945
Know thy enemy (mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 79 points 10 hours 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

[-] auzy@lemmy.world 2 points 49 minutes ago* (last edited 49 minutes ago)

I'm guessing most countries would try to recycle batteries locally. Or/and throw them onto solar systems straight away

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 51 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours 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.

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 9 hours ago

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

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 22 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

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

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 2 points 4 hours 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.

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.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Not in comparison to... normal things like people and manufacturing.

And oil is oil, it's self-powering. Many/most are powered off of the propane out-gassing to dedicated turbines.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours 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.

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 1 points 1 hour 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.

[-] MarcomachtKuchen@feddit.org 4 points 8 hours ago

Yeah but your electricity also needs to be produced by reusable manners, which commonly results in solar power. And since the intensity of solar rays and the amount of sunny hours per day vary on the global scale there are some countries which are capable of producing more hydrogen and cheaper than producing locally. I know that the German government is looking at Marocco to establish a hydrogen production and import.

[-] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

We absolutely can 'make oil'. Been doing it since world war II. Synthetic oil is extremely common.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago

I mean, yeah, but also, that's not really efficient or effective for burning.

[-] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago
[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

I'm not disagreeing, but if the energy is surplus, might as well make hydrogen, at least we don't end up with pollution.

arguably, compressing natural gas into LNG is fucking stupid, but apparently the market rates work out, so it's economically viable. And here we are compressing a gas into a liquid just to ship it over the ocean lol.

market economies are just funny.

[-] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Oh certainly. Power storage is a real problem, especially with up-down renewables. I just didn't understand why you were saying oil can't be produced but hydrogen can. Synthesizing oil for power storage is a terrible idea 😄

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 9 hours ago

no we can't make hydrogen everywhere, there will be regions with large excess of renewable energy compared to population. these places could export hydrogen. you also don't need a lot of transport if crude is extracted near place where it's used, like for example heavy crude from alberta

[-] Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

The problem with the comparison is hydrocarbons are the energy source, hydrogen is no it's just the energy carrier. It is very inefficient to convert energy to hydrogen then convert it back again. Something like 60% round trip efficiency. Not to mention the cost and loss in loading into containers and shipping it around the world. It's also not a very dense fuel per volume especially compared to oil. It's just way easier and cheaper to have cables that run from one place to another. They are already building one from Australia to Singapore and if it's successful that will probably open the floodgates. There aren't many places that are more than 2000 miles away from large sources of renewable energy even if your thinking places like Alaska which could do hydro if there ever was dense enough populations anywhere that would consume it.

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 21 minutes ago

this is less of a problem when you don't use it for energy, but instead as a feedstock like in synthesis of ammonia or steelmaking. you can make ammonia in many places, but it's not the case for steel

[-] ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net 34 points 10 hours ago

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

bc local supplies would generally be sufficient for industrial, non-fuel uses

this is assuming that its not just cheaper to import that needed oil? This is always going to be a fundamental problem, though maybe we already happen to produce plastic with native oil idk.

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 10 hours ago

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

[-] IrritableOcelot@beehaw.org 8 points 9 hours 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.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

And oil for Styrofoam. And met coal for steel.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 7 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

There's alternative processes, and if you avoid burning oil and coal for fuel you can basically do all that with the amount of oil that's in easy reach instead of using tar sands or drilling into even more difficult to reach places.

the problem with tar sands is a fundamental energy conversion issue. It's really hard to refine because you don't get nearly as much energy out as you put in, compared to something like fracking.

It may become reasonable in the future with really cheap renewable energy and higher oil prices for example, but as of right now, it's economically unviable.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

You have to be careful when talking about steel because coal is both an ingredient (steel is iron + carbon) and used for heating afaik. You can take coal out of the heating step (confusingly called steel making) but not out of the ingredient step, unless you want to find a different carbon source.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 7 points 9 hours ago

There's (admittedly comparatively expensive) alternative processes, and even if you stick to the old process and just stop using coal for electricity generation you'd cut coal use by 75%.

Not to mention, the carbon that stays in the steel doesn't actually go into the atmosphere, so there's less CO2 emissions for that specific use if you can substitute the fuel used for heating.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

That's why I said met coal for steel.

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

you're probably talking about direct reduced iron and it's really a problem that can be dealt with easily, just chuck a piece of coke when it's molten for the second time in electric arc furnace (and maybe electrodes introduce enough carbon). substituting coke with hydrogen works also on "ingredient step" if you mean by that fuel needed to reduce iron ore to iron

maybe there's a way to make electrowinning iron economical, and it'd be pretty green too, but i don't know if it is workable

e: you can also avoid need for met coal if you use methane or syngas for direct reduced iron process

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

coal can be substituted to some degree with processes like direct reduction. hydrogen works but syngas from biomass or trash also works

file styrofoam under plastics

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago

That wouldn’t really need to be shipped around though, domestic supply can cover those needs almost everywhere.

this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
945 points (99.3% liked)

Science Memes

10853 readers
3609 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