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.<p>This is the worst energy crisis in modern history, and little of the western world has really started feeling the effects yet:<p><a href="https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/dispatch-energy/iran-war-energy-crisis-hormuz/" rel="nofollow">https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/dispatch-energy/iran-war-...</a><p>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:<p>> 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.<p>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.<p>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.
> Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cooking oils,<p>Really! What petroleum-based oil do you cook with?
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.
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.
>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.<p>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.<p>Sooner or later we will need a global reset but that sounds worse than everything else
We don't "need a global reset"<p>It's an apocalyptical mind-bug. All times have an eschatology - ours seems to be climate collapse. It used to be nuclear war.<p>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.<p>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.
> ours seems to be climate collapse. It used to be nuclear war<p>Except climate collapse is actually happening already, gradually.<p>There were escalating tensions during the Cold War, but it wasn’t like there were actual nukes being dropped in slow motion
Is global economic collapse not an eschatological scenario?<p>When you say "everything is still getting better", what do you mean? Because the price of fuel and food, isn't getting better. It seems to be getting worse. Your version of "reality" doesn't seem to reflect the experience of a lot of people.<p>> people will buckle down and sort it.
It's an interesting series of words that don't say a lot. There is much to wonder about.
> Is global economic collapse not an eschatological scenario?<p>Not really, no. In this case 20-25% of the world's oil disappearing doesn't sound like it should be an 'everything collapses' scenario, we still have >75% of the oil around and oil isn't the only energy source. Everyone has always seen a "worst economic collapse of my lifetime" and although this one looks like it is going to be unusually horrific it isn't going to cause the end of anything structural unless there are other causes already in place. For example in theory this might be the end of the US military's ability to maintain global order in the same way as the Suiz Crisis humiliated the British empire - it'd be a recognition of realities on the ground rather than the current crisis changing anything.
Buckle down and sort it = wars around the world and mass (and I mean <i>mass</i>) migration
> If the clouds turns out to be a really bad storm, people will buckle down and sort it.<p>100% this. People need to understand this.
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.
> Taiwan relies on LNG for 40% of its energy production and has like 10 days of fuel left--semis are implicated.<p>The "10 days left" thing seems to be a hoax(?)<p><a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/international-relations/mideast-war-fuels-disinformation-about-taiwan-s-gas-supply/ar-AA1ZrzKg" rel="nofollow">https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/international-relations/m...</a><p><a href="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" rel="nofollow">https://www.malaymail.com/news/world/2026/03/26/is-taiwan-ru...</a>
I have 30 days of food in my house and I have maintained that since probably 2021. It doesn't mean I will run out in 30 days, since I can still buy food although at higher prices lately. I personally never let it dip below 20 probably.
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:<p>> 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<p>EDIT: updated comment to be more specific.
> 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<p>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?
> 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.<p>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.<p>Renewable investment would solve/would have prevented this crisis.
You 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.<p>You can't make insulin, brake fluid or PVC out of electricity alone.
I think the point is that a world with renewable electricity wouldn't need as much oil, thereby making smaller sources of carbon sufficient.
Pakistan saves $6B/year on fossil fuel imports with their recent surge in solar, for example.<p><i>Surprise Solar Uptake in Pakistan Cushions Mideast Energy Shock</i> - <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-17/surprise-solar-uptake-in-pakistan-cushions-mideast-energy-shock" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-17/surprise-...</a> | <a href="https://archive.today/QdgdQ" rel="nofollow">https://archive.today/QdgdQ</a> - March 17th, 2026<p>> 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.<p><i>Pakistan’s solar boom is bigger than official data shows</i> - <a href="https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/03/19/pakistans-solar-boom-is-bigger-than-official-data-shows/" rel="nofollow">https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/03/19/pakistans-solar-boom-...</a> - March 19th, 2026<p>> 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.<p><i>Pakistan says rooftop solar output to exceed grid demand in some hubs next year</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46070915">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46070915</a> - November 2025 (254 comments)<p><i>Pakistan's 22 GW Solar Shock: How a Fragile State Went Full Clean Energy</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43620309">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43620309</a> - April 2025 (35 comments)
You don't have to get carbon from oil extracted from underground and you don't have to get oil from the middle east. That's merely where the bulk of it happens to come from at present for price and historical reasons.
Yes, but all those things, combined, are 20% of the usage. I'd say if you remove about the 50 % used for cars, that's a pretty large improvement.
Hormuz 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.
That would require some super effective anti air. Otherwise such a pipeline is an easy target.<p>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.<p>And Isreal just said that they will keep attacking Iran no matter any peace deals or armistice.<p>The only logical course of action for Iran is to go down swinging, taking the rest of the world with them.
As if those can’t be blown up with $300 FPVs or $10k Shahids…
You’re choosing willful ignorance if you think petrochemicals will be replaced by renewables in your lifetime.<p>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.<p>Renewables are amazing and I’m all for them. Let’s keep that train rolling.<p>Oil isn’t going away, pretending otherwise is willful ignorance.
Strictly speaking, the oil in the Earth's crust is both finite and more than 50% already extracted.<p>However, a closed cycle of renewable-powered vehicles and processing sites growing crops for biorefineries which are then hydrocracked into the various petrochemical additives to maintain the infrastructure with surplus left over for the rest of society has been proven to be viable going back to the early 2010s.<p>Leong et al has a great survey of how the entire market of irreplaceable petrochemical uses (e.g. medical grade plastic) and their upstream steps (e.g. metal smelting for making agricultural vehicles) can theoretically be made to work from wind alone, with total immunity to peak oil when it does eventually happen. Although the carbon molecules are essential, having a no-oil well industrial civilization is just a matter of long and arduous implementation and negotiation with vested interests.
Oil isn't magic, you can just make it, and the reason we don't is merely that it's <i>expensive</i> to do that, whereas it's just there under the ground - as a fossil fuel.<p>But because you can just make it from ingredients everybody already has, this puts a ceiling on its actual price <i>if</i> you have energy independence. If you need to burn oil, you can't make oil because that's a vicious circle which would need even more oil. But so long as the only you want oil is for its other properties that's fine.<p>Hydrocarbons are <i>incredibly</i> simple, the clue is in their name, a bunch of Hydrogen (literally the most common element in the whole universe) and Carbon (also extremely common). The only reason <i>not</i> to make any particular hydrocarbons you need (e.g. to make JetA for a airliner) is it'd be very energy intensive and instead you can just distil some crude oil to get the hydrocarbons you want...
Ships are starting to become electrified. Currently for fixed routes.
Did you read the comment you replied to?<p>> 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.
You missed the point of my comment.<p>> 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.<p>All of this? About 30% of oil usage on the high end. You are listing the small uses for oil.<p>May some oil always be needed? Yes. But nowhere near as much as we produce today.
You can't provide heating in winter using renewables.
You 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.<p>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).
Wot?<p>Solar makes a fair bit where I am. Hydro works fine. Geothermal works fine. Wind works fine. Aircon is very efficient.<p>This is harder in plenty of regions but a blanket ‘can’t be done’ is way off the mark.
...you can? Electric heaters exist?
How many days' fuel does Taiwan keep in reserve outside of this type of situation?
On the plus side, Trump is helping Europe and Asia meet their climate goals.<p><ducks for cover><p>I hear diesel is running out in NSW and Queensland Australia. Good thing you don't need diesel to run mining operations. Oh wait..
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.<p>The big winners are:<p>- 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;<p>- 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;<p>- 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;<p>Who are the losers?<p>- Europe: this is going to massively increase energy costs for years;<p>- Ukraine: see above (Russia);<p>- The US: massively decreased influence, particularly in the Middle East;<p>- 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;<p>- 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).<p>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)? <i>China</i>.<p>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.<p>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.
Yes, but is it a mistake or deliberate? The Iran war has been planned since GW Bush.<p>Now we have a president who hates the EU and Ukraine more than he hates Russia and China and he has Greenland ambitions.<p>He is currently dragging out the war and Rubio was in the EU to string people along yet again.<p>If he drags out the war long enough, the EU might need to make concessions on certain issues.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Sometimes you have to use all options to get things done.
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.
If the price of the blockade is as high as you outline, the price to secure the strait military might look comparatively lower.<p>And, looking at the scenario you’re describing, it could be the most sane thing to do at this point.
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.
As the value of the oil goes up it becomes worth it to risk the ship. Even if you're paying to insure it there's an equilibrium point between odds and value.<p>Obviously 50-50 doesn't pencil out at $100 or even $200 a barrel. But 1:50 might at $2xx. IDK I'm not a shipping expert.
> becomes worth it to risk the ship<p>There are a lot of human beings on those ships. It strikes me as awful that their lives would be risked under these circumstances, and that happening wouldn't really be a proper solution to the overarching problem. It would be something of a tragedy if things got so severe that the risk was assumed worthwhile and presumably, people on board were exposed to it outside of their will or control. I suspect many of them don't have a lot of options.
100 people will die on American roads today, and another tomorrow. Most of them die because they commute to work because a lower paying job closer, or a smaller dwelling near their job, isn't that appealing. Another portion will die because driving aggressively and fast seemed fun. Another portion will die because they like alcohol more than safety.
Yes, but I don't think we should accept these deaths either, and I see them as worth preventing and avoiding as well.<p>I also see false equivalence here in that the risk of death doesn't seem fungible. You're taking an aggregate death toll distributed across hundreds of millions of people, involving totally different voluntariness and causal structures.
People kept sailing past the Houthis even though some ships got attacked. They sailed past Somali pirates too. So ships obviously tolerate some level of risk from violence.
Yeah, Ansar Allah were quite nice even when attacking the civilian ships. Not a lot of victims.<p>Iran is not very nice to the ships, judging from videos and results of attacks.<p>There's a very noticeable difference. There are no parties, music videos, ship tours to abducted ships... with Iran, etc.<p>With Iran, the ships end up like this <a href="https://t.me/QudsNen/216170" rel="nofollow">https://t.me/QudsNen/216170</a> or this <a href="https://t.me/presstv/179430" rel="nofollow">https://t.me/presstv/179430</a>
Technically true, but ship + cargo are going to be worth over a billion dollars. Any ship carrying petroleum products is going up be a juicy target for the Iranians looking to flex their muscles.<p>Someone could say the risk is financially worth it, but you are not going to have many takers. Also might find few crew who want to sign onto your vessels.
I wonder what's the EROI on building a tanker with 2% chance of being hit each time. They hold a lot fuel, but making them can't be light on energy.
Whatever Iran wants is the cheapest course to resolution.
The problem is that Iran can defend the strait against the world's most advanced military with drones built with commercial hardware for 30-50K per drone. And that doesn't even take into account escalation, as if the US escalates then Iran will likely start targeting critical infrastructure in the region, making the crisis worse.<p>The US and Israel are rapidly running out of munitions, while Iran is being resupplied by Russia (<a href="https://www.ft.com/content/d5d7291b-8a53-42cd-b10a-4e02fbcf9047" rel="nofollow">https://www.ft.com/content/d5d7291b-8a53-42cd-b10a-4e02fbcf9...</a>) which is much more tooled out for munition production compared to NATO. The US also relies on both rare earths and Chinese supply chain for a lot of its munitions (which it is running low on).<p>IMO the best option is for Trump to TACO, take the major L, and cede Iran its demands, but this would partially mean an alignment shift from Israel which still feels unthinkable based on the US political realities.
> the price to secure the straight military might look comparatively lower.<p>The price to secure the straight militarily <i>is a full ground invasion of Iran</i>.<p>This would be done against a country four times bigger (in population and size) than Iraq, with the kind of terrain that makes Afghanistan look easily accessible, <i>done without the help of a coalition of fools</i>, because this isn't 2003, and nobody in Europe is very eager to send their kids to die for a war that Trump's ego started. His 2025 attempts to 'ingrate' himself with Europe are paying dividends now.<p>Also, if you think the war is unpopular now (nobody but the 40% of the country that's MAGA-brained supports it - and those guys will support <i>anything</i>), imagine what the popularity would be like with a full mobilization and invasion.<p>The GOPniks aren't <i>that</i> eager to become a 31-seat party this November.