4 ms·

The current wars in Europe and the Middle East paradoxically push the world towards non-fossil enery like few things did before. Both oil and natural gas prices

by nine_k 12d ago

The current wars in Europe and the Middle East paradoxically push the world towards non-fossil enery like few things did before. Both oil and natural gas prices have skyrocketed on global markets, and will likely rise more, as Ukraine continues to target Russian oil infrastructure, and Houtis continue to stymie Saudi oil exports. Nothing hampers solar, wind, and batteries though; at worst it takes longer to ship the key components from China to Europe around Africa.

leonidasrup 12d ago
The current wars in Europe and the Middle East could paradoxically push the world towards more domestic energy production, be it fossil or non-fossil energy. For example in reaction to 1973 Arab oil embargo Carter boosted energy efficiency and solar and promoted coal. " "America indeed is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and my goal as President of the United States is to see on the world energy markets Arab oil replaced with Illinois coal," Carter told miners and employees of the Old Ben Coal Mine No. 25. He also boasted that the country would, "produce more coal in 1980 than has ever before been produced in the United States of America." " https://www.npr.org/2024/12/29/1158426645/jimmy-carters-environmental-legacy-set-the-foundation-for-todays-climate-action https://www.npr.org/2024/12/29/1158426645/jimmy-carters-envi... New coal gasification projects in India https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/india-clears-4-billion-plan-boost-gas-production-coal-2026-05-13/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/india-clears-4-billi...
- PorciiVorbesc 12d ago
  >The current wars in Europe and the Middle East could paradoxically push the world towards more domestic energy production, be it fossil or non-fossil energy. Fossil fuel is still going strong and will probably stay so for the next 50 years. Like I just learned Taiwan makes most of its energy from coal and LNG and is set to denuclearize, which blew my mind given their cutting edge manufacturing economy, but kinda makes sense when you factor in their geography and geopolitics.
  - 3eb7988a1663 12d ago
    Global fossil fuel usage fell last year. We are on a trajectory to massively cut out fossil fuels and replace them with renewables. This was before global petroleum movement was blocked through the Strait. Check out the juicy details in the Ember 2026 report[0]. Some highlights: Driven by record solar growth, low-carbon power generation increased by 887 TWh in 2025, outpacing electricity demand growth of 849 TWh. Solar power alone met 75% of the net increase in electricity demand. Together with wind, the two sources met almost all (99%) demand growth. For the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, and only the fifth time this century, fossil generation did not rise, recording a small fall of 38 TWh (-0.2%). The global fall in fossil generation was driven by a historic reversal in fossil trends in China and India, the largest and third-largest fossil power countries globally. 2025 was the first year this century when fossil generation fell in both countries. In China, it fell by 56 TWh (-0.9%), marking the first decline since 2015. For the first time in 100 years, renewables (33.8%, 10,730 TWh) overtook coal power (33.0%, 10,476 TWh) in the global electricity mix as continued rapid growth in solar and wind pushed the share of renewables above a third of global generation. Coal power dropped 63 TWh (-0.6%) in 2025, marking the first fall since the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Combined with continued electricity demand growth, this meant coal fell below a third of global generation for the first time in history. [0] https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-review-2026/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-...
    - throwaway473825 12d ago
      There's a difference between electricity and energy. Last year, fossil fuel usage fell for power generation, but not as a whole. This year, oil and gas are projected to fall as a whole, although coal is still expected to grow: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-fossil-fuel-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2026-amid-hormuz-crisis https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-fossil-fuel-emis...
    - leonidasrup 12d ago
      The global fossil electricity generation decreased in 2025 and CO2 emmision still increased in 2025 https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2026/co2-emissions https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2026/co2-em... Fossil fuels are not used only for electricity production, they are also used for heating (low temp, high temp), feed stock for chemical proceses, combustion engines.
PorciiVorbesc 12d ago
>Nothing hampers solar, wind, and batteries though; at worst it takes longer to ship the key components from China to Europe around Africa. Except you know, all the actual mining and manufacturing of those things, which isn't in the west but mostly in China.
- dalyons 12d ago
  so what if theyre made in china?
  - PorciiVorbesc 12d ago
    So what if all our oil comes from the middle east? So what if all our gas comes from Russia? So what if all chips are made in Taiwan? So what if all mobile platforms are from the US? Hopefully the penny will start to drop. Any minute now.
    - thatfrenchguy 12d ago
      Except you burn the oil once and keep the solar panel and batteries for one or two decades
      - rightnutwingjob 12d ago
        You burn a battery only once, too.
    - 3eb7988a1663 12d ago
      You burn a barrel of oil once. A solar panel lasts for 20+ years. After you have installed it, if China announces they will no longer sell new ones - you have two decades of lead time to start building your own domestically.
      - xethos 12d ago
        Either the panels are purchased piecemeal, in which case some have to be replaced every year as your rolling stock fail, or they're replaced in large batches - which would be incredibly predictable, suggesting China would not fill one massive order and then say "No more", assuming they're trying to inflict pain Either way though, you don't have 20 years to get up to speed.
jiggawatts 12d ago
> Nothing hampers solar, wind, and batteries though; For now. The majority of solar panels are made in China (85%), and they plan to invade Taiwan in just a few years, possibly as soon as 2027, at which point either we let them take control of AI chip production or defend Taiwan and cut ourselves off from the source of almost all manufactured products, and especially solar panels.
- seanmcdirmid 12d ago
  Taiwan cannot make chips without western inputs and spare parts, so China taking over Taiwan or Korea or Japan doesn’t really give them access to making those chips.
  - nine_k 12d ago
    Rather, in a case of such an acute confrontation, it denies their adversaries access to the highest-end chips, too.
- PorciiVorbesc 12d ago
  >and they plan to invade Taiwan in just a few years Can you share your sources for that valuable intelligence? Military analysts would really be interested to learn that. Or is that form the same manufactured scaremongering genre as "Iran is 6 weeks away from building nuclear weapons" and "Iraq has WMDs" to justify endless defense spending, military interventions and warmongering. > at which point either we let them take control of AI chip production You can't just commandeer semi fabs like you're carjacking a Hyundai for a joyride. Semi fabs need constant parts and on-prem staff and always-on telemetry from ASML & friends to run. If that's gone, you're left with a very expensive warehouse that can't do shit.
  - jiggawatts 12d ago
    You don't build out a massive fleet of amphibious landing craft, mobile piers, and other similar Navy ships that can only be used for invading another country via the sea... for self-defense. These have one purpose, and China is mass-producing them. https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CHINA/TAIWAN-INVASION/zjpqdekmlvx/ https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CHINA/TAIWAN-INVASION/z... https://www.ft.com/content/36a00ba4-6178-4267-9786-3e0b59abe67f https://www.ft.com/content/36a00ba4-6178-4267-9786-3e0b59abe... https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-taiwan-military-naval-air-sites-4a02c450 https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-taiwan-military-naval-... > "Iran is 6 weeks away from building nuclear weapons" It is the breakout time, not the schedule. It is incredible to me how pervasive the misunderstanding of this statement is! I've had real-life conversations with project managers just like this: PM: "How long would this project take?" Me: "One month." ... two weeks later ... PM: "How long would the project take to finish?" Me: "One month." PM: "You said that two weeks ago! It should only take two weeks to finish!" Me: "Why would you think that? We never started the project! It wasn't approved. You didn't approve it, personally. The effort is four weeks. If you approve and we start today, it will still take that long to complete." ... two more weeks later ... PM: "Why isn't the project finished!? You said one month a month ago!" Me: "... wat?"
jaybrendansmith 12d ago
Yup. The best thing Trump did for Climate Change was to start a war with Iran.
phatfish 12d ago
It's fun watching the right wing try to square this circle. Especially in the UK where we import most of our fossil fuels. We could have sovereign control over our energy supply with renewables and electrification. Yay, we become a great sovereign nation free to do whatever we want with our great British energy supply! But no, the right wing answer is to develop a couple of gas fields in the north sea that would supply a tiny amount of actual energy requirements, and do nothing for prices as it all goes into a global trading platform. I know the reason, it's hard to say no to all that money from the fossil industry, and walk back decades of indoctrinating your base at their behest. Even if it means making your country energy independent...
- throwaway473825 12d ago
  It's really sad comparing the UK with Norway. The latter did "drill baby drill" before it was cool, but almost exclusively for exports. Some of that money has been invested in rapid electrification - so that Norway can export even more! Meanwhile, the left in the UK doesn't want to drill (so less money for electrification) while the right in the UK doesn't want to electrify (so less money due to more imports). Why doesn't anyone want to copy the Norwegian model?
  - amiga386 11d ago
    The Norwegian model works because: - Norway had and still has a lot more oil in their part of the North Sea than the UK does - Norway has a vastly smaller population than the UK; more than ten times smaller (5.6m versus 69m). Each Norwegian gets 10x more money coming in than they would as UK citizens, just from demographics. - Norway gambled by having the state directly invest in drilling (Statoil), while UK governments (both Labour in the 1960s and Conservative in the 1970s) refused to invest public money in drilling. Instead they let commercial companies find the money, the government merely licensed and taxed. The reason they did this was that Britain didn't have enough capital available to fund drilling at the time oil was discovered; it was the "sick man of Europe" - Norway put its oil money into a state pension fund which continues to pay dividends today. Margaret Thatcher spent the oil money on rejuvenating the London Docklands, which admittedly did improve London's standing as the centre of global finance, which is what currently brings in most money for the UK. Perhaps if she didn't do that then financial companies might have moved elsewhere, we don't know that for sure. What we do know is she didn't spend it rejuvenating anywhere else in the country, like Scotland, Wales and Northern England after she shut the coal mines and steel mills and bought in foreign coal and steel.

by nine_k 12d ago

leonidasrup 12d ago

The current wars in Europe and the Middle East could paradoxically push the world towards more domestic energy production, be it fossil or non-fossil energy. For example in reaction to 1973 Arab oil embargo Carter boosted energy efficiency and solar and promoted coal. " "America indeed is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and my goal as President of the United States is to see on the world energy markets Arab oil replaced with Illinois coal," Carter told miners and employees of the Old Ben Coal Mine No. 25. He also boasted that the country would, "produce more coal in 1980 than has ever before been produced in the United States of America." " https://www.npr.org/2024/12/29/1158426645/jimmy-carters-environmental-legacy-set-the-foundation-for-todays-climate-action https://www.npr.org/2024/12/29/1158426645/jimmy-carters-envi... New coal gasification projects in India https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/india-clears-4-billion-plan-boost-gas-production-coal-2026-05-13/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/india-clears-4-billi...

PorciiVorbesc 12d ago
>The current wars in Europe and the Middle East could paradoxically push the world towards more domestic energy production, be it fossil or non-fossil energy. Fossil fuel is still going strong and will probably stay so for the next 50 years. Like I just learned Taiwan makes most of its energy from coal and LNG and is set to denuclearize, which blew my mind given their cutting edge manufacturing economy, but kinda makes sense when you factor in their geography and geopolitics.
- 3eb7988a1663 12d ago
  Global fossil fuel usage fell last year. We are on a trajectory to massively cut out fossil fuels and replace them with renewables. This was before global petroleum movement was blocked through the Strait. Check out the juicy details in the Ember 2026 report[0]. Some highlights: Driven by record solar growth, low-carbon power generation increased by 887 TWh in 2025, outpacing electricity demand growth of 849 TWh. Solar power alone met 75% of the net increase in electricity demand. Together with wind, the two sources met almost all (99%) demand growth. For the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, and only the fifth time this century, fossil generation did not rise, recording a small fall of 38 TWh (-0.2%). The global fall in fossil generation was driven by a historic reversal in fossil trends in China and India, the largest and third-largest fossil power countries globally. 2025 was the first year this century when fossil generation fell in both countries. In China, it fell by 56 TWh (-0.9%), marking the first decline since 2015. For the first time in 100 years, renewables (33.8%, 10,730 TWh) overtook coal power (33.0%, 10,476 TWh) in the global electricity mix as continued rapid growth in solar and wind pushed the share of renewables above a third of global generation. Coal power dropped 63 TWh (-0.6%) in 2025, marking the first fall since the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Combined with continued electricity demand growth, this meant coal fell below a third of global generation for the first time in history. [0] https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-review-2026/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-...
  - throwaway473825 12d ago
    There's a difference between electricity and energy. Last year, fossil fuel usage fell for power generation, but not as a whole. This year, oil and gas are projected to fall as a whole, although coal is still expected to grow: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-fossil-fuel-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2026-amid-hormuz-crisis https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-fossil-fuel-emis...
  - leonidasrup 12d ago
    The global fossil electricity generation decreased in 2025 and CO2 emmision still increased in 2025 https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2026/co2-emissions https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2026/co2-em... Fossil fuels are not used only for electricity production, they are also used for heating (low temp, high temp), feed stock for chemical proceses, combustion engines.

PorciiVorbesc 12d ago

>Nothing hampers solar, wind, and batteries though; at worst it takes longer to ship the key components from China to Europe around Africa. Except you know, all the actual mining and manufacturing of those things, which isn't in the west but mostly in China.

dalyons 12d ago
so what if theyre made in china?
- PorciiVorbesc 12d ago
  So what if all our oil comes from the middle east? So what if all our gas comes from Russia? So what if all chips are made in Taiwan? So what if all mobile platforms are from the US? Hopefully the penny will start to drop. Any minute now.
  - thatfrenchguy 12d ago
    Except you burn the oil once and keep the solar panel and batteries for one or two decades
    - rightnutwingjob 12d ago
      You burn a battery only once, too.
  - 3eb7988a1663 12d ago
    You burn a barrel of oil once. A solar panel lasts for 20+ years. After you have installed it, if China announces they will no longer sell new ones - you have two decades of lead time to start building your own domestically.
    - xethos 12d ago
      Either the panels are purchased piecemeal, in which case some have to be replaced every year as your rolling stock fail, or they're replaced in large batches - which would be incredibly predictable, suggesting China would not fill one massive order and then say "No more", assuming they're trying to inflict pain Either way though, you don't have 20 years to get up to speed.

jiggawatts 12d ago

> Nothing hampers solar, wind, and batteries though; For now. The majority of solar panels are made in China (85%), and they plan to invade Taiwan in just a few years, possibly as soon as 2027, at which point either we let them take control of AI chip production or defend Taiwan and cut ourselves off from the source of almost all manufactured products, and especially solar panels.

seanmcdirmid 12d ago
Taiwan cannot make chips without western inputs and spare parts, so China taking over Taiwan or Korea or Japan doesn’t really give them access to making those chips.
- nine_k 12d ago
  Rather, in a case of such an acute confrontation, it denies their adversaries access to the highest-end chips, too.
PorciiVorbesc 12d ago
>and they plan to invade Taiwan in just a few years Can you share your sources for that valuable intelligence? Military analysts would really be interested to learn that. Or is that form the same manufactured scaremongering genre as "Iran is 6 weeks away from building nuclear weapons" and "Iraq has WMDs" to justify endless defense spending, military interventions and warmongering. > at which point either we let them take control of AI chip production You can't just commandeer semi fabs like you're carjacking a Hyundai for a joyride. Semi fabs need constant parts and on-prem staff and always-on telemetry from ASML & friends to run. If that's gone, you're left with a very expensive warehouse that can't do shit.
- jiggawatts 12d ago
  You don't build out a massive fleet of amphibious landing craft, mobile piers, and other similar Navy ships that can only be used for invading another country via the sea... for self-defense. These have one purpose, and China is mass-producing them. https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CHINA/TAIWAN-INVASION/zjpqdekmlvx/ https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CHINA/TAIWAN-INVASION/z... https://www.ft.com/content/36a00ba4-6178-4267-9786-3e0b59abe67f https://www.ft.com/content/36a00ba4-6178-4267-9786-3e0b59abe... https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-taiwan-military-naval-air-sites-4a02c450 https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-taiwan-military-naval-... > "Iran is 6 weeks away from building nuclear weapons" It is the breakout time, not the schedule. It is incredible to me how pervasive the misunderstanding of this statement is! I've had real-life conversations with project managers just like this: PM: "How long would this project take?" Me: "One month." ... two weeks later ... PM: "How long would the project take to finish?" Me: "One month." PM: "You said that two weeks ago! It should only take two weeks to finish!" Me: "Why would you think that? We never started the project! It wasn't approved. You didn't approve it, personally. The effort is four weeks. If you approve and we start today, it will still take that long to complete." ... two more weeks later ... PM: "Why isn't the project finished!? You said one month a month ago!" Me: "... wat?"

jaybrendansmith 12d ago

Yup. The best thing Trump did for Climate Change was to start a war with Iran.

phatfish 12d ago

It's fun watching the right wing try to square this circle. Especially in the UK where we import most of our fossil fuels. We could have sovereign control over our energy supply with renewables and electrification. Yay, we become a great sovereign nation free to do whatever we want with our great British energy supply! But no, the right wing answer is to develop a couple of gas fields in the north sea that would supply a tiny amount of actual energy requirements, and do nothing for prices as it all goes into a global trading platform. I know the reason, it's hard to say no to all that money from the fossil industry, and walk back decades of indoctrinating your base at their behest. Even if it means making your country energy independent...

throwaway473825 12d ago
It's really sad comparing the UK with Norway. The latter did "drill baby drill" before it was cool, but almost exclusively for exports. Some of that money has been invested in rapid electrification - so that Norway can export even more! Meanwhile, the left in the UK doesn't want to drill (so less money for electrification) while the right in the UK doesn't want to electrify (so less money due to more imports). Why doesn't anyone want to copy the Norwegian model?
- amiga386 11d ago
  The Norwegian model works because: - Norway had and still has a lot more oil in their part of the North Sea than the UK does - Norway has a vastly smaller population than the UK; more than ten times smaller (5.6m versus 69m). Each Norwegian gets 10x more money coming in than they would as UK citizens, just from demographics. - Norway gambled by having the state directly invest in drilling (Statoil), while UK governments (both Labour in the 1960s and Conservative in the 1970s) refused to invest public money in drilling. Instead they let commercial companies find the money, the government merely licensed and taxed. The reason they did this was that Britain didn't have enough capital available to fund drilling at the time oil was discovered; it was the "sick man of Europe" - Norway put its oil money into a state pension fund which continues to pay dividends today. Margaret Thatcher spent the oil money on rejuvenating the London Docklands, which admittedly did improve London's standing as the centre of global finance, which is what currently brings in most money for the UK. Perhaps if she didn't do that then financial companies might have moved elsewhere, we don't know that for sure. What we do know is she didn't spend it rejuvenating anywhere else in the country, like Scotland, Wales and Northern England after she shut the coal mines and steel mills and bought in foreign coal and steel.