Misleading headline: Fink said that "years of above $100, closer to $150 oil" would trigger recession. Which, well, duh, but it's quite different from the implication that even a momentary peak would trigger that.

I also do wonder if oil prices would actually stay high even if the Strait of Hormuz stayed closed for years. Many analysts think that as a planet we're already past peak oil demand, and the price spike has turbocharged the transition to EVs (where I live, every EV dealer is flat out and waiting times are months). High prices also spur more production from everybody else. The tricky bit is specialist fuels like jet fuel, where you can't just turn a tap to make more.

▲

BLKNSLVR 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Was looking at EVs last weekend, slightly accelerating a purchase that was going to be made soon anyway and, yep, there is plenty of additional interest as a result of current fuel prices / availability.

EVs were only going to grow in popularity anyway, but this feels like it's jumped the adoption curve up a peg or two immediately.

What I'm interested in seeing is whether infrastructure can scale with the additional interest. And I don't think it will because the the current government is already planning to add an "EV tax" to make up for the fuel excise, and the opposition government (if/when it gets back in) is owned by the fossil fuel lobby, and so they'll be doing whatever they can to slow it down.

▲

decimalenough 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The beauty of EVs is that the infrastructure is for most part very decentralized. Anybody with a house can charge at home, using cheap off-peak power at night and/or solar panels during the day.

Obviously there's work to be done on charging in apartments and highways, but this is a more tractable problem than (say) trying to double hydrogen or even gasoline filling stations overnight.

▲

ternus 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The infrastructure in question is DC fast chargers. Yes, you can charge at home if you have a house, with a parking space reachable with an EVSE, and your commute is short enough that you can fully recharge by the next commute, and nobody needs the car after hours when you'd otherwise be charging it, and you never take road trips or longer-than-usual drives.

Everyone else is, to a greater or lesser extent, at the mercy of the DCFC infrastructure, and it is sorely lacking in many places - even ones you'd expect it to be pretty good.

	▲	stephen_g 16 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Your picture is not an accurate picture of what it's like for most people - you frame the exceptions as if it's the normal case. Most people who have a driveway or garage where they can install an EVSE (or an apartment complex where the parking has chargers) don't even need to charge every day. Depending on the commute it could even be just two or three times a week. It would usually only be when your only option is trickle charging out of a standard wall outlet that you are in the 'might not be able to charge in time for the next drive' territory, not with EVSE where you can get 7 kW single phase or 11 kW three-phase with most cars (some cars can do up to 22 kW with three phase but that's rare for them to support that on AC charging and it would be rare to have an EVSE that could do that power at home).
	▲	adrianN 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		A 2kW socket for ten hours over night will give you a hundred kilometers of range or so. A regular 11kW wall box can fully charge your car over night. How long is the typical commute you're thinking about? Fast charging is pretty much irrelevant day-to-day for people who can plug in at home or at work. The only time these people need fast chargers is during road trips.
	▲	BLKNSLVR 17 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It is a good point. I'm in the privileged position that I have solar panels and can charge in the garage. I only just had a conversation with someone who was considering an EV, but their 'housing configuration' doesn't support it, it just wasn't feasible purely from a charging perspective in their situation. More public infrastructure, and knowledge of the presence of said infrastructure would open up EVs to a wider set of use cases. It's almost the 'confidence' in the suitability of EVs that needs to be worked on.
	▲	MatekCopatek 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		This is absolutely true, but IMO also a much smaller problem than some people are making it out to be. Without any special car-charging equipment, just with a regular outlet, I'm able to get over 100 miles of range every night (charging only from 11pm to 7am). This is enough for a pretty long daily commute and it doesn't block car use during normal hours. Big disclaimer - I'm from Europe, which helps my case because of shorter commutes and faster home charging with 220 volts. But at the end of the day I think the solution lies in equipping all parking spaces at home and at work with power outlets. DCFC is definitely needed, but should be viewed as a solution for exceptional cases (i.e. roadtrip that exceeds your range), not a gas station for EVs.
	▲	rayiner 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It’s hilarious that the greenies who live in dense urban areas have a harder time charging their EV than folks who live in the burbs. I’m thinking of putting in a second EV charger so I can charge two cars at once.

▲

BLKNSLVR 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Hah, yes, of course, I'm falling into the FUD trap.

What I meant to say was the kind of infrastructure that defeats some of the FUD around EVs, such as chargers at rest stops along highways, in parking lots, hotel/motel car parks, etc. Chargers could/should become a value-add for businesses that survive on servicing road-trip transient customers.

> Anybody with a house can charge at home, using cheap off-peak power at night and/or solar panels during the day.

Yes! This is decentralised, existing infrastructure, and that should neither be forgotten nor understated: the ubiquity of 'the lowly power point' is greater than that of the fuel nozzle (in complete awareness of the relatively large disparity between charging time and refueling time, which is a whole can of worms on its own).

▲

eucyclos 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Infrastructure for ev charging is a lot easier to add than gas stations though.

▲

whatever1 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Thousands and thousands of miles of high voltage cables transformers and super expensive chargers sounds easy to you?

A gas station just needs a tank and a pump. You can put it anywhere and can operate with a small generator if 110V electricity is not available. Even as a country you don’t need infra. Just some trucks to import from the closest refinery/ port

▲

BLKNSLVR 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, if you're rolling it out for a single charger in the middle of nowhere.

My understanding is that much of the grid already exists if there is a town or even just a rest stop present, it likely has grid power. I will grant that this doesn't speak to the suitability of said existing infrastructure for running one or a number of a high voltage / high speed chargers.

> Just some trucks to import from the closest refinery/ port

Driving thousands and thousands of miles.

▲

whatever1 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Vehicles will be visiting the gas station anyway ? Aka the road-like infrastructure will need to be there.

I do not try to claim that trucking fuel over long distances is efficient. Just stating that gas stations themselves need no additional infrastructure.

	▲	danaris 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mean, if you consider "building the whole gas station" to be the infrastructure, then sure, but building a gas station requires significantly more complex infrastructure than installing an EV charger or two. You need to install several specialized sealed tanks underground, and the pumps that will get the gas & diesel (and sometimes kerosene) in them up to the cars. You then need to be able to make secure, safe deliveries of highly flammable liquids to the site regularly, forever. Once an EV charger has been installed, it'll need occasional maintenance, and if some yahoos vandalize it it might need repair or replacement, but otherwise it's pretty much good to go, potentially for decades.

▲

eucyclos 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most of those cables are already in place and powered up for the existing power grid.

▲

gucci-on-fleek 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The majority of the oil currently produced is used in things other than consumer vehicles [0] [1] [2], so switching to EVs wouldn't completely solve the problem (although it would make a huge difference). Plus, ~20% of oil is used to make chemicals [1] [2], and there aren't really any feasible alternatives here, so we're going to continue to need lots of oil for the foreseeable future (but if we stop burning the other 80% of it, then that 20% should get a lot cheaper, and fully-domestic production might be possible).

[0]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...

[1]: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/oil-demand-by...

[2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming...

	▲	bryanlarsen 17 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Consumer vehicles are the single biggest use, though, and transportation in general is 62% by your first link. The biggest non-consumer transportation usage is trucks, and I expect them to electrify relatively quickly. Trucking is a low margin business and fuel is their biggest expense. > there aren't really any feasible alternatives here It's not feasible yet, but I really hope that carbon sequestration comes into play here. Plastic lasts a really long time, so turning CO2 into plastic is one way to go carbon negative.
	▲	danaris 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		There are already ways to make some of the chemicals (largely plastics) being made from petroleum derivatives using renewable sources, like vegetable oils. I don't pretend to know much about the details—at any level—so I don't know if it's feasible to come up with bio-based replacements for all the derivatives if the economics shift to support it, but it's at least something worth looking into.
	▲	fragmede 17 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		it's used to make plastic, which has its own set of pros and cons.

▲

diogenescynic 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They're destroying oil production and distribution capacity daily. This is likely the last time we will see oil prices this low. It's only going up from here. Oh and choking off the supply of fertilizer will drive up food prices... so we're looking at sharp increases in fuel and food prices--basically everything will be impacted. Oh and the Valero refinery in Texas conveniently caught fire today. Prices are going up and staying there. Supply chains will be destroyed and Iran will require a toll to be paid in the future--this will further drive prices up.

▲

jmyeet 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The impact of the Strait of Hormuz being closed goes well beyond oil. Here are a few off the top of my head:

- Qatar produces 20-33% of the world's helium;

- The supply chain for ~30 of the world's fertilizer relies upon supply chains going through the Strait of Hormuz. How do you feel about 10-20% food inflation?

- ~20% of the world's LNG passes through the STrait. Let's see how that bites come (NOrthern Hemisphere) winter;

- Many Asian countries are wholly reliant on Gulf oil for electricity and fuel; and

- Roughly ~20% of California's oil comes from Iraq. The US is the world's largest single oil and gas producer but that doesn't really matter when California has blocked any pipelines into the state such that ~75% of their oil arrives by ship.

Oil demand to a point is fairly inelastic but once you get beyond about $120-130 you start getting into destructive demand. Fuel prices really spike and in many places, it's going to severely disrupt electricity.

There are many fuel usages for which we have no alternative, namely shipping and aviation. Oh and a lot of heavy machinery and industrial uses of diesel.

Additionally, there are significant (at least 25% of the total) non-energy uses. Construction, plastic, roads, etc.

Weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels is a decades-long project and only China really is trying to do that. I suspect only China has the long-term supply chains, willpower and commitment to pull off that kind of national project.

▲

BLKNSLVR 17 hours ago | parent [-]

The main thing that worries me about the use of fossil fuels is the heavy machinery where said heavy machinery is used for farming food.

There are service stations in rural Victoria that have run out of petrol[0]. If farmers can't run their machines, I don't want to continue that train of thought. I would hope that governments would obviously prioritise food production and distribution over, kinda everything else, but logic and government seem to have a strange relationship.

[0]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-24/victorian-petrol-stat...

▲

decimalenough 15 hours ago | parent [-]

They're run out of fuel for the same reason we ran out of TP during COVID: hoarding, not lack of supply.

	▲	BLKNSLVR 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That is true. What is also true is that media has been saying both: - Don't panic buy, we've got plenty - We'll start running out in mid-April. So, unlike TP during COVID, which can be manufactured locally, there is a dark cloud on the horizon and precious little to encourage any optimism regarding the Strait of Hormuz.