Brent crude jumped 10 per cent to about $80 US a barrel over the counter on Sunday, oil traders said, while analysts predicted that prices could climb as high as $100 US after U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran plunged the Middle East into ​a new war.

The global oil benchmark has rallied this ​year and reached $73 US a barrel on Friday for its highest since July, buoyed by growing concern over the potential attacks that arrived a day later. Futures ​trading is closed over the weekend.

“While the military attacks are themselves supportive ⁠for oil prices, the key ⁠factor here is the closing of the ‌Strait of Hormuz,” said Ajay Parmar, director of energy and refining at ICIS.

  • Auli
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Depends where you are. Electrify can be fossil fuel.

    • Pyr
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Even so, it’s still healthier for everyone to have a single giant combustion engine producing electricity in a remote area instead of millions of tiny combustion engines spread out throughout entire cities and residential areas polluting the streets and neighbourhoods.

      Easier to deploy other technologies like carbon capture, etc.

    • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      That’s a pretty reductive take, and doesn’t really account for how emissions are generated.

      I don’t disagree that burning fossil fuels to generate electrical power doesn’t happen, nor that it’s not great for the environment (coal in particular is evil in that it contains radioactive particles that get concentrated in the waste ash — decommissioned coal plants are more radioactive than decommissioned nuclear plants).

      However, your take misses these basic facts:

      1. Power plants are giant buildings that can burn fuel at extremely high temperatures, and which can burn that fuel right at peak efficiency. They extract the maximum amount of energy from the fuel, and thus produce more energy per emission. You can’t do that in something the size of a passenger vehicle.
      2. EVs are roughly 95% efficient. ICE vehicles are typically under 30% efficient (although HEVs can get up to 35% efficient). So for every kWh your fossil fuel power plant generates, EVs are going to be able to use it with very high efficiency. Coupled with #1 above you ultimately burn less fuel in your power plant to get the same amount of motive power than you would with an ICE vehicle.
      3. While I’m not personally a “true believer” in the technology, a fossil fuel based power plant could theoretically implement carbon capture technology to reduce their pollution output. You can’t do this in an ICE vehicle.
      4. And most importantly, when your power utility eventually phases out their fossil fuel based power plant, and ideally replaces it with green energy production, your EV gets that upgrade for free, whereas an ICE based vehicle will still need to burn fossil fuels.
      5. Lastly — I can generate my own clean electricity at home. I can buy a pallet of solar panels that can generate 10kWh of power for around $5k. I can never make my own gasoline at home.

      FWIW, I live in a jurisdiction where the electrical supply is 85 - 90% green already (primarily hydroelectric, with wind and solar) — so your concern doesn’t apply to me personally. However, even in jurisdictions that are burning 100% coal for their power, driving an EV is still overall better for the environment over driving an ICE vehicle.