• skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    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

    • IrritableOcelot@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 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.

    • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      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.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            17 days ago

            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.

            • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              17 days ago

              Yeah, but Alaska uses dramatically less energy than… like, everywhere. Given that there are no people and the only industries are either oil or resources.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                17 days ago

                oil and resource industries are pretty well known for being energy intensive no?

                last i checked industry is the primary energy consumer. Sure there’s less people in alaska, but it was just an example i picked, and the market economics would still be applicable there. If it’s cheaper to buy hydrogen, than it is to produce locally sourced power, that’s going to be what happens.

          • jonne@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            17 days ago

            Yeah, there’s no reason to be transporting hydrogen long distances. You can make it anywhere that has water and electricity. And if you’ve transitioned to a hydrogen based economy (which is a big if), ships wouldn’t run on oil any more anyway, so there’s no problem there.

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              17 days ago

              there absolutely is? What if i can buy hydrogen at 1$ per ton, from the hydrogen production empire, meanwhile in the manufacturing empire hydrogen is produced at 2$ per ton. Economically, it would make sense to buy that hydrogen from the hydrogen production empire.

              It’s not going to be as significant as a trade as something like coal and LNG obviously, but the market IS going to do this in some capacity. And it’s a beneficial thing for everybody.

              • jonne@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                17 days ago

                Sure, there’d be some arbitrage, but pretty much every country that has a functional government will invest in domestic capacity for strategic reasons. You won’t have countries that have none at all and have to import everything.

                • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  16 days ago

                  obviously not, and that’s mostly going to be military contracts more than anything. Regardless, this doesn’t change the economics here, if you can buy it from the hydrogen empire cheaper, and your business isn’t the US military, then it doesnt fucking matter. Just buy it from them.

                  • jonne@infosec.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    15 days ago

                    Strategic doesn’t mean just military. It means strategically investing in this capacity so you don’t get caught with your pants down when Russia turns off the tap and destroys your economy overnight. We’re past the globalist world now, and if your country is still making decisions as if we are, you’re not doing it right.