No, they wouldn’t. Capitalism is driven by supply, not demand.
If by some magic we switched to renewables over night, the owner class would open or expand another market to keep those ships moving.
No, we would have an over capacity of shipping space, forcing the price down sharply. In the short term goods would be much cheaper to ship, reducing in a host of global economic changes- some good but alot not.
The ownership class is not physically capable of doubling our good production overnight to keep them running - long term though its quite probable. Ships will be refitted, a lot scrapped, new orders canceled- but it takes time.
And capitalism is absolutely driven by demand. Any organization that tries to tell people to buy something they aren’t interested in will fail. They can alter demand, and yes they control that, but it us demand driven.
It’s both. If demand goes down, price goes down; of supply goes up price goes down.
I expect the supply of shipping is pretty stable. It takes a while for ships to be built, it takes time for them to wear out, so in this case demand would be the driver of short term change, pushing the price of shipping in those ships reduced.
I wonder what could be carried in a former coal carrier.
I don’t know about all of you, but I know I wouldn’t want to cross oceans without a good engine.
Storms are not cool. Not being in the age of sail anymore seems good.
You say that, but modern sail concepts are a thing and are already in place as hybrid shipping solutions. Boats require a LOT of energy to do their thing, so any savings translates to big numbers.
https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/new-wind-powered-cargo-ship-sets-sail-2023-08-22_en
Yes, I’m only bothered by the notion that we should ask sailors to start faffing with sails again. It was harder and more dangerous. It’s a good addition, but relying on it seems not worth it when we’ve gotten past it.
I’ve personally raised sails at sea, it’s not that hard. But going up into the mast, especially when the weather starts getting serious, is not something sailors should have to do again if they they don’t have to. It’s practically more suitable as an extreme sport. Human lives were just worth less back then.
But having them as efficiency assists, maybe even just sailing with the engine as a backup, that would be great.
The sails used by large ships now are rigid. They are angled by motors, they are depowered by being stalled
These ships can use wind to push them forward or rearward, accelerate or brake. They don’t need additional crew, they don’t need any specially trained crew
Nuclear submarines already exist. Why not use that technology for shipping purposes?
But the point of this meme is that by reducing our use of coal and oil on land, our need for those ships would also dwindle.
Why would you pick a submarine for civil purposes? Just use a “normal” freighter and “slap” nuclear power on it.
(Ignoring the glaring issues from nuclear power on land that would be exacerbated at sea)
Ships can register any nation as their flag state, so they often choose flags of convenience based on whoever has the lowest fees or regulations – or more insidiously, whoever has the least ability to hold companies accountable.
This is why so many shipping companies register in Liberia, Panama, and the Marshall Islands. Also Mongolia, which is landlocked.
So unless we want to fill the oceans and ports with ships that have nuclear reactors with no regulation, no safety measures, and no accountability, we’re gonna have to fix the last hundred years of international maritime law.
I don’t think this is about what’s powering the ships but rather their cargo.
But at least the ships need a non-renewable source. And they are going to need some of it in every country they visit. How do we get oil to every country if not by ship? That’s a lot of pipelines if we go that route. But maybe that is the answer.
But at least the ships need a non-renewable source.
Why would they? Seems like a solveable problem to me, most likely via green H2, but also with big ass batteries (most likely for shorter ranges at first).
We have to reach net 0 come what may, so there will have to be clean power in any port they visit at some point.
High schooler post
Oil is used for more than just energy.
Idk why you’re being downvoted. Petrochemicals are used for a bunch of stuff, including plastics manufacturing.
We should switch to renewables as quickly and completely as we can, but it wouldn’t eliminate 100% of oil use
I argue that if oil wasn’t as cheap, ecological alternatives to plastic would have a chance or would be considered at all.
I mainly agree, but it could be substituted. Various biomolecules are being investigated as a replacement substrate for established (petro)chemical processes. Part of the issue is, that you need to defunctionalise the chemicals which is the opposite of what petrochemistry currently does (which is adding functional groups as needed, not removing them).
This research, however, is stifled by the cheap Price of oil. I know an anecdote of Nivea pulling their funding into a similar project because the price ber barrel recently fell. The project was supposed to last around 5 years.
Inaccurate statement.
https://qz.com/2113243/forty-percent-of-all-shipping-cargo-consists-of-fossil-fuels
40% of traffic is for petrochemicals, which according to this article is coal, oil, gas, and things derived from them, which would include fertilizer and plastics and probably some other stuff too like industrial lubricants, asphalt etc. Not just fossil fuels, so not all that 40% would be affected by a switch to renewable energy. It’s also worth noting that building out renewable energy generation involves shipping a lot of hardware around the globe as well.
That last sentence, yep. People don’t tend to factor in the carbon footprint of building anything they deem environmentally friendly. There’s a cost/benefit analysis to be made. A bad idea may actually be worse than what it’s replacing, or not beneficial enough to pursue.
There may be carbon emitted in creating green energy but green energy is ultimately reducing demand for hydrocarbons, which is better than sequestration. Also you need to factor into the operational life of the green tech. If you do, it’s pretty clear pretty fast that it’s beneficial to go with green energy options. The argument you’re making is a common strawman argument for not investing in green energy.
Interestingly you’re both correct.
We swapped to ICE vehicles as they were cleaner than shit covered streets from all the horses, making a new problem.
Renewable energy is much cleaner long term- but what new issues are we not seeing? If we through ourselves head first into this (and we need to) what did we miss?
For all the things you think of when you hear “renewables”, that analysis has already been made, and it’s overwhelmingly better in every way to ditch fossil fuels.
I’d assume this is true over any sufficiently long time horizon.
I’d guess it’s like 20 years for a lotta stuff? i.e. short enough the average Lemming would benefit in their lifetime
localizing and streamlining production is a bigger factor to climate change anyway imo
technology and production should absolutely not be as centralized and wasteful as it currently is.
localizing and streamlining production
These are two distinct goals, sometimes that work against each other. Localization is often a tradeoff between saving energy on transport and logistics versus economies of scale in production, and the right balance might look different for different things.
The carbon footprint of a banana shipped across the globe is still far less than that of the typical backyard chicken, because the act of raising a chicken at home is so inefficient (including with commercially purchased feed driven home in a passenger car) that it can’t compete on energy/carbon footprint.
There are products where going local saves energy, but that’s not by any means a universal correlation.
Do we know what the percentage is after subtracting out things derived from fossil fuels? I looked at the article and tried to do the math, but it seems like the stats are bundled together.
Also it requires shipping oil to fuel the mining operations needed to produce full scale renewable energy. But if we wait a little bit the quality of power output from the same mining inputs will improve which means renewable later requires less total mining than full scale renewable now, and so you will use less fuel to do that smaller amount of mining.
What people don’t realize is that the expense of renewable technology mostly is fuel. Fuel to mine it, fuel to move the raw materials, fuel to refine it, fuel to manufacture it, fuel to ship it to you. The total labor is quite small. So if taken on a specific case the financial perspective alone of a particular application of renewable vs conventional energy the numbers don’t add up then likely the renewable is less green. If you wait a little bit for the green cost to come down that indicates improved efficiencies and now it actually is green.
So the answer to make the world more green is not to shift our calculations to spend money on green solutions beyond financial sense. It’s to work on technology to lower green costs until it naturally makes sense and thereby also make it more green at the same time.
So if taken on a specific case the financial perspective alone of a particular application of renewable vs conventional energy the numbers don’t add up then likely the renewable is less green.
Renewables are more climate efficient and cheaper. Today. All this included. A wind turbine, depending on size, position etc, generates the amount of power used in it’s construction within 2.5 - 11 months. Over it’s life cycle it generates about 40x the energy you put in. There is no valid excuse to keep burning stuff because it appears cheaper short-term.
Industrial lubricants and asphalt fit my definition of petrochemicals
But then so do plastics
Don’t forget that if those other things which are derived from them are reduced too that would be a massive win for the health of the planet and everything living on it. Without primarily consuming the fuel component of petrochemicals I think it would drastically change the economics of producing the derivatives and make them scarcer. It looks like a win-win.
