951
Know thy enemy (mander.xyz)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ntma@lemm.ee 29 points 4 hours 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.

[-] buzz86us@lemmy.world 2 points 48 minutes ago

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

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 33 points 3 hours 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 10 points 3 hours 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.

[-] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 10 points 2 hours 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.

[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 25 points 7 hours ago

Won't someone think of the seamen?

[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 7 hours ago

I'm constantly thinking of seamen

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 80 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 54 minutes ago* (last edited 53 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 10 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.

load more comments (19 replies)
[-] 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] tilefan@lemm.ee 17 points 8 hours 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

it's also to do with prices. There is a certain amount of this that is true, but the primary reason is oil prices.

[-] tilefan@lemm.ee 5 points 3 hours ago

yeah from what people are telling me, we have the capability of processing lower quality crude oil so it makes more sense to export our high quality stuff, then buy the cheap stuff since we can already refine it.

yeah thats pretty much the TL;DR here. It's complicated since oil is complicated and there isn't really a "insert oil" oil to talk about, there are a lot of variations of it, and a lot of ways to refine it, and a lot of different resultant products from it as well.

The fact that the modern petro industry even works is kind of insane.

[-] tilefan@lemm.ee 2 points 3 hours ago

yeah it's wild to me that petroleum jelly and kerosene come from the same thing

[-] Saleh@feddit.org 2 points 2 hours ago

that is quite simple actually.

Butter and skimmed milk also come from the same source. You have a complex mixture of stuff that is differently viscose, so in mixture it all ends up with a certain viscosity. Now you separate it and you get stuff that is almost solid and you get stuff, that is very liquid, or in the case of crude oil you get some gaseous fractions.

[-] fox@hexbear.net 12 points 7 hours 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

[-] radio_free_asgarthr@hexbear.net 8 points 7 hours 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.

[-] radio_free_asgarthr@hexbear.net 7 points 7 hours ago

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)
load more comments (5 replies)

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 2 points 1 hour 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

[-] scholar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

There is green hydrogen which is completely renewable, it's just more expensive

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
951 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