Those who keep complaining that wind turbines do not work when the winds are not blowing, just realized that oil does not work when the Hormuz Strait is not open.
-
@randahl I saw someone yesterday say that solar and wind are just as “vulnerable” because so much of it is also shipped through the narrow straits of Malacca(?)…. Ignoring, or ignorant, of the fact that because the energy for renewables actually comes from the sun, only new or replacement solar/wind capacity would potentially be disrupted by this kind of shut down….
The sun would still shine and the wind would still blow, the rivers, magma, and tides would still flow, all no matter how many wars some idiot starts.
Oil and natural gas provide feed stocks for much more than just diesel and petrol.
sour crude extracted in the region is a primary source of sulfur. sulfur is a feed stock for sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is a chemical that’s used to extract and refine copper, nickel, cobalt, and lithium. Oil is an input to a lot of products.
Natural gas and sulfur are also feed stocks for fertilizer.
The global supply chain is the risk
-
Those who keep complaining that wind turbines do not work when the winds are not blowing, just realized that oil does not work when the Hormuz Strait is not open.
@randahl and most of those suffering for it are not those people.
-
-
Those who keep complaining that wind turbines do not work when the winds are not blowing, just realized that oil does not work when the Hormuz Strait is not open.
@randahl The real problem is that wind turbines are not a substitute for fossil energy.
-
Those who keep complaining that wind turbines do not work when the winds are not blowing, just realized that oil does not work when the Hormuz Strait is not open.
@randahl this should serve as major awakening
-
Those who keep complaining that wind turbines do not work when the winds are not blowing, just realized that oil does not work when the Hormuz Strait is not open.
Spot on!
-
Oil and natural gas provide feed stocks for much more than just diesel and petrol.
sour crude extracted in the region is a primary source of sulfur. sulfur is a feed stock for sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is a chemical that’s used to extract and refine copper, nickel, cobalt, and lithium. Oil is an input to a lot of products.
Natural gas and sulfur are also feed stocks for fertilizer.
The global supply chain is the risk
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @chris @randahl Exactly why it is so stupid to burn oil.
-
That's just crazy. Why, you would need some sort of super fusion reactor safely placed about 90 million miles away for that.
Oh.
@pseudonym @tootbrute @randahl No, no, that wouldn't work. You'd have to do wireless power transmission. You'd only get a tiny, tiny fraction of the produced power. Completely impractical.
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @chris @randahl Exactly why it is so stupid to burn oil.
Well, yes, no. It is stupid to burn a resource like this, but the stupidity comes from building an economy in this case of global supply chain that exists by eating the planet. It’s built on destroying some other part of the world for the benefit of a tiny few people.
The other way to look at it is that it is a particular choice of economic pathway which temporarily can benefit people, but it is designed to consume the planet and people
-
@pseudonym @tootbrute @randahl No, no, that wouldn't work. You'd have to do wireless power transmission. You'd only get a tiny, tiny fraction of the produced power. Completely impractical.
@sharif @pseudonym @tootbrute @randahl
What if … we gave eleventy bazillion dollars to Elon, to launch 42 million X-link satellites to completely enclose the reactor and capture all the radiated energy ?
-
Those who keep complaining that wind turbines do not work when the winds are not blowing, just realized that oil does not work when the Hormuz Strait is not open.
Point.
-
@sharif @pseudonym @tootbrute @randahl
What if … we gave eleventy bazillion dollars to Elon, to launch 42 million X-link satellites to completely enclose the reactor and capture all the radiated energy ?
@isol @pseudonym @tootbrute @randahl Sounds like a roll of the dice, unless they're AI-controlled.
-
Those who keep complaining that wind turbines do not work when the winds are not blowing, just realized that oil does not work when the Hormuz Strait is not open.
-
Those who keep complaining that wind turbines do not work when the winds are not blowing, just realized that oil does not work when the Hormuz Strait is not open.
@randahl It's a shame that in 2026 an old man attacked two countries for oil related reasons.
-
@randahl To be fair, wind turbines doesn't work when the winds are blowing too hard either.
They need "goldilocks-winds"
@martenbjorklund @randahl not really. They need anything from a light wind to just below hurricane. And when the wind isn't blowing, there's often sun, and when there's neither, grid-scale batteries are viable and cheap nowadays. (And that's not to include the parts of the world where thermal or hydroelectric or hydro storage or tidal generation is possible.)
-
@randahl The real problem is that wind turbines are not a substitute for fossil energy.
-
Those who keep complaining that wind turbines do not work when the winds are not blowing, just realized that oil does not work when the Hormuz Strait is not open.
@randahl Also wind turbines don't sink/catch on fire and cause mass environmental damage
-
Oil and natural gas provide feed stocks for much more than just diesel and petrol.
sour crude extracted in the region is a primary source of sulfur. sulfur is a feed stock for sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid is a chemical that’s used to extract and refine copper, nickel, cobalt, and lithium. Oil is an input to a lot of products.
Natural gas and sulfur are also feed stocks for fertilizer.
The global supply chain is the risk
@GhostOnTheHalfShell
Sulphur can be mined from geological deposits, it is a naturally occurring element. Taking it from oil is a choice.
Similar for fertilizer. Can be taken from natural products if we just do more on (re)use. But no, being wasteful is still cheaper in the short run.
@chris @randahl -
@randahl The real problem is that wind turbines are not a substitute for fossil energy.
@Globob @randahl
> that wind turbines are not a substituteAdd to this solar and in tandem they are. You can even fill up a tank of the combustion engine car with them. [1][2][3].
In Europe we have enough materials dumped to landfills as waste to build a storage facility with a capacity of over 1 TWh storage. Perpetual batteries technology that is (was) with us for more than 100 years. Was because they unearthed research from early forties of the past century that hinted them how to cripplle those batteries using Ca, Sn, and Al additives since 1975 or so (when the first oil prices peak endangered their bottom).
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7970114/ (open) CO₂ -> CH₄
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01314-8 (paywalled) CO₂ -> C₃H₈
[3] https://deltaliquidenergy.com/turning-the-tide-on-co2-emissions-the-path-to-renewable-propane/ [abstract of above] -
Well, yes, no. It is stupid to burn a resource like this, but the stupidity comes from building an economy in this case of global supply chain that exists by eating the planet. It’s built on destroying some other part of the world for the benefit of a tiny few people.
The other way to look at it is that it is a particular choice of economic pathway which temporarily can benefit people, but it is designed to consume the planet and people
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @chris @randahl We are of the same opinion.If humankind and all other life is seen as having a worth. You think twice (times 1000) about ruining it.
