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.
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
1089 points (97.2% liked)
solarpunk memes
2729 readers
1620 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
High schooler post
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.
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.
That's China. Are you making a product in China and need a bunch of screws? The factory down the street makes those. Need a housing? Another factory down the street makes those. An LCD display? Believe it or not, down the street.
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.
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.
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.
People have done those cost/benefit analysis for solar, wind, and EVs. They come out a pretty clear winner. We don't really need to keep hounding on this while pretending to be smart.
Now E15 gas, OTOH? Utter trash that should go away.
load more comments
(9 replies)
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Joke's on you when we get even more ships sending the sun and wind around the world, idiot.
The delivery mechanism for sunlight keeps burning me while the delivery mechanism for wind keeps knocking things over. Someone help me, I need a lawyer!
Fuckin demolished that snowflake. With climate change
load more comments
(2 replies)
If we switched to renewable energy, the cost of coal and oil would crash, but it wouldn't drop to zero. Wealthier countries would stop producing oil locally and shipments would still circle the globe from countries desperate enough to keep producing at lower profits, to countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure.
That's not a reason not to switch. We just need to be prepared for the reality that no single solution will resolve all our problems. Conservatives and energy barons will fight tooth and nail, and will point to the new problems as evidence that we never should have switched. was
countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure.
Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuel power.
Yes but fossil fuel cost will drop, and they have existing infrastructure
countries that cannot affort the more expensive renewable infrastructure
This presumes renewables are more expensive. But I would posit that a rapid adoption of renewables is going to occur as the cost of operating - say - a thorium powered container ship falls below that of its coal equivalents.
What I would be worried about, long term, is the possibility that advanced technologies further monopolize industries within a handful of early adopter countries. That's not an ecological concern so much as a socio-economic concern.
That and developing countries have been able to adopt some green initiatives, which points to them being at least somewhat affordable
Green energy has very short supply lines when compared to fossil fuels. Great if you live somewhere remote or prone to sudden economic distributions.
a thorium powered container ship
If the experience of the NS Savannah is anything to go by, the major hurdle that ship is going to face is Greenpeace etc. fomenting irrational anti-nuclear hysteria until it's banned from so many ports that it'll be too difficult to operate it profitably. I hope I'm wrong and I wish them luck.
Good luck, they'd have to ban nuclear subs and no nation wants to throw that protection away.
Also fuck Greenpeace and their often more harmful than helpful stunts.
Good luck, they’d have to ban nuclear subs and no nation wants to throw that protection away.
No, that doesn't follow. I'm pretty sure nuclear subs -- or nuclear aircraft carriers, for that matter -- rarely dock at commercial ports, and there's no reason (other than hypocrisy, which is not relevant) that a country can't decide to bar nuclear ships from commercial ports while still allowing them at military naval bases.
Depends on the sub but yeah they do. Lots and I'd go so far as to say most naval bases are the deepest port inland for protection often surrounded by private commercial businesses. Hell the shipyard most of the us nuclear subs are made is adjoining one of the nations largest ports.
They wouldn't port ban them since that doesn't actually solve the complaints, it would be exclusion from territorial waters and no one wants to do that. A. because they're safer B. Because the protection nuclear navies provide is something everyone values C. These things are usually decided between nations not generally by a sole nation.
Would the price crash or would it stabilize at a much higher price as a specialized commodity where the cost of refining no longer benefits from economies of scale and instead only benefits from buyers who are unable or unwilling to use alternatives?
Is this a meme?
I'll allow it.
Yo, you right