this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
1279 points (99.2% liked)

Science Memes

10897 readers
2698 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] 34 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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

[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 day 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 1 day 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 1 day 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] 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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] 15 points 1 day 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 1 day ago

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

[–] [email protected] 99 points 1 day 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] 67 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (25 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.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 day 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 1 day ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day 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 1 day ago (1 children)

Won't someone think of the seamen?

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

I'm constantly thinking of seamen

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't forget, Roger the cabin boy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 day 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 1 day 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] 9 points 1 day 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] 8 points 1 day ago (1 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Offhand I believe we have a few that can do light oil, but most of ours wouldn’t want to change over even if offered to do so for free. Rather the reason is the US has a lot of chemical engineers and capital and so is good at refining the more challenging to deal with and cheaper to get heavy oils while selling the easy to refine and therefore more valuable light oil we dig up down in Texas to places that have more primitive refineries.

While we could retrofit all of our our refining capacity to use our oil, it doesn’t make financial sense because your spending a lot of money to switch to an more expensive input, so companies arn’t going to want to do it unless the government forces them to, and the government would only force them to if it wanted to spite everyone else and raise domestic gas prices.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day 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 1 day 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 ›