632
Know thy enemy (mander.xyz)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 12 points 3 hours ago

Won't someone think of the seamen?

[-] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 hours ago

I'm constantly thinking of seamen

[-] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Capt'n Pugwash and Seaman Stains will both be out of jobs.

[-] tilefan@lemm.ee 10 points 3 hours ago

correct me if I'm wrong, but the United States doesn't even have oil refineries that are capable of making gasoline out of American oil? like we need the type of oil that the middle East has, so we're constantly trading oil back and forth even though we have plenty of it

I think I've heard this is true. something about politicians wanting to look environmentalist and therefore preventing the building of any more refineries

[-] fox@hexbear.net 10 points 3 hours ago

No, there's a significant amount of oil infrastructure locally. They've even got a colonialist extension with Canada: crude oil crosses over to be refined and sold back to Canada

[-] radio_free_asgarthr@hexbear.net 6 points 2 hours ago

No, it is true. It is not the quantity of oil infrastructure, but the grades and types they are. The US crude is mostly light sweet crude after the shift to oil shale. The refinery infrastructure was originally built for heavy crude with high sulfur content. Thus the US imports the type of oil our refineries were built to handle, and exports the portion of the oil that is domestically produced, but the wrong type.

[-] radio_free_asgarthr@hexbear.net 4 points 2 hours ago

The lack of investment in the types of oil refineries to refine US oil domestically isn't as much for optics purposes. But that relative to the amount of investment required to build new refineries to compete with the current foreign ones isn't a good return on investment relative to the up front cost and the existing profits of the current arrangement.

[-] tilefan@lemm.ee 3 points 2 hours ago

the government should at least subsidize a couple so in the event of an apocalypse we can make our own gasoline.

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 4 points 3 hours ago

Offhand I believe we have a few that can do light oil, but most of ours wouldn’t want to change over even if offered to do so for free. Rather the reason is the US has a lot of chemical engineers and capital and so is good at refining the more challenging to deal with and cheaper to get heavy oils while selling the easy to refine and therefore more valuable light oil we dig up down in Texas to places that have more primitive refineries.

While we could retrofit all of our our refining capacity to use our oil, it doesn’t make financial sense because your spending a lot of money to switch to an more expensive input, so companies arn’t going to want to do it unless the government forces them to, and the government would only force them to if it wanted to spite everyone else and raise domestic gas prices.

[-] Zorg@lemmings.world 1 points 2 hours ago

US gasoline production was around 1.4 million barrels/day last year. Large amounts are exported and imported though, so there was a grain of truth to your claim.

[-] tilefan@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago

yes but how much of that gasoline was made from American crude oil? America has plenty of refineries, just none of them designed for American oil

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 90 points 6 hours ago

And they burn the worst kind of residual bunker oil because it's the cheapest option and regulations don't exist.

[-] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 25 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

And destroyed the Baltimore bridge because their backup engines were split between legal fuel and international-waters fuel.

[-] Hawke@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

What’s with the math in the middle of your comment?

[-] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 12 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

hyphen became a plus? Dalí didn't have a spare engine because their working spare engine wasn't purged of fuel that wouldn't be legal to burn in US coastal waters.

[-] Hawke@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

It was that in combination with the “engine-generators” yes. Made it unclear.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago
[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 56 points 6 hours ago

Some of these ships would carry green hydrogen and new lithium batteries and old lithium batteries (to be recycled) and whatnot. Also at least some oil would be still needed for fine chemicals like meds or (idk what's proper english term for that) large scale organic synthesis like plastics, or even straight distillates like hexane (for edible oil extraction) or lubricants. Some of usual non-energy uses of oil can be easily substituted with enough energy like with nitrogen fertilizers but some can't

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 29 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

We aren’t consuming batteries anywhere near the rate we consume oil and coal. Hydrogen even less than batteries.

So the amount of ships needed would still be a fraction of what we use now.

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 hours ago

not now, but if hydrogen were to be used as an energy source/storage, then it'd be used plenty. same with batteries

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 15 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

We can make hydrogen everywhere, we can't 'make oil'.

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 hours ago

no we can't make hydrogen everywhere, there will be regions with large excess of renewable energy compared to population. these places could export hydrogen. you also don't need a lot of transport if crude is extracted near place where it's used, like for example heavy crude from alberta

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Yeah, there's no reason to be transporting hydrogen long distances. You can make it anywhere that has water and electricity. And if you've transitioned to a hydrogen based economy (which is a big if), ships wouldn't run on oil any more anyway, so there's no problem there.

[-] MarcomachtKuchen@feddit.org 3 points 4 hours ago

Yeah but your electricity also needs to be produced by reusable manners, which commonly results in solar power. And since the intensity of solar rays and the amount of sunny hours per day vary on the global scale there are some countries which are capable of producing more hydrogen and cheaper than producing locally. I know that the German government is looking at Marocco to establish a hydrogen production and import.

[-] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

We absolutely can 'make oil'. Been doing it since world war II. Synthetic oil is extremely common.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

I mean, yeah, but also, that's not really efficient or effective for burning.

[-] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago
[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

I'm not disagreeing, but if the energy is surplus, might as well make hydrogen, at least we don't end up with pollution.

[-] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Oh certainly. Power storage is a real problem, especially with up-down renewables. I just didn't understand why you were saying oil can't be produced but hydrogen can. Synthesizing oil for power storage is a terrible idea 😄

[-] ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net 32 points 5 hours ago

the argument for renewable energy isnt that we should stop using oil, its that we shouldnt burn it. why turn our limited supply of oil into CO2 and water when we can turn it into plastics, medicine, solvents, etc? around 3/4 of crude oil is used as fuel, but if renewable energy was used, the number of oil tankers would decrease by more than 75% bc local supplies would generally be sufficient for industrial, non-fuel uses

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 5 hours ago

ikr, but that tweet implies that all of oil/gas/coal ships would be unnecessary

[-] IrritableOcelot@beehaw.org 6 points 4 hours ago

That is true, but part of improving our environmental impact will be decreasing that transport of raw materials, localizing chemical industries near the sources of their raw materials.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

That wouldn’t really need to be shipped around though, domestic supply can cover those needs almost everywhere.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

And oil for Styrofoam. And met coal for steel.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

There's alternative processes, and if you avoid burning oil and coal for fuel you can basically do all that with the amount of oil that's in easy reach instead of using tar sands or drilling into even more difficult to reach places.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

You have to be careful when talking about steel because coal is both an ingredient (steel is iron + carbon) and used for heating afaik. You can take coal out of the heating step (confusingly called steel making) but not out of the ingredient step, unless you want to find a different carbon source.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 5 points 4 hours ago

There's (admittedly comparatively expensive) alternative processes, and even if you stick to the old process and just stop using coal for electricity generation you'd cut coal use by 75%.

Not to mention, the carbon that stays in the steel doesn't actually go into the atmosphere, so there's less CO2 emissions for that specific use if you can substitute the fuel used for heating.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

That's why I said met coal for steel.

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

you're probably talking about direct reduced iron and it's really a problem that can be dealt with easily, just chuck a piece of coke when it's molten for the second time in electric arc furnace (and maybe electrodes introduce enough carbon). substituting coke with hydrogen works also on "ingredient step" if you mean by that fuel needed to reduce iron ore to iron

maybe there's a way to make electrowinning iron economical, and it'd be pretty green too, but i don't know if it is workable

e: you can also avoid need for met coal if you use methane or syngas for direct reduced iron process

[-] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

coal can be substituted to some degree with processes like direct reduction. hydrogen works but syngas from biomass or trash also works

file styrofoam under plastics

So what you’re saying is the companies that own those boats will lobby the government so that this never happens? Sweet.

[-] M600@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago

Now I’m waiting for the news report,

“Green Energy will cost jobs!”

[-] tomatolung@sopuli.xyz 11 points 5 hours ago

Anyone know how much of the oil transported is actually used for plastic, percentage wise?

[-] iSeth@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 hours ago
[-] MelaniaTrump@hexbear.net 6 points 5 hours ago

gotta burn fuel just to get more fuel. Zeno’s paradox but capitalistic economic collapse

[-] Redex68@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Yeah but if I'm not mistaken, emissions from shipping are quite low anyways. It's something like 2-5℅ of all our emissions, so it's pretty low priority.

this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
632 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

10853 readers
3153 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS