· 93 comments · Save ·
Questions & Help Mar 16, 2026 at 1:27 PM

Japan begins unilateral oil reserve release amid Iran crisis

Posted by sr_local

https://english.kyodonews.net/articles/-/72336
🚩 Report this post

93 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
SwiftCEO Mar 16, 2026 +121
Being so reliant on oil is a national security risk. We should be minimizing our reliance through cleaner energy alternatives.
121
noseshimself Mar 16, 2026 -15
> Being so reliant on oil is a national security risk. ... if you don't have any. If you happen to sit on the stuff, it's an asset to enslave those who don't. One day we'll all find out that the Russian war against Ukraine was manufactured by the USA to get the pipeline from Russia to Germany blown up by some stupid tools to save the hegemony (once we said "the simplest answer has to be the truth" but these days it's more of a "they probably chose the most stupid and inefficient method" time and conspiracy theories are just not outlandish enough). Producing sufficient energy on your own is a safety measure every govenment has to implement asap but most still refuse (see Germany's Gas-Kathi).
-15
Schrodinger_cube Mar 16, 2026 +436
Im suprised Japan does not have a more aggressive EV program. Like all these kcars i see for sale have such low mileage, you need to have a parking spot to buy a car and keep it registered in Japan. If Thay had solar panel equipped car ports they could basically drive for free. Edit. Its been a while but car ports to protect there cars from the sun and rain were really common already.
436
Baltarstar-Galactica Mar 16, 2026 +259
Imagine if Toyota invested in and changed direction to EVs the same way brands like BYD did years ago. I hope this'll be a wake up call for Japan to improve EV infrastructure.
259
lostredditorlurking Mar 16, 2026 +199
Toyota was extremely anti-EV and instead focused on their hydrogen car and hybrid, so they lobby against adoption of EV
199
No_Sheepherder_1855 Mar 16, 2026 +94
Second only to oil companies in spending against global earming initiatives btw
94
gospdrcr000 Mar 16, 2026 +24
When you can put out motors that are extremely powerful yet efficient, why change with the times? - some CEO somewhere
24
NorwegianCollusion Mar 17, 2026 +8
But the thing is, they did the work silently in the background while lobbying against converting too soon, and while Toyota now have a full lineup of cars, all the brands that were early in switching over are seeing much slower sales than expected. So I think they honestly did something right this time. I've been saying for years that Tesla being valued higher than Toyota makes zero sense, and now Toyota has 4 EV models, compared to Teslas 5 (of which 2 are going out of production and 1 was a complete flop).
8
equitymans Mar 20, 2026 +1
The Toyota ev are literally bottom of the market. Not to mention imagine telling the founders of these industrial Japanese giants that they'd be relying on Chinese and Korean cells and packaging designs for batteries... the literal fuel tank analogs of the entire future of consumer propulsion vehicles. The upcoming highlander they announced is not only a 3 row suv that should have MORE power etc than a Tesla model 3... and yet it has 300... vs 500.... the range is also less than a model y.... it costs more than both by quite a margin. If Tesla did a ground up 3 row today it could cost the same and have a spec sheet range, fun and efficiency wise that would shame a Toyota highlander 😂 Tesla also has the lowest cost for battery production outside of China by far. They just opened the largest lithium refinery in NA history as well. They have arguably the best in house design for cells, prob the best for packing still, and around tied for top motors which are fully in house as well. The other relies on foreign drivetrain components for their ev line mostly lol I sold Tesla in may of 2020... I agree it got too ahead of itself by miles investment wise. But make no mistake ev wise? They are in a better spot still than Toyota. I mean maybe you can argue the trump stuff is a risk but I think even that is blowing over. People will typically start buying the best car for the best value on mass. The best selling car the last year was arguably still the model y haha
1
NorwegianCollusion Mar 20, 2026 +1
Again: What IS it with Americans and needing 500+ Hp to go to the drive-through at McDonalds? A 1957 Belair came with an absolute max of 220 Hp from a 283 cubic inch V8. My Model 3 SR+ has 280Hp. That is plenty sporty enough for hauling kids to school. But to be fair I hadn't even heard about a Highlander. I was just talking about what is available right now from Toyota, in Europe.
1
equitymans Mar 20, 2026 +1
I'm Canadian 😂 but I guess you'll say potato potatoe to that! One... fun....? What's wrong with ever having MORE fun on board? lol But the reason I said it was because said power shows the engineering capability through price etc in being able to offer higher spec motors (in house btw lol) is just further evidence of cost savings throughout vs Toyota lol also considering Tesla sells for a true profit, and Toyota highlander will at best be a 5% gross margin vehicle for Toyota... it's simply to keep competing and not fall too far back on lithium based products lol it's a foot in the door. So think of just the cost diff for both engineering teams!
1
NeZha888 Mar 17, 2026 +6
Realistically anyone who makes the jump to ev is starting from scratch against very talented competition and developed supply chains. I think it’s more likely that as EV becomes more successful legacy car manufacturers will eventually fade away.
6
wha2les Mar 16, 2026 +7
also the tech was also not as mature to reach the wider public. If solid state battery delivers on promises, i can see toyota jumping in more.
7
GabeIsGone Mar 17, 2026 +1
Definition of sunk cost fallacy. Toyota’s stubbornness really hurt them here. Hydrogen has more potential industrial use cases than with consumers.
1
artbystorms Mar 16, 2026 +36
Toyota and Japan bet on hybrids and plug-in hybrids. Up until this year they WERE selling better in Japan and US than full EVs, especially due to a lack of EV infastructure. Everyone is just acting like 'they should have known!' now that oil is $100 a barrel.
36
Baltarstar-Galactica Mar 16, 2026 +13
The word is not just Japan and US. US is not a good metric to compare. Plenty of other countries have impressive ev sales and infrastructure, some of them being middle or lower income developing countries. Also their bet on hybrids (I believe a lot of them are still mild hybrids though i'm not sure) are causing them to lose sales in markets like middle east,aus,nz, SE asia etc... to chinese EVs.
13
artbystorms Mar 16, 2026 +10
Because those countries put effort into building out their infrastructure. Also, why would a Japanese company spend money and research to make products that aren't going to sell well in Japan or the US when those are its two biggest markets?
10
equitymans Mar 20, 2026 +1
It's ironically people like you precisely that caused Japan's downfall that they've never come out of since 89... 😂
1
jamar030303 Mar 17, 2026 +3
Well, considering this isn't the *first* time oil hit over $100 a barrel, yeah.
3
wrosecrans Mar 17, 2026 +2
And even if we hadn't gone to war with Iran this year, it's not like it would have been _that_ long before oil got impractically expensive for some reason or another. Every barrel that gets pumped out of the ground means the next barrel will be a little harder and more expensive to get at, and the less places we have to get it from the next time the supply gets disrupted. That's just not a sustainable long term plan. Even lots of industry-optimistic predictions of peak oil suggested peak oil would almost certainly happen by the 2030's, so we are looking at a long term downward trend for output of the oil industry no matter how much car manufacturers try to keep us dependent on it. The average car on the road is ~12 years old, so most cars will last ~2x average age before they get scrapped. So any car you buy today is probably going to be driven around in oil prices after 2050. You'd be belligerently nuts to have thought that oil would never hit $100 on that timescale.
2
NorwegianCollusion Mar 17, 2026 +1
But they have done that. WHILE vigorously claiming that Hydrogen is the future. It was very strange.
1
Unlikely-Emphasis-26 Mar 16, 2026 -6
I hope Japan reads your wake up call, because otherwise I fear the worst.
-6
Baltarstar-Galactica Mar 16, 2026 +9
Sure I'll phone in the prime minister right now! /s lol i meant the oil crisis as the wake up call not my comment haha
9
Unlikely-Emphasis-26 Mar 16, 2026 +3
Hahaha no worries I gotcha the first time, but I had a little giggle thinking how it would be.
3
hekatonkhairez Mar 16, 2026 +55
Honestly, Japanese ICE manufacturers just don’t want to have to pivot and dedicate capital to EV production / infrastructure . It’s the same reason why American ICE manufacturers suck too.
55
IntoTheCommonestAsh Mar 16, 2026 +14
Sorry, what does ICE stand for in this context?
14
SomeDEGuy Mar 16, 2026 +52
Internal Combustion Engine
52
IntoTheCommonestAsh Mar 16, 2026 +7
Thanks, google was no help whatsoever.
7
SomeDEGuy Mar 16, 2026 +8
No problem. Always willing to help someone learn.
8
Schrodinger_cube Mar 16, 2026 +2
Right, i wish Thay would make a simple ev that doesn't have the mass of a commercial truck but they even stopped the electric smart car.
2
Dragull Mar 16, 2026 +3
I mean, the engine represents like 35% of the car's work/technology. Pivot to EV would force a layoff of 30% of the current workforce, and huge chunk of the costs are the batteries, whose technology is not dominated by them, nor are so easily available, so their profit margins would reduce a lot. And if they still need raw materials or batteries from China, they are still vulnerable.
3
Diashocks Mar 16, 2026 +46
Because it’s Japan, culturally ingrained to risk aversion, consensus-driven decision-making, and seniority-based work reporting. Good for doing one thing to perfection. The bad is that changes occur very slowly.
46
b1argg Mar 16, 2026 +12
Toyota and Mazda were/are very adverse to EVs. Toyota continued to go hard on hybrids and Mazda worked on pushing ICE fuel efficiency as high as they possibly could. 
12
noseshimself Mar 16, 2026 +1
I've heard the dinosaurs developed this policy and perfected it.
1
Beafybrian Mar 16, 2026 +5
Crocodile have entered the chat
5
Mefibosheth Mar 16, 2026 +3
Japan had the first Hydrogen car, and I think the mindset was very much that battery technology still had a long way to go and that solar and wind can be a bit iffy with Japanese seasons. When battery tech did "get there", Toyota and Honda were already pretty invested in Hydrogen and it sort of caught them by surprise. In their defense, hydrogen fuel cells are really incredible, but because of the infrastructure investment it generally makes more sense use them for public transportation than civilian vehicles. In any case, Japan never experienced the aggressive build-out of charging stations that California and Northern Europe experienced that allowed for widespread EV proliferation.
3
razorgoto Mar 17, 2026 +1
I have never been to japan. But my understanding is that they also never did the aggressive build-out of hydrogen fueling stations either. So if they did neither electric or hydrogen infra, doesn’t that mean that they chose petrol by inaction?
1
TawakeMono Mar 17, 2026 +3
The problem is the power grid, and power production. Every summer Tokyo has problems providing enough power to make sure people can have air conditioning at home. Some nuclear power plants are slowly getting tuned on again, and now all new homes in Tokyo need to have at least some solar panels… but it won’t really help that much.
3
vanillabullshitlatte Mar 16, 2026 +6
You sort of answered your question in your 2nd sentence. Avg Japanese drive extremely low km compared to many other nations. If you only put 5000miles/year on your car then the gas savings go way down compared to a country that averages 2-3 times that. With such a low mileage you are better off with the cheaper car and convenience of gas. The more serious situation of the shortage for Japan is on the industrial side.
6
Stormthorn67 Mar 16, 2026 +5
Japan is subject to a lot of storms and earthquakes. EVs become stranded quickly when power grids fail so people prefer hybrids in Japan.
5
Kruxf Mar 16, 2026 +1
Honda just canceled their 0 lineup.
1
MeatballRonald Mar 17, 2026 +1
They did market research that told them consumers would not like EVs. And they were right, five years ago projections were people would all be transitioned by now. Instead the big builders of EVs have lagged behind in the market. And the ones who went all in got killed by Chinese imports. 
1
kilimtilikum Mar 16, 2026 +1
Japan not really known for innovative or ‘forward thinking’ these days.
1
Goldie1822 Mar 16, 2026
There are lots of EVs in Japan. Could be more, sure. About half of taxis are nowadays in Tokyo. You’ll see Teslas often in the streets. Should have clarified that domestic manufacturing could be better but in fact Japan has lots and lots of EVs and the public embraces it. And AI too. It’s weird, some new tech things are welcome (e.g. EVs and AI) and other antiquated tech is here to stay like the Fax.
0
Weird-Knowledge84 Mar 16, 2026 +10
In 2025 a whooping 1.6% of cars sold in Japan were EVs. Yeah, "lots" indeed. https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20260114_B4/
10
The-Car-Guy Mar 17, 2026 +2
You might be confusing EVs and hybrids. From my time living in Kansai and my few visits to Tokyo, I can't recall many pure EV taxis. Majority of the taxis in Tokyo that I saw were Toyota JPN Taxis (hybrids) and Crowns. In Kyoto, most were older Crown Comforts (pure petrol) or a handful of mixed hybrids. The only EV taxis I recall from my time there were a handful of BMW i7s in Kyoto.
2
PutinsRustedPistol Mar 16, 2026 +467
We need to get the f*** off of oil *in general.* It makes a mess, is prone to bullshit pricing and collusion, wrecks the atmosphere, and has empowered one of the most dysfunctional parts of the world to be even more dysfunctional.
467
miserybusiness21 Mar 16, 2026 +66
We are, realistically, centuries away from freeing ourselves of oil dependence. Next to fire, antiseptics, antibiotics, and vaccines, oil is the most important discovery in human history. The applications go far beyond combustion and lubrication. There is no viable replacement for oil in the vast majority of its uses that can be produced at scale or cheaply. We do need to figure out a solution. But it won't occur in the lifetime of anyone alive today. (If any chemical engineers or research scientists want to chime in with news to the contrary, it would be greatly appreciated)
66
beefstake Mar 16, 2026 +40
We can pretty easily get off of it for most energy purposes at least and that will free up most of the oil to be used for more important things. i.e we should be saving the precious limited resource for things we can't do another way, i.e jet fuel and plastics and not wasting it on pushing little cars around which can be done with super recyclable batteries that can be remade with almost no material losses.
40
iiKb Mar 16, 2026 +12
I thought the whole oil cracking process produced the entire spectrum of products, so even if we stopped using oil for fuel we would still be producing that fuel because we would be cracking oil for the other products (like lubrication, fertilizer etc…) Our entire way of life revolves around the products produced by oil.  
12
astralustria Mar 16, 2026 +5
Fuels are what is cracked to make plastic. So yes the process does always involve making substances, at least for a moment, that can be used as fuels, but those are what get turned into everything else.
5
Zealousideal_Cow_341 Mar 17, 2026 +1
This is an even better reason to stop using the finite supply we have for combustion when modern technology has given us all the alternatives we need
1
Strong-Log-7095 Mar 16, 2026 +8
The solution to the crisis of the middle east is not war, sanctions, coalitions, or anything we have tried for the past 50 years or so. The solution to the crisis is a massive moon-shot to force adoption of EV's and a complete modernization of the energy infrastructure to build large nuclear plants for base load and supplement them with wind, solar, and geothermal for marginal needs and to reduce the total number of nuclear plants required. Renewables are a key component but are not effecient or reliable enough in all conditions to meet all base load need. Oil is a drug and we are addicted. Rather than kick the habit we spend all our time and money trying to either reduce the price of the drug we can't kick so we can have more of it or periodically robbing the drug dealers of the drug when they threaten to stop selling it to us or raise the price. I will vote for the first recovered heroin addict to run for president because that person knows what it actually takes to get off drugs. Everyone else's solution to being addited to drugs always focuses on how to get more of the drug for less money.
8
AWanderingMage Mar 16, 2026 +50
I agree. So what alternative do you have ready to swap in to replace it at the same availability, ease of use, and equivalent functionality? Because as much as I agree with what you are saying, we don't have anything that can replace it at scale yet. And just stopping its use would destroy society and how our systems function as we know it.
50
thehorseyourodeinon1 Mar 16, 2026 +113
The US quitting renewables cold Turkey as of recent is a move in the wrong direction. Diversification of energy sources was a good thing.
113
AWanderingMage Mar 16, 2026 +25
Not only from an environmental standpoint but a cost reduction as well, I completely agree. We should be leading in that space and pouring millions if not billions into that tech so we get the most market cap we can for it.
25
GrinchWhoStoleEaster Mar 16, 2026 +6
From a national security position as well. The more diversified we are, the less leverage any oil producing nation has over us. That may never be zero, but the smaller that percentage of foreign reliance is the better. Republicans are so duplicitous, crybabying about mUh GlOaBuLiSuM and then destroying our renewable energy programs which throws us right back into the claws of globalized energy interests.
6
korinth86 Mar 16, 2026 +21
In the US we could have continued down the path of EVs, electrification, solar/wind/battery, to at least stop burning fuels. Pair that with some nuke where infrastructure requires uninterrupted power or high temp industrial processes. There is a ton of tech that is mature enough to fill power and transportation needs. We'll still need oil for a lot of others stuff but stopping the burning of fossil fuels is a great start.
21
AWanderingMage Mar 16, 2026 -1
I don't disagree. However, all I'm saying is that until there are viable alternatives to replace burning of fossil fuels in each particular industry or use case, we arent going to quit it cold turkey without something that can replace it right now. We do need nuclear power plants, preferable molten salt ones imho, and I'd would love to see massive investments to bring battery power and charging stations across the country, but its not there yet, and until the infrastructure is in place, we won't make the full switch.
-1
korinth86 Mar 16, 2026 +9
No one is saying to stop cold turkey. There are viable replacements for most uses of buring fuels...
9
AWanderingMage Mar 16, 2026 -7
Most, but not all. And transportation and logitlstics is one of them. So until there is we really can't switch without catastrophic upheaval in society. And original comment was alluding to quitting cold turkey so as much as I support the idea, I'm just being realistic sadly.
-7
Dickle_Pizazz Mar 16, 2026 +3
Almost all economic and infrastructure transitions are gradual. Look at China for a good model. Their 30/60 plan increases fossil fuel use until it peaks in 2030 in order to maximize production of renewables and nuclear to reach net zero emissions by 2060. This is not just for ecological, but economic and security reasons as well. (And before anyone chimes in with their human rights abuses or any other evils they do, I know all about them. This is just an example of a planned transformation in action)
3
AWanderingMage Mar 16, 2026 -1
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So yeah, we can take inspiration (or jealous insight depending on your point of view) on what others are doing and use that to spur us to action. Of course it would require the current administration to charge about renewable, but that is an entirely different argument to make than just agreeing on them.
-1
jmartin21 Mar 16, 2026 +1
Hence them saying ‘not cold turkey,’ meaning not all at once
1
NorwegianCollusion Mar 17, 2026 +1
The three main uses cases for fossil fuel which are hard to electrify are: Global shipping. Leisure boats and short distance ferries are there already. Not sure whether biofuels would work for a huge container vessel originally built for heavy fuel oil, but the biggest hurdle will probably be to get this market to stop using a c**** byproduct to begin with. Agriculture. A tractor plowing a field all day can use biofuels, but not a battery. Airplanes. Can use biofuels here also, though. Right now we're using biofuels for personal vehicles, if these were all (or most) converted to electricity then the biofuels would be plentiful for those few remaining use cases. The other huge consumers of fossil fuels are fertilizer, metal and cement production, all of which simply requires heat, which can come from both electricity and solar concentrators. Of course, some metal refining requires coal to bind the oxygen in the minerals, but this could also come from renewable sources if we really wanted to. E.g. biochar.
1
biggsteve81 Mar 16, 2026 -4
If we ignore absolutely everything else about it, coal is also an option for domestic energy in the US. Edit: to be clear, this is absolutely NOT a pro-coal statement.
-4
HankisDank Mar 16, 2026 +4
Natural gas is so dirt c**** compared to coal that we’re just not gonna see meaningful growth in coal generation, save for a few regional plants where AI data centers are saving some coal plants that haven’t been converted to natural gas. The shift away from coal wasn’t due to successful environmental policy. Fracking and the shale revolution have just made natural gas so c**** that the economics of coal don’t make sense in terms of building out new capacity or renovating aging infrastructure. Though AI power usage may keep existing plants in business for a while longer than they otherwise would have stayed in operation.
4
biggsteve81 Mar 16, 2026 +1
As I said, if we ignore everything else about it, coal is a viable source of energy. In reality it isn't.
1
korinth86 Mar 16, 2026 +3
NG is a better option than coal but I'd rather see nuke replace both.
3
PutinsRustedPistol Mar 16, 2026 +16
No, stopping cold turkey is completely unrealistic. So is the idea that there is no room for oil. It’s going to be here for a very long time. But I would love to see a far heavier emphasis on nuclear power.
16
hpark21 Mar 16, 2026 +7
Start by replacing slowly all those "ethanol" bound corn field to solar farm. About 40% of corn produced in US is for ethanol, it would be FASTER and probably cheaper long term to replace energy infrastructure with solar production than adding ethanol into fuel oil to "reduce cost". This has potential to offset electricity rates thus "promote EV infrastructure" by enticing more people to turn to EV. No, we are not going to get rid of crude oil production any time soon. Airplanes probably will still need jet fuel and only thing I can think of that can replace jet fuel probably is hydrogen but I do not know when/if we can get there anytime soon. Still, just trying to move away from fossil fuel electricity generation will probably provide us with enough breathing room to reduce dependency. Also, reduce red tape regarding private solar infrastructure like balcony solar. Even if just 1.2kw/h is reduced per home, it will lower the generation/transmission need for residences by at least 15-20% (Assuming about 3kwh/day generation - VERY pessimistic - with most households using about 20Kwh per day)
7
little_jiggles Mar 16, 2026 +1
The best solution would be one where you swap out your empty EV car battery for a fully charged one at the local service station. But that would require an insane amount of cooperation through regulation.
1
AWanderingMage Mar 16, 2026 +2
I'm not sure i agree with this. For starters this would require a massive increase in the amount of batteries to be constructed well beyond what is needed for EVs to begin with and then there is the fact you would need them to be fully standardized as well across every vehicle make and model and that is an uphill battle not many people want. Then you'd have to have a mechanic do the actual swap every time you want to refill a battery which only adds time to the process because there is no way I trust the average person to be able or comfortable handling high voltage power connections or making sure that new battery is latched in and safely secure while driving. No, I think the better option is to invest in fast charging or capacitive charging and working on batteries types that can handle more power being put into them rather clean changing them out.
2
Gamer_Grease Mar 16, 2026
EVs are already there, they just need public investment for infrastructure. The entire West could whittle away civilian ICE vehicles to a tiny niche within 5 years.
0
AWanderingMage Mar 16, 2026 +2
I may be woefully behind on my understanding of EVs but we do not have the kind of range or speed at recharging needed for semi trucks to be able to have a 1 to 1 switch out feasibility right now. Sure, the average person could trade out the ICE vehicle for an EV today and not have any issues, but the issue comes in regards to transportation of goods at the scale we do. Until there is a viable EV semitruck that can do what ICE does with very little difference in capability, corporations won't make the change, especially not without the infrastructure. So those two things need to happen prior to gas semis being traded in.
2
Gamer_Grease Mar 16, 2026
We can work on that while we shift people making grocery runs and trips to work to EVs. Every little bit helps. But the fossil fuel interests will always hold up every isolated problem as a reason for why the whole thing must fail. This is unfortunately not at all negotiable. We will run out of petroleum eventually. We will have to start making very hard choices before then. The fewer of us driving ICEs at that time, the easier the decisions will be.
0
Electric_jungle Mar 16, 2026 +1
The problem is that everyone needs to separately be trying to remove themselves from the 'grid'. Nuclear coming back, solar, ev all of that. I'm not too sure how you replace it in shipping, but certainly a problem that could be solved, especially if the cost of pulling oil is suddenly not worth it anymore dude to all the other use cases being removed. So yes, huge problem to solve globally. But countries can still reduce their reliance.
1
pablocael Mar 16, 2026 +2
Well, Trump wants to leverage oil and coal. Hes speedrunning in the exact opposite direction of where we should be going. Meanwhile, China is investing massively into new nuclear plant models, safer and more efficient.
2
NefariousLizardz Mar 16, 2026 +2
The best way we can reduce our dependence is to move away from using cars so much. We need public transport and to stop living in the suburbs.
2
imaginary_num6er Mar 16, 2026 +4
Let's start making medical devices using leather, rubber, and glass
4
Loggerdon Mar 17, 2026 +1
95% of the oil Japan uses travels through the Strait of Hormuz. This release of oil from their reserves is a big deal. If things don’t get fixed in 4-6 months Japan is in a LOT of trouble.
1
CarlThe94Pathfinder Mar 16, 2026 +1
But then how would the Oil Industry continue to dominate the world?
1
BrandenWi Mar 16, 2026 +30
Cleaning up after Donald's mess...
30
SuspiciousStable9649 Mar 16, 2026 +18
Why is everyone releasing oil if Iran is… releasing oil?
18
adheretohospitality Mar 16, 2026 +21
It's a bit misleading. The oil the US released for instance, often times the "over 120 days" part is left out, and the comparison of what they are releasing is equivalent to 4 days worth of oil. Over 120 days, so like 4% of daily use every day. It's nothing, hardly even a bandaid.
21
digiorno Mar 16, 2026 +14
If it wasn’t global warming then this should be a wake up call for all nations to push renewable infrastructure development. If Japan were running on electricity then they wouldn’t be as fucked as they are right now. And their reserves would be going to make polymers instead of fuel, and they’d last way longer. Hell they could switch to organically derived polymers too, such as those made from seaweed.
14
noseshimself Mar 16, 2026 -9
> If Japan were running on electricity Japan *is* running on electricity. Betting the house on nuclear power plants which tend to explode from time to time (devastating the heart of Japanese vegetable production in the process) was the mistake. Now that they are not powering adequately, Jaüpan has to buy oil and gas to replace them. It's the typical link between industry and politics in Japan. Tepco was defining energy policy and nuclear security regulations (by running half the ministry) and when disaster struck they did not have a plan B.
-9
PacketFiend Mar 16, 2026 +6
If you think coal and gas plants don't also explode from time to time, I have a bridge to sell you.
6
noseshimself Mar 16, 2026 -1
Fertilizer plants (and transports) are much worse than anything that happened to a gas/oil/coal power plant yet. And I strongly believe that the clean-up efforts at Chernobyl and Fukushima were slightly more complex than even the problems they had with that and left little long-term damage.
-1
Noloxy Mar 16, 2026 +2
tend to explode from time to time?
2
Seik64 Mar 17, 2026 +3
Dude doesn’t know anything. Probably doesn’t even know that coal power is more radioactive than nuclear. And it isn’t as safely stored as nuclear.
3
JshBld Mar 18, 2026 +1
If we prioritize EV then what about my vroom vroom olympics waking people at night after hard day’s work🥺👉👈
1
Thin-Theory-4805 Mar 16, 2026 -3
Folks commenting on Japan EV program need to understand. Japs went with Hybrid & H2 as the state approach towards technology progression, they didn't invest money into EV, cuz they invested all the money into Hybrid & H2 engines. I am not sure about H2, but i think they were right about EV. Hybrid is the way to go.
-3
← Back to Board