When Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz on 27 March, following weeks of US and Israeli air strikes, Brent crude hit $126 a barrel and the World Bank warned that energy prices would surge by 24 per cent, the largest increase since the Russia-Ukraine shock of 2022. For most oil-importing nations, this was an economic problem. For Australia, it was an existential one. Australia imports roughly 80 per cent of its refined fuel. It holds the lowest fuel reserves of any member of the International Energy Agency: 36 days of petrol, 29 days of jet fuel, 32 days of diesel, all well below the IEA’s 90-day standard. It is the only major developed economy, alongside New Zealand, that does not maintain a government strategic petroleum reserve. Domestic production meets 5.6 per cent of demand. Domestic refining covers 17 per cent. The rest travels through supply chains that pass, in many cases, through the very chokepoint that just closed. The Hormuz crisis did not create Australia’s fuel vulnerability. It proved that the vulnerability is real, and that the fix is technological.

The vulnerability

The numbers are stark even by the standards of import-dependent economies. Australia is the world’s largest net importer of refined petroleum products, dependent on refineries in Singapore, South Korea, and Japan that themselves depend on crude oil from the Middle East. The supply chain that fuels Australia is a chain of dependencies, each link subject to the same geopolitical risks. The IEA has repeatedly urged Australia to increase its reserves to the 90-day minimum that other member states maintain, but successive governments have declined to build a strategic petroleum reserve, opting instead for “ticketing” arrangements that count fuel held in other countries toward Australia’s obligations. When the Strait of Hormuz closed, the fuel counted toward Australia’s IEA reserves was, in some cases, physically located in countries whose own supplies were disrupted.

Energy economists have described temporary fuel tax reductions as “sugar hits” that address the price symptom but not the structural vulnerability. The structural answer, the one the Albanese government has been building since 2022 and which the Hormuz crisis made politically urgent, is to reduce Australia’s dependence on imported fuel by electrifying the economy with domestically generated renewable energy.

The programme

The centrepiece is the $22.7 billion “Future Made in Australia” package, an industrial policy framework that channels public money into renewable energy, critical minerals processing, and green hydrogen production. The government’s target is 80 per cent renewable electricity by 2030. Specific allocations include A$14 billion in green hydrogen production incentives, A$5.1 billion for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, A$2.3 billion in home battery subsidies, and A$750 million for green metals processing. Since 2022, the government has approved 123 large-scale renewable energy projects, and approximately 7 gigawatts of new renewable capacity was added in 2025 alone. Europe has twice as many climate technology startups as the United States but funds them at a fraction of the rate; Australia’s approach bypasses the venture model entirely, using direct government subsidy to build infrastructure at the speed that national security requires.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

The logic is straightforward. Every kilowatt hour of electricity generated by a solar panel or a wind turbine is a kilowatt hour that does not depend on a refinery in Singapore processing crude oil that passed through the Strait of Hormuz. Every electric vehicle charged by rooftop solar is a vehicle that does not require imported petrol. Every green hydrogen electrolyser powered by renewable electricity produces fuel that was never on a tanker. The climate targets and the energy security objectives have, because of the Hormuz crisis, become the same programme.

The technology

Australia has one structural advantage that most oil-dependent countries do not: it is one of the sunniest inhabited places on earth. Solar panels are already installed on one in three Australian homes, representing 26.8 gigawatts of rooftop capacity, the highest per-capita solar penetration of any major economy. The challenge is not generation. It is storage. Solar produces electricity when the sun shines. Australia’s electricity demand peaks in the evening. The gap between generation and demand is the problem that batteries solve, and Australia’s battery storage pipeline has expanded dramatically: 33.2 gigawatts of battery capacity is now in various stages of development, a 62 per cent increase year on year.

Seventy-four per cent of that pipeline uses grid-forming inverters, a technology that allows batteries to stabilise the electrical grid without the rotating mass of traditional coal or gas turbines. Grid-forming inverters effectively replace the physics of fossil fuel power stations with software, synthesising the voltage waveforms and frequency regulation that spinning generators provide mechanically. This is not a marginal technical detail. It is the technology that determines whether a grid powered primarily by solar and batteries can function reliably. Australia’s battery pipeline is, by this measure, the most technologically advanced large-scale storage deployment in the world.

On 30 April, Australia and South Korea signed a bilateral energy security cooperation agreement covering battery supply chains, critical minerals processing, and renewable energy technology transfer. South Korea, which faces its own fuel import dependence, sees Australia’s lithium, cobalt, and rare earth deposits as critical to its battery manufacturing industry. Australia sees South Korean battery technology as critical to its storage buildout. Energy security alliances are no longer defined solely by who controls oil. They are increasingly defined by who controls the technology and materials that replace it.

The race

Australia is not the only country treating energy independence as a technology problem. The Pentagon has selected three companies to install microreactors at Air Force bases, part of a programme to make US military installations independent of the civilian power grid by 2030. Valar Atomics raised $450 million at a $2 billion valuation to build small nuclear reactors for AI data centres. X-Energy raised $1 billion in the largest nuclear IPO on record in April, backed by Amazon’s commitment to buy 5 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2039. The capital flowing into energy technology globally now exceeds $40 billion annually in venture and growth funding alone.

The difference is that Australia’s programme is not primarily driven by AI demand or climate ambition. It is driven by the specific, demonstrable, and recently demonstrated vulnerability of a country that cannot fuel itself. What technology leaders often miss about energy solutions is that the timeline matters as much as the technology. Nuclear reactors take a decade to build. Fusion remains decades away. Solar panels and batteries can be deployed in months. For a country that held 29 days of jet fuel when the Strait of Hormuz closed, the speed of deployment is not a secondary consideration. It is the primary one.

The arithmetic

The question is whether the programme is large enough and fast enough. Reaching 80 per cent renewable electricity by 2030 requires a sustained rate of deployment that exceeds what Australia has achieved in any prior year. The battery storage pipeline is large but pipelines are not installations: converting 33.2 gigawatts of planned capacity into operational storage requires manufacturing, grid connections, and regulatory approvals that have historically moved slower than the government’s targets require. Green hydrogen, the most ambitious component of the programme, remains in pilot stages globally. Australia’s A$14 billion in hydrogen incentives is the largest single allocation, but commercial-scale green hydrogen production at competitive prices has not been achieved anywhere in the world.

The World Bank’s April 2026 commodity forecast compounds the challenge. Energy prices are projected to surge by 24 per cent this year, increasing the cost of every component of the renewable buildout that is manufactured overseas, which is most of them. Solar panels are largely manufactured in China. Battery cells come from China, South Korea, and Japan. The supply chains that Australia needs to build its way out of energy dependence are themselves subject to the same geopolitical risks that created the dependence. The “Future Made in Australia” programme includes critical minerals processing and domestic manufacturing precisely to address this, but building that capacity is a project measured in decades, not the four years before the 2030 target arrives.

What the Hormuz crisis established is that the status quo is more expensive than the transition. A country that imports 80 per cent of its fuel and holds fewer than 36 days of reserves is a country that pays twice: once for the fuel, and again for the risk premium that every geopolitical disruption imposes on supply chains it does not control. The $22.7 billion the Albanese government is spending on renewable energy and critical minerals is a large number. It is a small number compared to what it costs to be the most fuel-vulnerable developed economy on earth at the moment when the world’s most important oil chokepoint closes.