solar have made it feasible just about everywhere.
- lostlogin 6mo agoAnd geothermal, biogas and tidal.
- mono442 6mo agoThere's little sunshine in winter. Wind is better but it's still intermittent.
- jdlshore 6mo agoPanels are cheap enough that you can overprovision for winter sun.
- oblio 6mo agoThere are a gazillion battery techs being developed right now (regular lithium ion - with variations like NMC, LFP, ...), solid state lithion ion, sodium ion. You can over provision solar as someone said. There's geothermal, tidal, etc. Long distance high voltage electricity transmission at scale. Electricity is a marvel and we're just starting to scratch the surface of what we can do with it. Betting against it is like betting against electronics, a risky proposition.
- lostlogin 6mo agoWot? Solar makes a fair bit where I am. Hydro works fine. Geothermal works fine. Wind works fine. Aircon is very efficient. This is harder in plenty of regions but a blanket ‘can’t be done’ is way off the mark.
- platevoltage 6mo agoMy wood pellet stove begs to differ.
- irishcoffee 6mo agoYou’re choosing willful ignorance if you think petrochemicals will be replaced by renewables in your lifetime. It isn’t going to happen. Planes don’t run on solar. Boats don’t run on renewables. The lubricant needed for wind turbines comes out of the earth. Dams need the same lubricant. Building roads, oil. Installing renewable infrastructure, oil. Running combines to harvest vegetation, oil. Building renewables requires massive amounts of oil. Renewables are amazing and I’m all for them. Let’s keep that train rolling. Oil isn’t going away, pretending otherwise is willful ignorance.
- ZeroGravitas 6mo agoDid you read the comment you replied to? > 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.
- irishcoffee 6mo agoI did. Strongly disagree. Nobody is sending construction boats out into the various seas on batteries and prayers, to construct turbines. The foundation on which these turbines rest, in the sea, were in no way constructed with renewable energy. The cables were not build, dragged across the sea, and connected, using renewable energy. The transmission lines from the land to a switching station were not built or maintained with renewables. I'm in boss, I'm in on renewables. Lets fucking go. I'm just not ignoring the whole story.
- MattGaiser 6mo agoYou missed the point of my comment. > It isn’t going to happen. Planes don’t run on solar. Boats don’t run on renewables. The lubricant needed for wind turbines comes out of the earth. Dams need the same lubricant. Building roads, oil. Installing renewable infrastructure, oil. Running combines to harvest vegetation, oil. Building renewables requires massive amounts of oil. All of this? About 30% of oil usage on the high end. You are listing the small uses for oil. May some oil always be needed? Yes. But nowhere near as much as we produce today.
- OgsyedIE 6mo agoYou could visit an alternate timeline where you have as much renewable investment into energy as you'd like going back decades and while it would help with the fertiliser situation massively it wouldn't solve the problem of needing a supply of carbon atoms to make the carbon-based substances in the list. You can't make insulin, brake fluid or PVC out of electricity alone.
- WastedCucumber 6mo agoI think the point is that a world with renewable electricity wouldn't need as much oil, thereby making smaller sources of carbon sufficient.
- toomuchtodo 6mo agoPakistan saves $6B/year on fossil fuel imports with their recent surge in solar, for example. Surprise Solar Uptake in Pakistan Cushions Mideast Energy Shock - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-17/surprise-solar-uptake-in-pakistan-cushions-mideast-energy-shock https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-17/surprise-... | https://archive.today/QdgdQ https://archive.today/QdgdQ - March 17th, 2026 > Millions of factories, farmers, and households have switched to cheap solar panels from China, driving a 40% drop in Pakistan’s fossil fuel imports between 2022 and 2024, the researchers found. Additionally, the country is estimated to have saved $12 billion through reduced LNG imports in the past five years as cumulative imports of Chinese photovoltaics soared past 50 gigawatts, the report said. Pakistan’s solar boom is bigger than official data shows - https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/03/19/pakistans-solar-boom-is-bigger-than-official-data-shows/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/03/19/pakistans-solar-boom-... - March 19th, 2026 > The policy paper Electrons In, Hydrocarbons Out: Pakistan’s Quest for Economic and Resource Efficiency found that up to $120 billion in future fuel imports could be avoided over the lifetime of the 48 GW of solar modules Pakistan had imported as of June 2025. The study’s co-author, Nabiya Imran, told pv magazine that with solar module imports into Pakistan now totaling 51.5 GW, around $180 billion in fossil fuel imports could be avoided. Imran added these solar imports could generate a total 1,730 TWh over their lifetime. Pakistan says rooftop solar output to exceed grid demand in some hubs next year - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46070915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46070915 - November 2025 (254 comments) Pakistan's 22 GW Solar Shock: How a Fragile State Went Full Clean Energy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43620309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43620309 - April 2025 (35 comments)
- baxtr 6mo agoHormuz might not matter that much in the future since Saudi and the other countries will build even more pipelines and ports which are on the other side. Short-term is dire though.
- wafflemaker 6mo agoThat would require some super effective anti air. Otherwise such a pipeline is an easy target. And even the most anti air protected place on earth - Negev plant near Dimona city got hit with a warning shot. And they have 3 or 4 layers of anti air, most of them doubled (both US and Isreaeli). It's impossible to protect multiple pipelines to that extent. And Isreal just said that they will keep attacking Iran no matter any peace deals or armistice. The only logical course of action for Iran is to go down swinging, taking the rest of the world with them.
- megous 6mo agoIt did not. Dimona city got hit. https://t.me/QudsNen/215116 https://t.me/QudsNen/215116 Plant is far away from there.
- dotancohen 6mo agoWhy is Iran hitting civilian targets?
- nofriend 6mo agoAs retribution for the attacks on their country I believe.
- youngtaff 6mo agoWhy are the US and Israel hitting civilian targets including at least one desalination plant?
- surgical_fire 6mo agoI dunno man. Why were civilian targets in Iran hit? I guess you might feel justified to hit civilian infrastructure once your enemies are vile enough to hit yours.