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

    to be perfectly clear, this probably wouldn’t help much, since we would likely just move to shipping something like hydrogen across the ocean anyway…

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      Hydrogen is just worse natural gas. They crack natural gas to produce hydrogen, and its fucking terrible. Hydrogen creates about 4 times more CO2 than diesel, simply by how the vast majority of it is manufactured

  • Ellia Plissken@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    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

    • 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.

      • Ellia Plissken@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        the government should at least subsidize a couple so in the event of an apocalypse we can make our own gasoline.

        • MonkeyBusiness@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          This sounds like a good idea. I wonder why it hasn’t happened. Maybe lobbyists have prevented politicians from doing so so that the USA is dependent on countries with appropriate refineries, which protects the income and security of the other country using the USA’s GDP and military.

    • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      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

      • 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.

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

    Yeah but if I’m not mistaken, emissions from shipping are quite low anyways. It’s something like 2-5℅ of all our emissions, so it’s pretty low priority.

  • ntma@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    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.

    • bstix@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      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.

      • ntma@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        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.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          16 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.

    • buzz86us@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

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

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

    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).

  • 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

    • 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.

    • 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.