Joke's on you when we get even more ships sending the sun and wind around the world, idiot.
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
594 points (100.0% liked)
solarpunk memes
111 readers
32 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Facts!
Funnily that isn't a bad description of shipping green hydrogen
Bro just ignoring all the ships we'll need to carry all that wind and sunlight
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.
Yeah, that worked totally well for the Guano and sodium nitrate businesses.
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.
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.
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.
Well, let’s hop to it!
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)
Ok maybe I wasn’t clear enough. That’s exactly what I meant. The nuclear technology, not the submarine technology.
What are the glaring issues?
The big thing is that ports need to learn how to handle and refuel nuclear material. It's all possible, but not a small task. The ports won't want to do it until there are ships that need it, and the ships won't want to do it until there are ports that can handle it.
Is this a meme?
Yo, you right
I'll allow it.
High schooler post
As nice as it would be, a not insignificant amount of coal being transported is destined to steel production. Steel is iron + carbon, and the easiest source of carbon is coal. Steel is pretty important, so that's not going away anytime soon. I wonder if carbon capture could make a product that could be used to replace coal here though, and fairly effectively sequester the carbon in an actually useful form?
What biomass grows the fastest without being waterlogged - I imagine bamboo or sugarcane or something
Grow that, and burn it to make carbon neutral steel; bonus points if you do it in a highrise/underground farm but frankly some medium term reversible environmental damage is preferable to killing off way more with climate change
Eh, purity is a thing. Biomass is the opposite of what you want there, but it could be doable. I do wager, however, that the largest "climate cost" of steel comes from the repeated melting of the steel.
Coal has a bunch of impurities compared to charcoal I thought?
And if the repeated melting is done by burning biomass/charcoal or with clean(er) energy then it's not a huge issue
Still leagues ahead of biomass. Don't get me wrong, this is an issue that can be solved. Biomass can be converted to biogas which can be purified to produce methane (or you just burn biogas directly) which then in turn can be used for heat (or other purposes) - the problem here is the sheer amount of energy this requires. Yes, significant portions of the steel industry can be "decarbonised" (or at least I think so) but the effort is immense. Doable, necessary, but it will be a huge piece of work.
By "burn it" I meant turn it into charcoal... Charcoal averages 80% carbon (range 50-95%), whereas depending on the type coal ranges from 60-92% carbon, with the purest type, anthracite, being 86-92% carbon
Given a mass production system would likely result in more uniform carbon content near the top of the range, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they could be swapped out pretty easily
Electric Arc Furnaces are probably our best bet for that - they're an established, proven technology and can be swapped over to a green power source without any other changes (assuming the society has the energy capacity). I think I remember reading that a factory somewhere in Europe had already done that but a quick search has failed me.
Certainly, they're the shit, but the energy capacity you mentioned is a huge issue. As I said in my other comment it should/could/has to be done, but it's anything but simple.
There are efforts to develop green steel, it'll be more expensive than coal, but coal is only so cheap because of the huge amount mined for fuel
Bill McKibben is based.