141–150 of 364 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Whatever Iran wants is the cheapest course to resolution.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with getting rid of oil is that cars currently in use will be usable even when over 20 years old, replacing them with EVs is expensive, and the good enough and economically accessible EVs are only now starting to get to market. It's really hard to quickly replace millions of vehicles.
Raising the price of fuel will do wonders for solving that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with getting rid of oil is that cars currently in use will be usable even when over 20 years old, replacing them with EVs is expensive, and the good enough and economically accessible EVs are only now starting to get to market. It's really hard to quickly replace millions of vehicles.
Raising the price of fuel will do wonders for solving that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever Iran wants is the cheapest course to resolution.
We could achieve "peace for our time"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raising the price of fuel will do wonders for solving that.
In California my electricity to drive my Chevy Volt is more expensive than gasoline, if gasoline is less than $5 a gallon. So for basically the last 100k miles I've owned it, electricity was more expensive. The same goes for many plugin hybrids. Luxury EVs still win out because luxury sedans usually only get 25 mpg mixed max.
The local farmers came with 1000l+ tanks for diesel, foreigners with multiple gas cans, etc., and the local logistics couldn't handle the pressure.
Foreigners were coming to Slovenia just to buy gas? In such quantities that it strained infrastructure? That definitely sounds like something that happened. As if "multiple gas cans" wouldn't still be well under the 50 liter/day limit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. 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.…
We don't "need a global reset" It's an apocalyptical mind-bug. All times have an eschatology - ours seems to be climate collapse. It used to be nuclear war. 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. Yes, there are some dark clouds. A long list. But the problems…
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.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 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…
11 days of supply in the system. If they can afford it they can add to that with new shipments. It is not like Taiwan is blockaded. Just that global supply from single region is limited. This might be lot bigger issue if China managed blockaded Taiwan during an invasion. Or destroy port facilities sufficiently.