Arab oil boycott would have resulted in a real breakthrough in renewable energies

[the Israeli Stalin]

In 1973, the Arab oil boycott broke out against the Western countries, and actually resulted in damage to Israel's foreign relations. What would have happened in a different reality, where the Arab oil boycott would have resulted in a real breakthrough in renewable energies? Two weeks after his election to the presidency, President Gerald Ford declares that the US and the Western countries must not rely on Arab oil, and that action must be taken both to expand the construction of nuclear power plants and to intensively develop the sun. The wind. Energy.

In the negotiations between Israel and Egypt, the Americans demand that the oil in the Gulf of Suez remain under Israeli control, as part of a "package of punitive measures" for Arab countries. As an alternative, the Americans pressure Israel to evacuate the Gidi and Mitella crossings. The demand causes an uproar in Israel and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin resigns.

The elected Prime Minister, Yigal Alon, takes a hawkish approach and insists on keeping the IDF forces deployed in the cease-fire positions. After long and exhausting negotiations, a redeployment 5 km east of the canal is achieved. The Egyptians renew international shipping in the canal (although not at the same time, Alon orders the acceleration of the development of the "sea" city. Attempts by extreme right-wing groups to establish settlements on the back of the mountain are rebuffed with a heavy hand, and the government announces a ban on settlements in territories not intended for annexation to Israel according to The principles of the "Alon Plan".

Despite the predictions that predicted his defeat, President Ford manages to win a second term and announces a technological breakthrough that eliminates the dependence of Western countries on Arab oil.

In 1983, after long and secret negotiations, Ford summoned Yigal Alon and King Hussein of Jordan to sign the first peace agreement in the Middle East. As part of the peace agreement, Jordan received limited sovereignty over the mountain areas (and two access roads through the Bekaa), as well as over northern Gaza. The State of Israel annexes the Jordan Valley, the northern Dead Sea, Gush Etzion and Latron. The parties are unable to reach a full agreement on the future of the Old City, and therefore agree on the freezing of construction in the Old City Basin and the continuation of negotiations regarding it.

With the advancement of solar and nuclear energy, most of the world's countries are weaning themselves from the oil era. Kuwait is the first country in the Middle East to go bankrupt, and agrees to unite with Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Similarly, the rest of the Gulf countries unite with Saudi Arabia into one country.

Anwar Sadat, angered by American unilateralism, is ousted in the 1977 bread riots, the new leader Khaled Mohi al-Din, increases his dependence on the Soviet Union and leases ports in Alexandria and the Red Sea to the Soviets. However, and contrary to the predictions of the various commentators, a new war does not break out between Israel and Egypt, and a tense silence is maintained along the border, knowing that the outbreak of war will bring a complete halt to navigation in Suez. Canal, Egypt's economic lifeline without oil.

The civil war in Lebanon is followed by security unrest on the northern border, but Prime Minister Alon opposes a large-scale operation, fearing to tear up the peace agreement with Jordan. With the official signing of the peace agreement, Alon proposes the resettlement of 50 thousand Palestinians from the refugee camps in Lebanon around Al-Arish, and the transfer of Al-Arish to Jordanian sovereignty. The plan is causing an uproar in Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan

 

[aaronupright]

With respect OP, this is almost ASBish.
The renewables replacing oil fantasy’s requires almost for the laws of physics to be changed. Except for nuclear, none have the energy density of fossil fuels.

(And renewable is not necessarily green, wood is renewable)

And the Israel Optimus Maximus postulated, is even more unlikely.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

I could see the potential for one or more leaders deciding that their strategic interests would favour reduced dependency on oil.
In practice given 1973 technology that would result in more focus on developing and using existing sources of oil, coal gas, maybe more nuclear, and probably more investment in research on efficiency.
While it would have been nice to see more use of wind, solar and hydro, solar needed a lot of work to push 1970s efficiency to modern levels where it's worthwhile, windpower really needs either battery storage or some way to feed excess power back into a main grid to be really useful, (which likely needs better computer control sytems to work), plus a lot of work on blade technology to get economies from large machines, and hydro was being reasonably well used where feasible although it's reasonable to expect some expansion.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

With respect OP, this is almost ASBish.
The renewables replacing oil fantasy’s requires almost for the laws of physics to be changed. Except for nuclear, none have the energy density of fossil fuels.

(And renewable is not necessarily green, wood is renewable)

And the Israel Optimus Maximus postulated, is even more unlikely.

Complete replacement might not occur but oil could be relegated to a back up system, which could still bankrupt gulf states.

Also, OP might have forgotten oil is also used as or as raw material for several heavy chemicals.

 

[Ahab]

If you started to invest in green energy in 1973 you probably won't be able to really replace oil till 2000, and even then it would just lower demand, not completely stop it. And poorer countries would still be dependent on oil.
You won't see the arab countries colapse that quickly.
Apart from that, the Alon plan was a good start, but I don't think that Jordan would have agreed to be the first arab country to sign a peace agreement, it was always said that it would be the second one. And peace with Egypt was so much more important for Israel then the oil in the sinai.
If Alon managed to implement his plan you are much more likely to see a Jordanian peace agreement in the 80's (after Egypt) with them getting the designated Palestinian territories.

 

[DougM]

With modern technology we are more then a decade into deliberately trying to replace Gasoline and we are JUST now getting a car that is practical and we are still pretty much dependent on Diesel trucks and trains (in the US).
And we are 50 years along with Batery track as well as having 50years to develop much more efficient electric motors. There is NO way we could replace oil in the 70s
And in the US we would not have to as bringing US oil sources online would have been faster and cheeper then other options. Also in 1973 we are only about 15-20 years removed from Steam Powered coal fired trains. So if push comes to shove then going backwards would be faster and easier then trying to accomplish what technology has 50 years later still not manage to trully accomplish

 

[ArtosStark]

As an energy sustainability engineer I can confirm that changing from oil to renewables is not a quick process involving a couple years and a major breakthrough.

That said, there were a number of technologies, trends and processes that are very important for current renewable and energy efficiency industries that got their start due to the oil crisis and then, to a degree, stagnated after the crisis had passed. Lithium Ion batteries, Passive housing, silicon solar panel research, and heat pumps all either started or got a boost in the 70’s which slowed down in the decades afterwards.

If you were to go for a full court press on developing these kind of technologies in the 70’s, you would still have to wait for some related technologies to open doors but many of the building blocks of our current attempts at reducing oil consumption would have started getting viable at scale in the 90’s.

 

[Jürgen]

The Arab Oil boycott did cause the breakthrough in renewable energy, it just took decades afterward. Denmark was one of the pioneers in wind power and that was very much caused by Denmark being heavily hit by the 1979 Oil Crisis, the problem that truly competitive wind power only really got a breakthrough in the late 00s.

 

[the Israeli Stalin]

The Arab Oil boycott did cause the breakthrough in renewable energy, it just took decades afterward. Denmark was one of the pioneers in wind power and that was very much caused by Denmark being heavily hit by the 1979 Oil Crisis, the problem that truly competitive wind power only really got a breakthrough in the late 00s.

What happens is that a massive investment in renewable energy leads to success as early as the late seventies

 

[CaptainCalvert]

With modern technology we are more then a decade into deliberately trying to replace Gasoline and we are JUST now getting a car that is practical and we are still pretty much dependent on Diesel trucks and trains (in the US).
And we are 50 years along with Batery track as well as having 50years to develop much more efficient electric motors. There is NO way we could replace oil in the 70s
And in the US we would not have to as bringing US oil sources online would have been faster and cheeper then other options. Also in 1973 we are only about 15-20 years removed from Steam Powered coal fired trains. So if push comes to shove then going backwards would be faster and easier then trying to accomplish what technology has 50 years later still not manage to trully accomplish

I vaguely recall discussions in the 80s about the possibility of making steam trains more efficient rather than using diesel. Maybe a bigger price hike (by 50%or so above OTL) could have driven a review of recently abandoned technology, or of planned replacements.

 

[Jürgen]

What happens is that a massive investment in renewable energy leads to success as early as the late seventies

It did, in 1978 the Twinkraft wind mill was build and it was pretty much the first truly viable wind mill. The problem is that expanding the production takes time.

Honestly if you want a fast shift to a non-fossil power source, nuclear power is the far easier solution and a much more mature technology. France show that nuclear is a viable option for the majority of your electrify production, and if we mix that with surplus production producing hydrogen and the hydrogen being used in ”biogas“ production, you can remove much of the dependence on oil imports.

 

[Riain]

What is to be done with all this renewable energy?

The road transport sector takes up huge amounts of the global energy market, so a big shift to renewables will also entail a big shift away from cars and trucks. Will there be a big change in urban design, a proliferation in commuter rail and trams? What about aviation, will High Speed Rail proliferate in order to push non-renewable-using aircraft off the short haul route market?

 

[Workable Goblin]

With modern technology we are more then a decade into deliberately trying to replace Gasoline and we are JUST now getting a car that is practical and we are still pretty much dependent on Diesel trucks and trains (in the US).

Trains are the easiest part of the transport system to electrify, you know. We've known how to do that for, oh, a hundred years. Longer, even! We've had electric trains longer than diesel!

BTW, even at the time the railroads studied electrification and found that it mostly paid for itself fairly quickly! But they didn't have the cash to/didn't want to spend the cash to make the necessary capital investments, so it didn't happen...

 

[dwkelley]

Note: the embargo began October 1973, and ended March 1974, so Nixon was still President. Nevertheless, assuming a POD that Ford wins election in 1976:

"In 1962, President John F. Kennedy said 'We choose to go to the Moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard'. Seven years later, we were on the Moon. Today, I say that America cannot remain dependent on other countries for our expanding energy needs, we cannot be held hostage because of events half a world away. Today, I will ask Congress to begin a crash course to build atomic energy across the country, to invest in research and development in storage and transmission, and to find new power sources that America can utilize within her borders that will keep her cars, trucks, and businesses going. Today I ask you, my fellow Americans, to renew our commitment to expanding our education in science and math. This will not be easy, this will be hard. The goal is an America that can stand on her own. The alternative is an America that continues to rely on other countries to go anywhere and do anything. May God bless these United States of America."
- Except of speech by President Gerald Ford, February 1977

(Now, what Three Mile Island - 1979 - does to this drive, is another question entirely)

 

[James Ricker]

One of the reasons why the Arab oil embargo failed was the threat renewable posed to the oil market.
OPEC realized that the United States could hold out indefinitely and destroy their economies.

 

[aaronupright]

One of the reasons why the Arab oil embargo failed was the threat renewable posed to the oil market.
OPEC realized that the United States could hold out indefinitely and destroy their economies.

Lol no. It ended since the US finally played a positive role in the conflict.

 

[Arkenfolm]

If they really wanted to replace fossil fuels after 1973, it would absolutely be nuclear energy instead of experimental renewable energy because that was commonly viewed as the energy source of the future at the time, even if the anti-nuclear movement was on the upswing then. Ethanol research and production could be massively increased as well, just like Brazil did. I'm aware a lot of the ethanol research was done because of the oil crisis in the 70s, but I feel a lot more could have been done before the OTL increase in ethanol fuel in the 00s, especially since if there's any group that could match the oil lobby in the US, it's the agriculture lobby.

 

[DougM]

I am more than familiar with Trans and electrification and steam power etc. Being a member of more than a couple of technical and or historical societies about them. And while electrification is possible and in some situations more efficient than other options this has a few issues. First off Electricity does not just suddenly apear you have to generate it and even today the vast vast majority of electricity comes from none renewable sources such as Coal, Oil, gas or even nuclear. And you are NOT replacing that in the 70s. As much as we have spent on renewable electricity generation in the past 10-15 years we still only generate a small percentage of energy that way. So changing from deisel power to electric does NOTHING to move towards Renewable energy. Which is the stated goal of this topic.
Also the cost to electrify is huge and it would take decades to build enough equipment to fully electrify the mainlines of the US. And in some states the attempt to do so will fail miserably as the distances and remoteness are extreme. But yes if we tried starting in 73 we could probably be 80-85% wired for all mainline trains by say 1990. But the. Cost will be huge, 1990-2000 is a much more practical goal and what’s oils probably have happened as you don’t want to pitch then engine bought in the late 60s through 1973, and frankly you will not even get it started before 1978 as it will take a few years to get the engines designed and in production and the wires and equipment installed so pre much all engines bought through 1978 will stay diesel powered.
the SD40 from EMD started production in 1966 and the dash 2 series (SD40-2) begin in 1972 and I otl would be one of the best selling engines ever. Going out of production in 1989. So there was a HUGE need for engines in 66-89 and it jumped up about the time of the oil crisis for a couple reasons, 1st generation engines such as F units and GP7 and GP9s were showing their age. many first generation diesel manufacturers had failed often because the engines the built were not good and these engines were hard to maintain when the manufacturers were in buisness so they had to go, Add in that these newer engines were more powerfull and more dependable and you could replace the older units with fewer new engines. and with the Dash 2 we’re more dependable and more efficient yet. So in 1973 the railroad NEED new engines and can’t wait and they surely can’t afford to by and engine in 73-78 and pitch it in 1980. Those engines cost a fortune and last for a few decades so we are realistically looking at 1990 or so for wholesale replacement of diesels with electric. and we still have not gotten to renewable.
And in order to provide the Electricity to these train lines you will have to build new power plants using economical sources of energy. So in 1975 that is most likly coal. If you want yo get away from fossil fuels then you go Nuclear. But you are not getting this energy from “renewable sourcesl
Frankly this is the problem with todays electric cars, they use electricity that is produced buy burning something more often then not.
And while some technologies such as more efficient homes or better batteries may get advanced a bit you are not gaining more than a few years. Part of the advance that we dread it yo better batteries is actually better motors often controlled by electronics and you are not getting that any faster then we did as that technology WAS being pushed about as fast as it could go.
Some things can not be done until the technology is ready for it. And the US was pushing a lot of high end technology development in the 50-70 with military development and NASA. And the electronics development started rapidly advancing in the 70s. You are not getting that going much faster no matter how much money is tossed that way. I mean maybe a few years but not much
So at best we are maybe 5 years more advanced if we spent billion and billions more starting in 74. And even as wealthy as the US is you are not replacing cars as you would have to basicly rebuild the entire country from the ground up. Something even the US could not afford to do.
And not To beat a dead horse here but non of this matters as we STILL can’t in 2023 produce enough renewable energy to come even close to what the US needs.
So yes it is impossible to have a real major breakthrough that amounts to anything in 1973-80. We are still looking for that breakthrough today. And frankly we have absolutely no evidence that said breakthrough will every happen. We don’t even have a theoretical basis for it. We have basically just been improving the technology that existed in 1960 with adv based mostly on that. With very few exceptions.

 

[Arkenfolm]

It's worth noting that tidal energy could have been very competitive with wind/solar had more R&D been put into it in the 20th century. The Rance power station in France built in the 60s was expensive, but very much functional. In the 70s, Canada did several studies on tidal power in the Bay of Fundy and found three good locations which weren't too cost prohibitive and would've produced 4-5 GW. There was also an American study which within Maine's waters would have produced around 1 GW. I expect the cost would've come down after the first few plants were built. Aside from the Bay of Fundy, Cook Inlet in Alaska (body of water Anchorage sits on) has some of the strongest tides in the world, so I'm certain the entire state of Alaska (at least what's actually on the grid) could be powered by tidal energy.

Aside from the cost (although the Rance station generates power more cheaply than France's nuclear plants) and environmental issues both actual and exaggerated, there would need to be a lot of international cooperation between the US and Canada, since among the best spots for tidal energy are the Bay of Fundy and Salish Sea area and many sites in those areas would be in the waters of both nations. And if Mexico were up to it, American foreign investment could build power stations in the Gulf of California (which also has very powerful tides) which could export power to American customers in addition to serving Mexico's needs.

So yes it is impossible to have a real major breakthrough that amounts to anything in 1973-80. We are still looking for that breakthrough today. And frankly we have absolutely no evidence that said breakthrough will every happen. We don’t even have a theoretical basis for it. We have basically just been improving the technology that existed in 1960 with adv based mostly on that. With very few exceptions.

I disagree, the technology for 100% renewable energy already exists (and if doesn't, there's plenty of working prototypes out there), but what doesn't exist is the huge amount of storage capacity needed. Electric motors and biofuels would work for most vehicles, although ships and aircraft would need hydrogen fuels.

 

[French Frog]

There were plenty of attempts to develop renewables from the seventies on but a few factors limited it. Economics and lack of efficiency were cited as being the reason ....