ChromePlatedEquator
14708
448
13
I honestly wish I'd never heard of the Strait of Hormuz.
Mar 9, 2026 7:47 PM
ChromePlatedEquator
14708
448
13
I honestly wish I'd never heard of the Strait of Hormuz.
unluckyandbored
When I was younger, I didn't understand why oil companies didn't diversify into renewables. In my mind it was a limitless source of energy that couldn't be restricted by political issues and would be a virtually guaranteed source of income. Plus, I'd always been taught not to put all your eggs in one basket. Now I understand it's because they're greedy and they can charge more while doing less.
Vamp13
bro, we need both, like we need to massively expand renewable sources like solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal energy, but we still will need oil to fill in gaps in energy and this is at least 50-100 years away the way the world is going. like, i get it, but why not both?
FrankGrenadine
Those are WMDs! (Windmills of Mass electrical Discharge)
petonious
We're a nation of forced moronism. Just smart enough to run the equipment. Just dumb enough to buy the bullshit consumerism. With the U.S.A. exsitsing as a brand name for war. Just click on the qr then close your eyes darlin cause on the left were mangling children.
Hatlled
You do need oil for both the solar and the windmills: Lubricants, plastic parts, etc. Without oil, we are still fucked. Plus- no oil, no gas. no gas no trucks driving the windmills and solar stuff around. Plus- see above as to what we depend on. And, I'm sure there's more.
We are fucked.
imgomg10
MasterBountakun
vystral
I’ve tried to reply to anti-green energy morons twice in this post now and have had my comments auto-deleted. No coarse language or anything. I wonder what’s up with that.
vystral
“jbrightmans” specifically was the user to whom I was responding
azimir
I've beaten this drum before. Oil dependence is a national security risk. Even if you have reserves you produce internally, it's too easy to disrupt on a large scale very quickly.
ThrowAwayAcct0000
I could see that any country being dependent on oil was a national security risk when I was in high school 30 years ago, and its still true today...
Robohobo541
Yeah, but they cause cancer so...
blaghart
Wait till you hear about the nuclear power plants that can shrug off bunker busters
ChromePlatedEquator
Wait till you hear about the new and improved Super-Super© Bunkerbuster Extreme© that eats nuclear power plants for breakfast.
dankenmutt
I just don't believe that, a bigger bunker buster will just be built no matter how deep etc... you go.
blaghart
oh no, there's a hard limit on physics. For example, you can't drop a bunker buster tough enough to dig through a mile of rock (this is an extreme example but it illustrates my point)
HandFireWeapon
So we destroy the climate by using fossil fuels which will inevitably kill ALL of us in the hope of not having a nuclear power plant bombed by some rogue nation? That seems like murdering everyone to save some from death.
dankenmutt
You're strawmanning, running a false dichotomy, and a slippery slope argument here... Dude come on, learn how to talk to people reasonably.
HandFireWeapon
I'm doing no such thing at all. Planned energy is absolutely necessary (as we learned in Europe REALLY fucking fast) and when it comes to that we have fossil fuels or nuclear. Trying to make an argument not present in reality is a fallacy all in itself.
dankenmutt
Maybe you should learn what the items I just spoke about are. Completely ignoring what the other person is saying, is also still not a discussion.
nobodyspecial995
Imagine what the state of renewable would be like now, of oil companies hasn't spent billions trying to hold back the development of renewables for literal decades.
GolbatChan
Too bad they will have billions more with the higher oil prices #winning @objectiveComplete
SavageDrums
Hopefully a few people who were on the fence about EVs will take the plunge.
SavageDrums
And not a single one of those asshole monsters will ever face anything even approaching justice for the hell they have created.
hyptosis
We could be voluntarily living on the fucking moon by now if it wasn't for big oil.
anononanonanona
If they instead had adopted it as a mission to transition their businesses too, they'd actually be making far more money. That's the most insane part. It's extremely lucrative, has endless growth potential, and the only remaining "appealing" fossil fuel is methane already. It's just bad business overall.
DarthWaiterSE
If nothing else, alternative energy should be like diversifying a stock portfolio: never put all your eggs in one basket. Interlinking energy systems *SHOULD BE* more reliable and scalable than the boom-and-bust of a lone energy source by virtue of their simple existence.
But as has been stated further down the comments, it's about control and profit.
MeeseOnABeam
🌎🧑🚀🔫👨🚀
SavageDrums
If they had gotten with the program, they could have a virtual monopoly on green energy tech, but they were so committed to stagnation that they've ensured that when the oil industry dies, their companies will all die with it.
Isthe4thtimethecharm
That is my thought. They could have invested the money they spent fighting the tech. To develop the tech and play both sides so they win all the way.
SavageDrums
Business people are idiots, and that's more and more clear every single day.
ElChupaNuggra
In all honesty I'm pretty sure Solar TERRIFIED them out of risking any green energy, imagine if it had been as effective as people hoped. A few solar panels on your house and you NEVER had to PAY them for electricity again, power your house, your electric car with a battery that lasts for months without a recharge, never needing power plants, or gasoline ever again and all just for a one time buy in of a few hundred dollar solar panels.
ElChupaNuggra
You can't corner a market that a single initial purchase makes you redundant. :( So they absolutely fight any progress, cause they have CONTROL over the current markets.
jbrightmans
If only it could work at night or a cloudy day
TemplarXero
I didn't realize nuclear fission, wind, or ocean currents stopped the instant the sun disappears or a cloud show up.
jbrightmans
Yeah, the oil doesn't stop either.
Neanderthalersutopiaphilandrousanteatersotherbrother
1. Its actually stopped right now
2. The supply isnt endless
3. It's poisoning our planet
TemplarXero
IDk, it looks like it's pretty 'stopped' in the Strait right now.
TheMinisterOfCommonSense
If it was cheaper or better, the oil companies would literally use it instead, bought with the oil money and control it the same way they do oil. So no, it would not be farther ahead than it is now, or the oil companies would have done it
dontrike
Oil companies quite literally have spent decades killing anything that would make their product obsolete or lesser.
R100GSPD
Kodak has entered the chat
PresldentClef
loma45
Renewables (wind + solar) are leading the way in terms of growth, and recently overtook coal in overall generation the first time ever. China and India are driving this, and you can be pretty sure they're doing it for economic reasons rather than some "woke agenda" or whatever the current right wing theory is.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/solar-wind-renewables-coal-electricity-1.7653234
trickflo
When you have to power billions of people it makes a lot of sense to use something you don't have to consume to generate power and neither country is particularly invested in the fossil fuel business like russia/us/canada/others
IMakeLotsOfReferencesAndRemakes
The sunk cost fallacy is a foreign concept to you isn't it?
Badprenup
It's not even sunk cost fallacy. It's just a difference in who it's a better deal for. Solar and wind are better for the environment and the consumer. Buy solar panels once and get lots of energy for 25+ years (unless they get damaged).
Oil companies don't want that, they want you to always be in need of their oil. Constant repeat business from people who don't really have other options is far more profitable than pivoting to an entirely different energy source.
nobodyspecial995
Lol, right. Because the oil companies would instantly throw their massive investments in infrastructure, technology, and all the money they had on the patents. Just because it was cheaper from our perspectives. There's no possible way that the oil companies might look at things with a different calculation than the rest of us.
KarenFromTheHOA
Decentralized and abundant is harder to control than a scarce and dwindling resource that's available from a few specific locations. They exploit that control for profit.
cousteau
Well yeah, renewables are nice, but they're unreliable. What if one day there's no wind, or no sun? Gas and oil, on the other hand, are reliable and will always be there." —idiots who couldn't fathom the possibility that the countries with the oil could also close the tap whenever they felt like
ProfessorMuChao
I mean, their variability is still a major issue. Batteries are improving (thankfully!) but most renewables are still backed up by dispatchable FF's.
PutItInNeutral
That's the role fossil fuels should be playing for a world that is transitioning to renewables.
androidshard
Honestly renewables are pretty predictable now.
Look at the uk Carbon Intensity website; it has very accurate predictions available that cover 3 days.
Grid interconnectors also help by letting countries import/export energy if they have excess or not enough renewable/lowcarbon generation. Particularly with France's low carbon nuclear energy; France provides so much electricity to the rest of Europe.
ProfessorMuChao
"Pretty predictable" =/= easily integrated to the pre-existing grid or dispatched. The sheer variation in load is still an ongoing issue that has been alleviated (somewhat) by improvements and deployment of batteries and other energy storage systems (still mostly pumped hydro), but the majority of large-scale renewables are still reliant on nat gas peaker plants. (I'm primarily referring to the US here, btw.)
androidshard
Go look at other countries. Brazil, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Spain all have significant grids with far less co2e or kwh than the usa.
A green grid is viable, only politics is truly in the way.
ProfessorMuChao
"A green grid is viable, only politics is truly in the way." - I largely agree! But it's not *just* politics.
ProfessorMuChao
You're not entirely wrong, but you're conflating different things now. Norway and Brazil are largely hydro. France is mostly nuclear (~70%). Finland nuclear, hydro, and biomass (though wind is beginning to gain a strong foothold). Spain is the closest, with ~40% from wind/solar. My point is that your examples are countries that have less variable renewables (hydro/biomass) and/or nuclear, not predominately more variable sources like wind/solar.
ProfessorMuChao
I'll preface by saying that I'm 100% in favor of *dramatically* increasing our utilization of renewables. But...
Oil =/= renewables. Oil is key for transportation and industry, not electricity production, the polar opposite of renewables. Even renewables are dependent upon oil (specifically diesel), as there's no comparable energy source for powering the large equipment used for extracting the raw materials necessary for renewables manufacturing, save for liquid hydrogen which is impractical
netutoring
Probably because of the aforementioned fact we haven't been investing in renewable energy sources for decades where we could have been. Our tech could have been far more advanced by now.
realrealluckless
This is a frequent claim I see online, but it isn't remotely true that we don't have the energy sources to replace diesel.
There isn't a mine on earth that isn't readily converted to electric. The short term costs on equipment changes leave a sour taste in investor's mouths, but long term savings add up.
Most of the largest rigs are already diesel electric, and actually run just fine as a grid tethered unit.
TheUnmakingEngine
https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTY1YjkxZmJlN2psaGozbDk5bmgxczY4cDUzOXRxNGZqcmwzdzhlYTZtNHY2NXZmeSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/2sFIOH2Jbj5DTxgTaL/giphy.mp4
picselator
Plus so many industrial facilities (including those extracting raw materials) that are off the grid and dependent on the already optimized fossil fuel infrastructure that are currently completely unfeasible to be ported over to renewables (and perhaps for which liquid hydrogen is more feasible due to said current infrastructure).
But we still have room to (and we should definitely) dramatically increase our utilization of renewables.
ProfessorMuChao
Indeed.
TheWhiteBarry
Oil *was* key for transportation. We have EV semis now. There are also fully electric mining platforms. Your knowledge is outdated, respectfully.
androidshard
Renewables and electrification do reduce reliance on oil though. Like even a hybrid car that does not plug into the wall uses less oil than a petrol or diesel car.
Every bit of fossil fuel we do not use counts.
julle7589
You know you can produce synthetic fuel from another source of energy, such as electricity? Synthetic oli was already developed 100 years ago, albeit it was made from coal at the time. Nowadays it could literally be made out of thin air with carbon capture technology. The only obstacle is the lack of investment in that.
androidshard
Also carbon capture appears to be expensive even if it gets to scale because it has significant energy requirements that probably cannot be reduced that much.
Currently renewable energy reduces the world's co2 concentration more by crowding out fossil fuels than it could if used for direct air capture.
julle7589
True, unless you have stupidly cheap electricity (which you sometimes have at high wind and low consumption in regions with more wind power than transit capacity). I'm just pointing out it's possible if really needed. If, say, the oil supply was cut out entirely by, say, a war.
Exyr
Is why we need nuclear
Clockworkdancerobot
Yup. Expand and improve nuclear. We should have been doing Nuclear X-prizes at universities the last 10 years. "Design a better part"
ProfessorMuChao
So more electricity production? Same issue as renewables. I support expanding nuclear, too, but once again, the key issue is transportation, heavy equipment, and industry.
HandFireWeapon
Green fuels exist as well, I feel like people are forgetting that completely because some of them are energy intense to make but with renewables and nuclear energy that's not much of a problem, really.
ProfessorMuChao
I didn't forget, I did not include them for precisely the reason you mention: they're incredibly energy (and resource) intensive to make and often still require FF inputs (ex: diesel powering farm equipment for harvesting biomass).
"with renewables and nuclear energy that's not much of a problem, really." <- Really not the case for the majority of "green fuels." *Maybe* for something like synthetics from captured CO2, but not much else, and even there the energy ratio is questionable.
blaghart
You forgot nuclear, which is practical and exponentially more powerful than bunker fuel oil for naval shipping, including the existence of literal private nuclear-powered transport ships. Plus overhead electrification is infinitely (literally infinite) more efficient than oil for transportation overland
ProfessorMuChao
Okay? I specifically highlighted equipment for materials extraction, for which there is (as of yet) no comparable alternative anywhere near as energy dense as diesel.
blaghart
You mean besides nuclear right? Since steam powerplants for mining have been a thing since the 18th century
ProfessorMuChao
Give me one example of an operational mine or mining equipment using nuclear effectively.
blaghart
You mean besides the pumps literally every mine uses to remove water, right? The pumps that are just an electric pump on a generator and thus can be powered by literally any electrical generator?
Smidge204
Gosh if only there was a way to use electricity for transportation and industry.
ProfessorMuChao
This is a gross simplification. Diesel is, like it or not, the basis upon which industrial society is built. Electrification is no easy alternative for high-heat industries (steel, cement), nor for large equipment (think the machines necessary to mine all the materials needed for electrification).
That, and oil is so much more than just energy. As but one small example: the very roads that all those EV's are traveling over are made of asphault, because it's more effective than concrete.
ProfessorMuChao
I don't say this as an apologist for FF's, btw (I teach in a sustainability program), but to stress that this transition away from FF's is *not* going to be as easy/simple as substituting A for B. A world reliant on electrification via renewables and nuclear is going to require a complete restructuring of our entire energy and materials system and is going to require a degrowth mindset.
Honestly, that's probably a good thing though, as growth-based mindsets are what got us into this mess.
Smidge204
Yup, and there's just NO WAY to change that. (Also neither steel nor cement manufacturing use diesel, those huge mining machines are already electric just with on-board powerplants, the energy density of petroleum is *mostly* irrelevant for goods and materials transport... but y'know, keep believing a better future is impossible while the rest of the world continues to do what you think can't be done)
ProfessorMuChao
I never said steel nor cement required diesel, but I apologize for the confusion. They do require fossil fuels (coal mostly). Equipment for mining all the materials needed for renewables does require diesel, there is no suitable alternative (yet?) that has the same energy density.
I literally teach in a sustainability program. I'm not an apologist for FF's, I want to highlight how difficult this transition is. The only way out of this mess is not simple substitution, it's through degrowth.
dankenmutt
Right now, sure, butt I don't think that's the future.
We use oil and diesel in these industries because oil and diesel are currently better suited
I think the reason we haven't switched over to renewables in these industries are cost and safety.
To date lithium storage for electric vehicles etc... have been prohibitively expensive.
To date batteries have also been dangerous, no one wants to sit on top of a lithium battery on fire.
Graphene batteries potentially solve these issues entirely.
HandFireWeapon
Graphene is great, if you want to go a mile REALLY fast but capacitors won't replace batteries. Solid state sodium is probably the next big step but at this point, you can drive a diesel car for 20 years before it releases more CO2 emissions than the production of a single electric car. Then there is the energy production, nuclear is the key at this point and that will not change any time soon.
ProfessorMuChao
" you can drive a diesel car for 20 years before it releases more CO2 emissions than the production of a single electric car."
^This is not even remotely true. On what basis are you making this claim?
https://theicct.org/publication/electric-cars-life-cycle-analysis-emissions-europe-jul25/
ProfessorMuChao
I mean, the issue is not just that they're more expensive but less energy dense. It's not that it's impossible to transition, but that it's not a 1:1 situation. We could transition to greater reliance on renewables and nuclear, but it's going to be a different, less energetic world. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, mind you, but it's not gonna be BAU.
dankenmutt
Very fair, I mean once we go below net zero, it's not really as pressing of an issue, not a problem if some industries stay on fossils, we just need to hit net zero as a priority over staying on fossil fuels for the sake of staying on fossil fuels.
ProfessorMuChao
On that I agree. Can't say I have any faith that we're gonna hit those targets, though that won't stop me from trying (teaching about it), but I think we're all prolly gonna need to get comfortable with degrowth, and sooner rather than later.
dankenmutt
It's really only some countries that have to adapt massively though *cough cough* U.S. *cough cough*
Blackfinity
The plastics making up phone on which you type this is made with oil. Its glass was created with natural gas. The semiconductors and precious metals mined using oil. The food you eat was likely fertilized with petroleum-derived fertilizers. The towers and fasteners and copper etc in those windmills could not have come about without oil. Ditto the framing and photovoltaics of the solar panels. Oil is everywhere. Unless you're Ted Kaczynski living in a hut oil touches your life every day.
TheIronPenguin
dontrike
This is some "you live in a society" type shit.
nesurame
and you would rather burn it for power rather than use it as a one-time expenditure to produce power over a longer timeframe?
androidshard
The plastics in my phone are partly recycled. Glass can be recycled infinitely with electricity.
Solar panels last decades, usually beyond the life the manufacturer claims, and the glass/metal in them is recyclable.
Even wind turbine blades can be recycled.
Oil is everywhere but there's so much we can do to reduce how reliant we are on constant new supplies of oil.
ProfessorMuChao
"there's so much we can do to reduce how reliant we are on constant new supplies of oil." <- Wholeheartedly agree. It wont be easy (my main gripe with posts like the original meme above, that overly-simplify it), it will require a completely new materials (and energy) system, but it certainly is worth working towards, and much sooner rather than later.
ProfessorMuChao
"the glass/metal in them is recyclable."
Technically true, but not easily (at all), which is why there are so few companies actually doing it. The processes are improving, but are not there yet to do it at scale. Though we 100% need to push that direction!
"Even wind turbine blades can be recycled." <- Again, technically true, but the economics are not there (yet), the process is messy and comes with its own environmental costs.
androidshard
No, it's relatively easy to recycle the metal and glass - the panel itself is much more difficult.
I think it might even be mandated by law to recycle solar panels in the EU.
Yes, wind turbine blade recycling needs work, but Siemens at least sell recycled blades.
ProfessorMuChao
"the panel itself is much more difficult" <- that's kind of the problem!
The EROI on recycled glass is relatively low (still worth doing though!) and the aluminum frame is 100% worth doing (high EROI). The panels, however, are where the bulk of the key ingredients are, and they're the hardest to recycle. The EU is certainly moving the right direction with mandated recycling laws, as it will spur the industry (no argument there!) but there are still significant tech challenges to overcome.
ProfessorMuChao
btw, when I said metals, I did not mean the frame, but the silicon (metaloid) copper, silver, etc. bound up in the panels.
androidshard
There's shockingly little of such materials per panel. To be honest that's a big part of the issue recycling them; there's not that much to get any yield from because there's just not much material.
Computer keyboards also have a similar issue in that modern ones have so little silver that it's not really worth it anymore. (Really old ones could have enough silver to make money recycling the silver.)