Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 364 posts

Re: Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing

#111

Post by WastedCucumber »

OgsyedIE wrote: post #67
MattGaiser wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 bur…

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. 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.

Re: Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing

#112

Post by fc417fc802 »

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #65
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always worth mentioning we should be using heat pumps, not straight resistive heating.

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.

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?

Re: Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing

#113

Post by toomuchtodo »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #95
baxtr wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Whatever Iran wants is the cheapest course to resolution.

Re: Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing

#114

Post by toomuchtodo »

WastedCucumber wrote: post #111
OgsyedIE wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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.

Surprise Solar Uptake in Pakistan Cushions Mideast Energy Shock - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-17/surprise-... | 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-... - 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 - 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 - April 2025 (35 comments)

Re: Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing

#115

Post by cucumber3732842 »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #95
baxtr wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing

#116

Post by WastedCucumber »

01100011 wrote: post #76
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #36

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-... Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cook…

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

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.

Re: Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing

#117

Post by leonidasrup »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #87
leonidasrup wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe would be better served by doing, what France did in 1974. "As a direct result of the 1973 oil crisis, on 6 March 1974 Prime Minister Pierre Messmer announced what became known as the 'Messmer Plan', a hugely ambitious nuclear power program aimed at generating most of France's electricity from nuclear power. At the time of the oil crisis most of France's electricity came from foreign oil. " "Work on the first t…

Sounds like a good plan unless we've invented 2 much cheaper and faster to deploy methods to generate electricity.

You probably mean 3 much cheaper and faster to deploy methods to generate electricity. In Germany, Poland, Balkans it's solar, wind, coal.

Re: Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing

#118

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #115
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Re: Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing

#119

Post by UncleOxidant »

skybrian wrote: post #61
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #36

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-... Petro is pretty much upstream of everything: plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, cook…

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.

Re: Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing

#120

Post by steve_adams_86 »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #115
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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

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.

Post reply on HN