this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
376 points (99.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

15180 readers
870 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] leagman1@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Do you happen to know how battery or fuel cell ships are doing atm?

There are some, but afaik they weren't ready for global shipment yet, but more local, due to range.

[–] 0tan0d@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

China is putting the infrastructure in place internally along their big ass rivers.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If you want green cargo shipping, it might be better to look to the past. Way back in the day, all shipping was very green, powered by wind. Maybe we could have a return of sailing ships?

Though, of course, sails do have some big disadvantages, which is why they were replaced in the first place. You'd definitely want an electric (or even fossil fuel) powertrain available to use as a backup or in emergencies. But when winds are favorable, why not set sail and let very green wind energy propel you across the ocean? As an extra bonus, sails are cheap and a very mature, well-understood technology. All you need to do is scale them up.

The biggest difference at the end of the day is that sailing ships are generally slower and require much more crew. So overseas shipping would be slower and possibly more expensive. (Though the massive fuel savings might offset the expense somewhat?) But I don't necessarily think that slower and more expensive overseas shipping would be such a bad thing in the long run. It would encourage more local production and consumption.

[–] leagman1@feddit.org 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lol, I didn't even consider sails.

Perhaps crew could be reduced with some form of automated sails? I dunno most of the terms, but can't a motor set and unset the sail? Perhaps make the mast retractable and such things.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I forget the article I read about 3 years ago about a modern cargo ship using sails to reduce the amount of fuel they use. Can't find it now but if I can find it I'll try and post it in an edit here

[–] leagman1@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago

I saw some science-entertainment videos. There's also these rotating "sail" cylinders. Most of it sounded not viable for mass transport and more like PoC or tryout state.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Going back to sails is a cool idea, but I don’t see how it’s viable, nor will batteries be. We’re going to need to settle on some sort of sustainable liquid fuel for a few uses like shipping and aviation.

Maybe this is even some good that can be driven by militaries

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

but I don’t see how it’s viable

It was viable enough in the 1800s.

for a few uses like shipping and aviation

Yeah ... aviation in particular will probably be mainly fossil fuels for a long time to come, because it really needs energy density.

The solution there is just for people to fly less. (Which could be partially accomplished by having fast electric train routes.)

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It was viable in the 1800s because it was the best method available. We don't use it today because it ultimately costs more. A wind-powered company would have to compete against others using extremely energy-dense fuels that enable hundreds of times more cargo (between increased speed and increased capacity) for the same time and money.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

So, in other words, it's perfectly viable ... just not economically viable.

That's a failure of our economy, not of the technology. Perhaps if all the externalities of fossil fuel emissions were included in the cost of fossil fuel shipping (say, with massive taxes on fossil fuels to fund environmental efforts and carbon capture), that would change the balance.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

That's like saying, "So it's perfectly possible ... just not physically possible." If you cannot afford to do something, then you can't do it. It's freaking tautological.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 1 points 18 hours ago

"Can't afford it" is very, very different than "not physically possible".

If our economic system changed, then it could be perfectly viable again.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

If the only reason oil is being extracted is to power aviation, the cost of fuel, and hence of flying, will be higher and the volume of flights will go down accordingly. Win/win for everyone but the oil and tourist industries.

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

I didn't sorry.