• skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    14 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

    • auzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      I’m guessing most countries would try to recycle batteries locally. Or/and throw them onto solar systems straight away

    • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      edit-2
      13 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.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            27 minutes ago

            That implies that we can make electricity everywhere, which is technically true but not really the case because there’s countries with more and with less free space, with more suitable places and less suitable places to put renewables.

            Those ammonia tankers will happen. At that point btw we’re not just talking about electricity, but also chemical feedstock.

          • grandkaiser@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            13 hours ago

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

                • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    10 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 😄

          • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            13 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

            • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              The problem with the comparison is hydrocarbons are the energy source, hydrogen is no it’s just the energy carrier. It is very inefficient to convert energy to hydrogen then convert it back again. Something like 60% round trip efficiency. Not to mention the cost and loss in loading into containers and shipping it around the world. It’s also not a very dense fuel per volume especially compared to oil. It’s just way easier and cheaper to have cables that run from one place to another. They are already building one from Australia to Singapore and if it’s successful that will probably open the floodgates. There aren’t many places that are more than 2000 miles away from large sources of renewable energy even if your thinking places like Alaska which could do hydro if there ever was dense enough populations anywhere that would consume it.

              • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                this is less of a problem when you don’t use it for energy, but instead as a feedstock like in synthesis of ammonia or steelmaking. you can make ammonia in many places, but it’s not the case for steel

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 minutes ago

        Everything that comes out of a petrochemical plant can be made without oil, in fact BASF had recipes in place for decades now and is switching sources as the price shifts. Push come to shove they can produce everything from starch. It’s also why they hardly blinked when Russia turned off the gas.

        The carbon that actually ends up in steel is a quite negligible amount (usually under 1%, over 2% you get cast iron), you can get that out of the local forest, and to reduce the iron hydrogen works perfectly, the first furnances are already online.

      • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        13 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