this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
1304 points (99.2% liked)

Science Memes

10905 readers
1735 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Fun fact: through the 1800s coal-powered steamships mostly replaced sailing vessels for the transportation of people and time-sensitive cargo around the world. But steamships were highly inefficient and required frequent re-coaling, and locally available coal was dirtier and contained less thermal energy than the good stuff that Britain (who was doing by far most of the shipping) got from Wales and other places on their island. Because steamships could not efficiently and cheaply haul the coal that they needed around the world to restock the coaling stations, this was done instead by an enormous fleet of sailing colliers. So the "steam revolution" of the 1800s was actually a steam/wind-power hybrid. It wasn't until the advent of triple- and quadruple-expansion steam engines, turbines, and greatly improved boilers in the early 1900s that steam-powered vessels could efficiently and economically haul their own fuel. And even with that, wind-powered cargo vessels remained economically viable and operating in significant numbers right up until the start of WWII (that's II, not I).

A great read is The Last Grain Race by Eric Newby, about his time as a sailor aboard Moshulu (a large steel sail-powered cargo ship) in 1938-1939. Moshulu went on to star in The Godfather Part II as the ship which brings young Vito Corleone to New York, and is now weirdly enough a floating restaurant in my city of Philadelphia (I've never eaten there but I want to).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

These chairs they have inside it would make me not want to eat there.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Once you realize the byproducts of oil and how essential some are and the fact that rich countries aren't going to change their way of life and the fact that developing countries will industrialize in the same way western countries have and will start to produce similar environmental emissions things look pretty bleak in terms of that average temperature rise.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 2 days ago (1 children)

the fact that developing countries will industrialize in the same way western countries have and will start to produce similar environmental emissions

That's not a fact. It makes more sense for developing countries to skip directly to renewable energy sources.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You're right it's not a fact. But I would say large percentage of developing nations aren't pursuing such options because it's easier to use things like coal. If you take a look at the new coal plants under construction as the moment, the top 15 are from developing countries. https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-just-15-countries-account-for-98-of-new-coal-power-development/

China and India account for 3 billion people alone and they're still building new coal plants to account for their growing energy needs despite using renewable energy.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago

That's because those plans and policies were drafted 10 years ago when coal was cheaper. These days the plans being made are based on solar, because solar is the cheapest.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Water/wind/solar is cheaper now, and it's not even close. It's electrifying communities that never had any sort of electrification before since they can buy a few panels and bypass the (often corrupt) power utility in the country. The intermittency is a problem, but it's still better than not having it at all.

So yes, it looks like they'll skip carbon-based energy entirely. This is similar to what's happened with landlines in these regions; they skipped straight to cell phones.

That said, you know where 95% of new coal power plants are being built? China.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Sadly many developing countries are further along in EV uptake because they have access to $4k EVs without tariffs

[–] [email protected] 100 points 3 days ago (15 children)

Some of these ships would carry green hydrogen and new lithium batteries and old lithium batteries (to be recycled) and whatnot. Also at least some oil would be still needed for fine chemicals like meds or (idk what's proper english term for that) large scale organic synthesis like plastics, or even straight distillates like hexane (for edible oil extraction) or lubricants. Some of usual non-energy uses of oil can be easily substituted with enough energy like with nitrogen fertilizers but some can't

[–] [email protected] 68 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

We aren’t consuming batteries anywhere near the rate we consume oil and coal. Hydrogen even less than batteries.

So the amount of ships needed would still be a fraction of what we use now.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago (3 children)

not now, but if hydrogen were to be used as an energy source/storage, then it'd be used plenty. same with batteries

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (20 children)

We can make hydrogen everywhere, we can't 'make oil'.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

you really think this is going to stop the globalism aspect from happening? If you can ship something, and get better market rates on it, you're going to do it. Economics follows the cheapest route, not the most efficient.

It also just makes sense if you think about it. Places like alaska are going to struggle to generate green energy compared to another place like, texas for example. If you can ship in green hydrogen much cheaper than you can locally produce energy, why wouldn't you? It's a reasonable solution to the problem of supply and demand scaling.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

While true, it's very unlikely we'll use hydrogen. It's very impractical for this use compared to alternatives

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

If you have water you have hydrogen.

there's no reason to transport hydrogen if they build infrastructure to use it as a fuel they will build a process to make it on site

[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 days ago (2 children)

the argument for renewable energy isnt that we should stop using oil, its that we shouldnt burn it. why turn our limited supply of oil into CO2 and water when we can turn it into plastics, medicine, solvents, etc? around 3/4 of crude oil is used as fuel, but if renewable energy was used, the number of oil tankers would decrease by more than 75% bc local supplies would generally be sufficient for industrial, non-fuel uses

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 days ago

ikr, but that tweet implies that all of oil/gas/coal ships would be unnecessary

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago

That is true, but part of improving our environmental impact will be decreasing that transport of raw materials, localizing chemical industries near the sources of their raw materials.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Won't someone think of the seamen?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm constantly thinking of seamen

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Capt'n Pugwash and Seaman Stains will both be out of jobs.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 days ago (12 children)

correct me if I'm wrong, but the United States doesn't even have oil refineries that are capable of making gasoline out of American oil? like we need the type of oil that the middle East has, so we're constantly trading oil back and forth even though we have plenty of it

I think I've heard this is true. something about politicians wanting to look environmentalist and therefore preventing the building of any more refineries

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No, there's a significant amount of oil infrastructure locally. They've even got a colonialist extension with Canada: crude oil crosses over to be refined and sold back to Canada

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

No, it is true. It is not the quantity of oil infrastructure, but the grades and types they are. The US crude is mostly light sweet crude after the shift to oil shale. The refinery infrastructure was originally built for heavy crude with high sulfur content. Thus the US imports the type of oil our refineries were built to handle, and exports the portion of the oil that is domestically produced, but the wrong type.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The lack of investment in the types of oil refineries to refine US oil domestically isn't as much for optics purposes. But that relative to the amount of investment required to build new refineries to compete with the current foreign ones isn't a good return on investment relative to the up front cost and the existing profits of the current arrangement.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 hours ago

Additionally, the push to stop depending on fossil fuels makes the investment an even riskier endeavor because the refinery might be outdated by the time it starts making a profitable return. It would be like if the entire world was highly dependent on lemons, and a farmer planting a lot of lemon trees that take 2 - 5 years to grow when half the world is insisting on switching over to limes. If the lemons were being produced right now and all that has to be paid for is the regular maintenance of the lemon trees, it would be profitable. However, the farmer has to purchase the land and seeds, prepared the land, install and acquire appropriate farming equipment, hire an entire staff that are experts in lemons, and grow the trees before even receiving a single penny in revenue, all while a good portion of the population is anti-lemon because lemons are harmful to the environment (hypothetically speaking) and wants to switch over to limes. which are less damaging. Business-wise, this would be a terrible investment. It's not that it couldn't possibly turn a profit, but when you're an investor with considerable capital, you're going to invest that in ventures that are more likely to produce a profit. It would make no sense to risk your capital on such a risky venture when there are hundreds of others that are less risky.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Anyone know how much of the oil transported is actually used for plastic, percentage wise?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

So what you’re saying is the companies that own those boats will lobby the government so that this never happens? Sweet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Now I’m waiting for the news report,

“Green Energy will cost jobs!”

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›