Major oil slick washes up on Iran coast after Hormuz ship strike(www.bbc.com)
31 pointsby binyuan hour ago4 comments
  • acdha20 minutes ago
    In addition to being cheaper, you never hear about a massive sun or wind spill and the prices never change due to events thousands of miles away.
    • ben_w12 minutes ago
      Onion headlines aside*, we kinda do? This summer's European heatwave is due to emissions worldwide**; while the historical record has the early emissions from Europe, all the other inhabited continents have also contributed to it since then.

      * https://theonion.com/solar-power-investment-skyrockets-upon-...

      ** There's also a big El Niño event, the Wikipedia page on the heatwave currently expressly denies that this contributed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_European_heatwaves

      • dyzone7 minutes ago
        > Onion headlines aside

        Well technically speaking crude oil is a form of solar energy. (Sun -> plants -> animals -> crude oil)

        • MikeNotThePope4 minutes ago
          What energy sources do we have that don't ultimately derive from either solar of radioactive decay? Residual heat from object formation perhaps.
          • _joel3 minutes ago
            Gravity, just ask Jupiters' Moons.
        • x______________a minute ago
          Isn't solar derived from nuclear fusion?

          Nukes for the win!

    • binyu4 minutes ago
      Yep, that's one of the reasons it is called "green" energy. On top of renewability, the environmental impact of production is radically different from fossil fuels.
    • mhh__7 minutes ago
      The prices do change because (many, at least) renewable projects are subsidised via CFD schemes and so on and atop of that are selling into a spot market that may (it varies) pay them more than what they offer into the market.

      It's wonderful technology, the sun is god and so on, but we can't run everything on bursty renewables.

    • andsoitis8 minutes ago
      Oil is used for a lot more than power generation.
      • Symbiote5 minutes ago
        28% is used for petrochemicals and "other".

        The rest is for energy, mostly for transport.

    • ekianjo16 minutes ago
      good luck building solar without having any petrol or plastics derived from petrol in the supply chain
      • savolai12 minutes ago
        Also see: black and white or false dilemma fallacy
      • ben_w3 minutes ago
        Oh no, turns out that even if we stop burning oil we still need 6% of it for plastics, clearly this means there's no environmental benefit to reducing how much we ship by 94%, and we can't possibly for example move the plastic production to where the oil comes from so what we ship isn't crude and oh look people are already genetically modifying bacteria to produce oils suitable for various of the huge range of things in the category "plastic", which is such a broad range of things that saying anything about the whole lot in one go is a bit like saying "eat more fruit" when you mean "you are short of vitamin C specifically", oh wait hang on a minute…
      • ThrowawayTestr11 minutes ago
        It's a good thing we burn all these precious hydrocarbons, less microplastics in the environment.
    • indiantrains16 minutes ago
      [dead]
    • epolanski18 minutes ago
      Electricity cost is pegged to energy cost and wars happening on the other end of the planet influence it directly.

      That includes renewables.

  • CrzyLngPwdan hour ago
    Just one of the many unintended consequences of the USA and Israel attacking Iran.
  • redsocksfan45an hour ago
    [dead]
  • throw1234567891an hour ago
    Business is business.