40% of global ship traffic is simply moving fossil fuels around! Renewables make much of this traffic obsolete

top 72 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 167 points 8 months ago (21 children)

...and that would drop the amount of marine fuel needed. Compound interest.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    which means we need to transport less fuel around, so less ships

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago (18 children)

    And more unemployed seamen’s.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    And more unemployed wharf whores.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Doesn’t anyone think about wharf whores!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    They can install solar panels or wire or something and not have to be away from their family for months at a time. Also the vast majority of seamen shipping oil are coerced captive workers from impoverished places with confiscated passports and no rights. Employed isn’t really the right word to use.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    So overseas shipping rates drop and some of the companies convert their ships to give joy-rides in seas (because cheaper sea travel), while some seamen get to explore avenues like deep sea exploration (which seems to be a really underdeveloped field) and development.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Somehow I’m not seeing your average deck hand transitioning into deep sea exploration.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Well, the average deck hand can stay working at the normal ships that are shipping other stuff.
    The above average ones can become a deck hand for the newer vehicles for deep sea operations.

    Both are probably already paid low enough that corporate can easily pay them while reducing shipping rates at the same time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    I’m thinking the deep sea exploration pays a bit more than a guy who can hook some cables on a crate.

    But wtf do I know…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 76 points 8 months ago

    🤫pssst,
    this is one of the reasons fossil isn’t replaced as fast as it could and should be

  • source
  • [–] 49 points 8 months ago

    Or we could get rid of windmills and underfund solar incentives and research, occupy oil producing nations and try to drive this number higher? It's 2026 people, let's redefine what progress means! 🦅💪🎇

  • source
  • [–] 43 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    THR GODDAMN ENERGY FALLS FROM THE SKY FOR FREE!!!

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

    Yes, but you can’t resell it for a profit elsewhere easily. You want us to switch to sky energy, we need a way to make the output portable so someone can make money on it. I really hate capitalism and hope this is the fall at a global level. Though if anyone was watching, China has been making the right moves towards solar and transport. If they stop oppressing their people i’ll move all my soon to be worthless USD to YUAN.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I thought hmmmm, this may be happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    I laughed at that because the original had the whole thing about China and ended with "...move all my soon to be worthless USD to YEN." I didn't think it was a typo, so it was funny, but it looks like dude changed it to be consistent with what he was saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    "We need the fossil fuels to get more fossil fuels to move the fossil fuels just to take the fossil-fuel thing to the fossil fuel store to get more fossil fuels!" -people that sell fossil fuels

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    It's the rocket ship problem.

    You need fuel to move the fuel that moves the fuel that moves the rocket

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Sure, but when a lot of the things don't need to carry the fuel with them and induction roadways do it all in the moment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    induction roadways

    Do you mean railways?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    This would be incredibly energy inefficient first of all, because a lit of energy gets lost when using induction and that rises really quickly with the distance from the source.

    Second of all, that would be really expensive to build.

    Third of all, this doesn't solve the real problem of individualized travel. Cars are really inefficient, becuase: 1. Their infrastructure wastes a lot of space. Most people travel alone in their cars, which means, you have all this sourounding machinery you need to transport in addition, which is huge. Cars get into traffic jams, so the city decides to widen the rode. This moves the whole city further appart, which means people need the car more often, which means there are more traffic jams. 2. They are hugely energy inefficient, because (as said before), you need to move the whole car around just to transport one person 3. They are the most dangerous mode of travel and most often endanger bike drivers or pedestrians. 4. They are loud and stink

    You could solve most of these problems with proper public transport. These "futuristic" ideas, like inductive roads or Musks Hyperloop are just a way for big companies to direct funding and attention away from public transport.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    OK, well there's a lot of engineers and scientists that you'll have to find and explain how wrong they are. I wasn't inventing induction roadways in my head, they're a real thing and showing a lot of success for use cases like the trucking industry and use on highways where cars travel at speed most of the time.

    If we could power vehicles on negativity and dismissiveness of electrifying fossil fuel infrastructure until everyone got the exact solution they wanted, we could all drive to the moon and back.

    https://insideevs.com/news/777157/wireless-charging-highway-power/

    https://www.prima.ca/en/project/inductive-electric-charging-road/

    https://www.enrx.com/en/Company/Media/News/ASPIRE-Electric-Roadway-test-track---Electrifying-the-future-of-transportation

    https://en.newsroom.vinci-concessions.com/news/world-s-first-dynamic-induction-charging-highway-road-tests-in-real-traffic-conditions-are-very-promising-c0075-55ff8.html

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWW0wMahXfA

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666691X22000458

    https://newatlas.com/automotive/electreon-vinci-wireless-charging-motorway/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    The thing is, we already have the solution though. It's public transport. Railways can also be used to transport cargo. For longer routes you can still use ships.

    Your solution is the unrealistic one. Because we would have to invest an insane amount of money into that infrastructure. We could invest a fraction if that into public transport and we would be so much better off.

    I don't care how many scientists agree with you. Just think critically for like 10 seconds about this. How would this really improve anything over public transport?

    Also there are a lot if scientists agreeing with me, so...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    I think you're assuming everyone lives in an urban setting or a developed Western European country where trains are already present. That is not the case for a significant number of people, like it or not. it is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and certainly not a bridge to ease people off of fossil fuels.

    My parents live 2 hours from a large city, and 30 miles outside of a small town, the last 2 miles of which are a dirt road. What, exactly, form of public transport should I take from the airport to their house? A series of busses and then walk 2 miles? How would THEY get to the store? How should they buy and get food to their small farm? On a bus?

    Since you're awake, you're likely in the same time zone as I am, or close enough. Are there not isolated villages and communities where you live where 100 or fewer people aren't worth a bus going by every 45 minutes, just in case?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    And one day we even become fossil fuel...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 82 points 8 months ago (14 children)

    In the US, we use a lot of prime farmland to grow corn that we turn into ethanol - 30,000,000 acres. Thirty million acres!

    That ethanol is combined with gas (making the gas less efficient, by the way) and powers our cars in the US.

    If you look at the number of miles the ethanol powers in the US, and calculate how many acres of solar we'd need to power electric cars to go that number of miles, we'd need to convert less than a quarter of a million of those acres to solar. So let's round up from 214,000 acres to the 250,000 because... inefficiencies, or whatever.

    So we could gain 29,750,000 acres of land to grow more food or whatever and stop growing corn to turn into ethanol just to burn it in our cars.

    For that matter, if we wanted to use that ethanol land (JUST the land we're using for ethanol) to power ALL cars in the US, switching everyone over to electric, it would only take about two million acres. Sure, 2,000,000 acres is a lot, but that would still be freeing up TWENTY EIGHT MILLION ACRES of land we're using JUST to grow corn we turn into ethanol.

    It does ignore anything like the chaos of forcing everyone to buy a new electric car, setting that infrastructure up - I'm not saying this would be easy, but it is stunning how much land we could stop abusing to grow corn to burn in our cars.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 8 months ago*

    Mandating solar PV in all building codes nationwide, and incentivizing onshoring of all of the processes that go into manufacturing solar PV panels (including using trade protectionism practices such as tariffs AFTER WE ALREADY HAVE PROCESSING AND MANUFACTURING CAPABILITIES IN THE USA) will do wonders for helping average people transition away from fossil fuel Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) cars to EVs.

    Many people who cry foul about EVs and renewables adding too much load to a grid that is too old and just can't handle it forget the main counter to disarm their arguments: colocating generation with utilization.

    Having solar PV (and other renewable) generation closest to where that power wants to be used is the best for the grid infrastructure (maybe not the grid investors) because it reduces residential/commercial load while maintaining the needs of the original giga users of the grid: Industry.

    There are solutions to SO many of today's problems. We just have politicians that are bought and sold by billionaires and their corporations who won't do the public's bidding. Voting progressive politicians in, and preferably ones who vocally claim they're Democratic Socialist or similar, is the strongest way we push back against Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Tech, and all the other mega industries.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    If what you say is accurate, the other benefit would be that they wouldn't even need prime, fertile real estate.

    They'd just need any space with good sun capture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

    Theres a lot of misunderstanding going on here about both corn and solar power.

    Corn is not something that requires ideal or fertile real estate. People imagine corn being grown in the stereotypical midwestern river-adjacent and particularly fertile type of places, like Iowa or Ohio or whatever. The reality is that modern corn production requires a shitload of artificial nitrogen fertilization, so the actual fertility of the land is virtually unimportant. Believe it or not, Texas is actually one of the most productive places for corn farming, and in particularly hot and arid areas where you wouldnt be farming much else. More like typical ranching land, not prime farming land.

    Now with solar power, at the current levels of efficiency (and unlike corn), having a cloudy day is a major killer. UV intensity at high elevation can be virtually nothing when it gets a little cloudy. Whereas on a sunny say it would be extremely high. So you need ideally somewhere that is as high altitude as possible, but where it is also sunny almost all the time. There are not a lot of places that meet that description, and even the few places that do are largely very expensive to acquire land in because people want to build houses and hotels and golf courses and whatever else in (or adjacent to) the mountains. Take Pueblo, CO, for example. It’s one of the solar hubs of the US. But its difficult to expand from there because you can either go east, down in elevation, and increase the number of cloudy days. Or you can try to go west and everything becomes exponentially more expensive the closer you get to the Rockies.

    More importantly though, corn and solar production necessitate two completely different environments. No one is growing corn in Pueblo, and you wont find many solar fields in places where corn is grown effectively. Because a lot of the time people grow corn where it rains often, therefore those places have many more cloudy days in a year. Realistically you cant just take corn fields and turn them into solar fields

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    A lot of diesel is used in agriculture, maybe unnecessary agriculture.

    The actual benefit of solar is that it is widespread so that cloudy days are less of an issue. Obviously storing the excess is a major objective too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    If this is true then solar dominance would be very efficient for our society in your's and op's description because in this scenario, corn will still always be grown.. however, it would be marginalized to its regions that can only grow corn as you described.

    I think that's what you was coveying.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    In the US, we use a lot of prime farmland to grow corn that we turn into ethanol - 30,000,000 acres. Thirty million acres!

    not actually true. This is oil and gas propaganda.

    Most of the corn grown in the US is not edible. Barely 1.5%. Most of it is grown for sugars, oils and other industrial processes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago*

    Bypassing the question of whether sugars and oils are edible (?), field corn is perfectly edible for humans. Field corn isn't sweet corn, and doesn't taste good as a vegetable. But we can eat it the same way most people throughout history have eaten corn - as a staple crop, as a grain like wheat, as corn flour, cornmeal, grits, parched corn, hominy, maza, etc, etc. We just choose not to.

    And calling opposition to ethanol "oil and gas propaganda" is ridiculous. Like the comment you responded to point it out, ethanol is sold mixed with gasoline. The industries are synergistic, not competitive. They have a common interest in promoting internal combustion engine vehicles and opposing EVs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Most of the corn grown in the US is not edible. Barely 1.5%. Most of it is grown for sugars, oils and other industrial processes.

    not actually true. This is oil and sugar propaganda.

    Most of the corn grown in the US is grass. 100% of it, in fact. Soybeans make up a large percentage of animal feed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Most of the corn grown in the US is grass.

    ....grass? you mean feed?

    or do you mean maise technically being a grass, but having diverged greatly from it's original form via agricultural selection?

    if that's the case, when you say most, what's the remainder then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Inb4

    Please think of the Poor Freight Captains and tHe eCoNoMy

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • tHe eCoNoMy

    funnily enough renewable energy is probably gonna be the biggest driver of the economy in the next 10 years or so, considering that a lot of new infrastructure has to be built for it and they will generate a lot of power to drive further manufacturing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    That means fuel will continue to get more expensive as other markets switch to renewable energy sources. That in turn will reduce the number of ships which will make the fuel harder to find, which will reduce the number of products using that fuel, which will eventually result in total elimination of that market.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago

    Unless it's officially propped up by governments at the behest of rich and powerful fossil fuel lobbies!

    It's inevitable that it will end some day, but not nearly as fast as it otherwise organically would.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    The big costs comes from building the infrastructure for fossil fuels. So as soon as demand falls, you have a huge part of the bill has been paid already. So you get low fossil fuel prices. You need to keep in mind that most large oil producers are state owned. Therefore those states will try to shut down other suppliers production.

    You can see that already with sanctions against Russia and Iran to keep US oil producers going strong.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Its sort of happening hard like that but companies are resilient. According to the news, in the Philippines they are asking people to work from home and reduce energy use. It's a beautiful country but you can see evidence of industry everywhere you go. Candy wrappers and bags on the street, etc etc. In most neighborhoods you see people sweeping like they do in Mexico. But roads, rivers are covered in trash unless they are part of the tourism industry. It much worse in India from what I can tell. So if that is being reduced, hopefully it will just stop happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    I’ve been in Indonesia and it’s like that. Lots of rubbish everywhere. What is encouraging is that there appears to be a campaign to recycle and clean up. Some places are a fair bit cleaner now but you still see some flagrant rubbish tossers out and about.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    markets don't work that way. if you reduce demand (i.e. fewer people consume fossil fuels), and supply stays constant, that means that prices go down, which makes fossil fuels cheaper until people start using them again. eventually it balances out at an equilibrium state. supply and demand

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Yes, thats assumed. However we are taking into account that machinery rusts away quickly. If you stop one refinery for example, that's not a smooth change, its an abrupt step. If we stay steady below the usual high, then trying to come back will be expensive. For that reason we'll see the price increase slowly...you need the fuel, so its a seller's market, they need to get paid as if their load was double in case they need to double. At some point it might drop a bit until it becomes a luxury item.

    Here's an example where the price is going up became the supply keeps dropping and the demand keeps increasing regardless of the supply situation:

    The same would happen to ice cars. People still want to use them if they have them, but the market keeps shrinking.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Burn oil to pump oil

    Burn oil to refine oil

    Burn oil to ship oil

    So we can burn oil at home.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago

    Look, you’re not thinking about the shareholders. I NEED YOU to think about the shareholders! How will they ever make their billions? You selfish bastard!

    /s just in case.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›