Ships passing in the night..

[RichardBartlett]

Interesting thread on shipping coal, oil , gas and solar

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...149673913.html

Never really thought of this, apparently 50% of all cargo shipping worldwide is coal, gas or oil.

Every shipment of solar panels removes the need to ship fuels. The more solar the less mega ships needed, it's a self fulfilling prophecy which can only be good for the environment (I don't buy the climate change BS btw)

Cleaning the enviroment is a huge topic which governments are reluctant to tackle as they'd rather fly around the world to wine, dine and pontificate on an unknown unprovable somewhere over the horizon.
I agree it's not the only solution but those opposing 'greening' of energy should sit back and think outside their own garage..

Those who say "ah but think of all those poor kids mining lithium" etc. Well every battery in every hand held device has been using lithium so why suddenly get all emotional about that now?
Plus the battery industry is moving away from lithium as different materials are being utilized and getting more and more efficient so less and less materials are needed.


The overall 'end of the game' effect is a huge positive and whilst transition is always painful I truly believe it's a better idea than the carry on regardless approach. IMHO

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by RichardBartlett

Interesting thread on shipping coal, oil , gas and solar

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...149673913.html

Never really thought of this, apparently 50% of all cargo shipping worldwide is coal, gas or oil.

Every shipment of solar panels removes the need to ship fuels. The more solar the less mega ships needed, it's a self fulfilling prophecy which can only be good for the environment (I don't buy the climate change BS btw)

Cleaning the enviroment is a huge topic which governments are reluctant to tackle as they'd rather fly around the world to wine, dine and pontificate on an unknown unprovable somewhere over the horizon.
I agree it's not the only solution but those opposing 'greening' of energy should sit back and think outside their own garage..

Those who say "ah but think of all those poor kids mining lithium" etc. Well every battery in every hand held device has been using lithium so why suddenly get all emotional about that now?
Plus the battery industry is moving away from lithium as different materials are being utilized and getting more and more efficient so less and less materials are needed.


The overall 'end of the game' effect is a huge positive and whilst transition is always painful I truly believe it's a better idea than the carry on regardless approach. IMHO

Completely agree, we all need to move to a more sustainable energy source, and I work in oil and gas!

What I don't agree with is your climate change comment, the earth is getting warmer. I guess the cause of that can be argued, but global warming is happening, as has been for some time.

[Andad]

Richard.

The increase in the number of rockets more than makes up for the reduction in mega ships.

And this will only increase in the future.

[brandrea]

You lost me at climate change BS

[330ci]

Originally Posted by RichardBartlett

Interesting thread on shipping coal, oil , gas and solar

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...149673913.html

Never really thought of this, apparently 50% of all cargo shipping worldwide is coal, gas or oil.

Every shipment of solar panels removes the need to ship fuels. The more solar the less mega ships needed, it's a self fulfilling prophecy which can only be good for the environment (I don't buy the climate change BS btw)



Those who say "ah but think of all those poor kids mining lithium" etc. Well every battery in every hand held device has been using lithium so why suddenly get all emotional about that now?
Plus the battery industry is moving away from lithium as different materials are being utilized and getting more and more efficient so less and less materials are needed.


The overall 'end of the game' effect is a huge positive and whilst transition is always painful I truly believe it's a better idea than the carry on regardless approach. IMHO

You in the solar panel industry by chance?

I replace my phone as minimally as possible(just replaced my 5 yr old galaxy S9 to a refurbed iPhone.) a lithium car battery uses more lithium than all the lithium ion products I’d consume over a lifetime. If we go to household lithium cells that would exceed my lifetime usage as well.

Projects to improve transport costs have been sabotaged or shut down for various reasons(nordstream and keystone being the biggest) there are far better ways to transport crude and gas, Coal we could do away with, but there’s still a lot of coal miners out their supporting their families too.


Solar has its benefits, but it has its draws as well. Too much solar is bad for the environment as well. The earth is essentially a greenhouse and too many solar panels leads to overheating as they reflect off solar heat that is generally absorbed by the earth. This is why they don’t just fill the Sahara with solar panels.


Then there’s what happens to all the solar panels at the end of their life. Carbon fiber turbine blades are currently being buried whole in fields. Who are going to be the primary electronics recyclers of the future?


The kids statement is totally uncalled for; lithium sources are being identified all across the United States in order to become more independent of trade. But mining the stuff is nasty; involves a lot of water and here in Michigan has the potential to poison some of the worlds largest freshwater deposits so it’s definitely not a low risk game.

[Krash]

There is a company called Kairos Power that is developing and building mini nuclear reactors. No massive power plant is required and there is no possibility of a China Syndrome like meltdown. It’s really amazing technology.

Both Google and Amazon will begin using these to power their data centers. I expect to see these mini nuclear reactors to proliferate over the next several decades. You’ll literally be able to buy your own reactor for your home or business.

This could completely transform how electricity is generated and distributed.

Many folks will immediately dismiss this, but that’s a big mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Krash

There is a company called Kairos Power that is developing and building mini nuclear reactors. No massive power plant is required and there is no possibility of a China Syndrome like meltdown. It’s really amazing technology.

Both Google and Amazon will begin using these to power their data centers. I expect to see these mini nuclear reactors to proliferate over the next several decades. You’ll literally be able to buy your own reactor for your home or business.

This could completely transform how electricity is generated and distributed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We even have a plan

https://smractionplan.ca/

[RichardBartlett]

Originally Posted by Krash

There is a company called Kairos Power that is developing and building mini nuclear reactors. No massive power plant is required and there is no possibility of a China Syndrome like meltdown. It’s really amazing technology.

Both Google and Amazon will begin using these to power their data centers. I expect to see these mini nuclear reactors to proliferate over the next several decades. You’ll literally be able to buy your own reactor for your home or business.

This could completely transform how electricity is generated and distributed.

Many folks will immediately dismiss this, but that’s a big mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I said, solar isn't he only solution but maybe mini nuclear powered cargo ships and these mega cruise ships is the way forward. We've had nuclear subs for decades without issue AFAIK

[OG1982]

Originally Posted by brandrea

We even have a plan

https://smractionplan.ca/

Sounds like a great idea. I just worry about all the Bond villains buying up all the small reactors to make a very big one!

I guess the big oil companies will have a lot to say about this and will be lobbying hard against it, but I believe it should be those companies pioneering this new tech with their vast fortunes, and in turn protecting their future revenues.

[RichardBartlett]

Originally Posted by 330ci

You in the solar panel industry by chance?

I replace my phone as minimally as possible(just replaced my 5 yr old galaxy S9 to a refurbed iPhone.) a lithium car battery uses more lithium than all the lithium ion products I’d consume over a lifetime. If we go to household lithium cells that would exceed my lifetime usage as well.

Projects to improve transport costs have been sabotaged or shut down for various reasons(nordstream and keystone being the biggest) there are far better ways to transport crude and gas, Coal we could do away with, but there’s still a lot of coal miners out their supporting their families too.


Solar has its benefits, but it has its draws as well. Too much solar is bad for the environment as well. The earth is essentially a greenhouse and too many solar panels leads to overheating as they reflect off solar heat that is generally absorbed by the earth. This is why they don’t just fill the Sahara with solar panels.


Then there’s what happens to all the solar panels at the end of their life. Carbon fiber turbine blades are currently being buried whole in fields. Who are going to be the primary electronics recyclers of the future?


The kids statement is totally uncalled for; lithium sources are being identified all across the United States in order to become more independent of trade. But mining the stuff is nasty; involves a lot of water and here in Michigan has the potential to poison some of the worlds largest freshwater deposits so it’s definitely not a low risk game.

To go through your points.
No, I'm a retired HVAC business owner without any solar panels. I looked at it but it doesn't work out for me.

As I said, Lithium is being phased out or at least replaced in car batteries. The demand for lithium is large of course will level out as sodium etc take over.

there are far better ways to transport fuels around the world. Its better to provide a one stop solution (solar) which ends repeat journeys . Coal is dying even China is looking at alternatives to coal. Its far too dirty as a long term solution. At the tun of the last centry there were thousands of ferriers, in a few short years that dropped to hundreds as cars replaced horses. Coal workers are in the same position. Job for life went out years ago. Harsh but any decent government should be there to support the transition.

The solar is heating up the earth remark makes no sense. I won't say you are wrong and I will research that statement but the earth absorbs the heat which goes directly into the Earth/Sea.
solar panels absorb roughly 25% of that heat (rising to 30%+ in the next few years) so it is actually taking that heat away from direct absorbtion. Of course no enegery is destroyed, it's just being deployed which has to be a good thing?
.
IIRC The reason they don't cover the Sahara with black panels is that it would alter the entire globes weather patterns.

As regards disposal. Great strides have been made in recycling. Blades are now or will be soon, broken up and recycled. Solar is mainly glass which can be crushed and the cells melted down.
Plus a lot of S/H panels (from the UK at least) are being shipped to Africa and fitted in small villages to power water pumps etc. Again without the solar industry that couldn't happen..



As i say Lithium may well not be used in anywhere near the quantities forecast IF a new breakthrough is found. Given the billions being spent and the Chinese have thousands of scientists working hard on solutions to problems we don't even know about.

Plus Elon is putting the full force of AI into this so I'd be surprised if a new unknown 'next best thing' doesn't happen

This is all relatively new and solutions are being thought up daily but as I said growing pains always happen. You simply cannot compare against legacy energy worse, the legacy energy was very complacient. Happy to pump out toxic waste in the chase of the dollar. IF it had cleaned up it's act decades ago maybe we wouldn't need a new solution or it wasn't worth persuing. But they didn't so others decieded enough was enough.

The 'electric' industry is relatively new, or at least been starved of serious funding ever since it was discovered. It was 'just a thing' now as I said money and brains are pouring in, it simply cannot or will not fail.

My 2012 Lexus hybrid apart from reliability is rubbish.Lumpy heavy old led acid batteries with 30km range. A new lexus is way way better. A Telsa or BYD is far beyond even that.

In a very short period EV's have improved in every metric beyond most people comprehension. Solar and 'green' energy can only do the same :-) IMHO.

[enjoythemusic]

Mini nuke plants, AI is going to need them.

[1William]

Interesting discussion and information being presented. Some folks are so locked into their positions that any one who offers a differing opinion are attacked. Reminds me of the discussion surrounding the Covid Vaccine. The world is a big place and what ever is going on in one place will impact others. Until you get some of the big polluters to participate, China/India/Pakistan just to name a few, you are just making noise. Trying to bring it around to watches because this is a watch forum, want to know what is happening, follow the money.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by OG1982

Sounds like a great idea. I just worry about all the Bond villains buying up all the small reactors to make a very big one!

I guess the big oil companies will have a lot to say about this and will be lobbying hard against it, but I believe it should be those companies pioneering this new tech with their vast fortunes, and in turn protecting their future revenues.

Big oil is invested in all these new technologies. They aren't oil companies, after all, they are energy companies. They follow the technology that turns the best profits. Oil is easy money now, but they are investing in their future as well.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Maleg

Big oil is invested in all these new technologies. They aren't oil companies, after all, they are energy companies. They follow the technology that turns the best profits. Oil is easy money now, but they are investing in their future as well.

This is true. Some of the largest integrated in the oil patch have ownership in wind and solar farms.

That said, the energy transition will take time. Fossil fuels won’t be going away any time soon

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by brandrea

This is true. Some of the largest integrated in the oil patch have ownership in wind and solar farms.

That said, the energy transition will take time. Fossil fuels won’t be going away any time soon

You are right. Jevon's paradox will prevail. As new energy takes root, the cost of fossil fuels will decline, making them more attractive as energy sources. Expect their use to increase, not decrease, as new energy tech comes on line.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Maleg

You are right. Jevon's paradox will prevail. As new energy takes root, the cost of fossil fuels will decline, making them more attractive as energy sources. Expect their use to increase, not decrease, as new energy tech comes on line.

I tend to agree

The IAE says peak oil consumption will hit in 2030. The US EIA says 2050. OPEC says 2045. Goldman Sachs says 2034. That means oil consumption continues to grow.

Needless to say, with all this AI stuff we need to generate more power to convert to electricity. Like it or not some of this tech will still run on oil (for now).

[Krash]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Mini nuke plants, AI is going to need them.

The mini nukes solve lots of problems for us. I’m not totally against wind and solar, but they’ll just never generate the amount of electricity necessary for a modern society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Krash

The mini nukes solve lots of problems for us. I’m not totally against wind and solar, but they’ll just never generate the amount of electricity necessary for a modern society.

+1 to hydro as well, and yup a combo of ways to 'feed' the system should be employed.

[BraveBold]

A crypto ban (or, more likely, crippling regulation and tax) would go a long way to freeing up energy vs overbuilding poorly conceived energy projects. Kill the ponzi scheme and you unlock energy right there.

As for AI, another problematic area that is poorly understood by most of its advocates (and developers)… well, we need a cleanse there too. The monkeys pushing that show (Musk et al) show their limited cognitive capabilities time and again… yet the sheep abide.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

A crypto ban (or, more likely, crippling regulation and tax) would go a long way to freeing up energy vs overbuilding poorly conceived energy projects. Kill the ponzi scheme and you unlock energy right there.

As for AI, another problematic area that is poorly understood by most of its advocates (and developers)… well, we need a cleanse there too. The monkeys pushing that show (Musk et al) show their limited cognitive capabilities time and again… yet the sheep abide.

Lots of hyperbole and vitriol in that post. Hopefully this thread won’t get locked because it’s an interesting topic discuss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

+1 to hydro as well, and yup a combo of ways to 'feed' the system should be employed.

Traditional hydro destroys watersheds and fish stocks. It's hard to permit new dam systems. Alternative hydro systems are like wind and solar, limited capacity. Nuclear package plants offer the most point of use capacity.

[Giovannibravo]

Originally Posted by RichardBartlett

Interesting thread on shipping coal, oil , gas and solar

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...149673913.html

Never really thought of this, apparently 50% of all cargo shipping worldwide is coal, gas or oil.

Every shipment of solar panels removes the need to ship fuels. The more solar the less mega ships needed, it's a self fulfilling prophecy which can only be good for the environment (I don't buy the climate change BS btw)

Cleaning the enviroment is a huge topic which governments are reluctant to tackle as they'd rather fly around the world to wine, dine and pontificate on an unknown unprovable somewhere over the horizon.
I agree it's not the only solution but those opposing 'greening' of energy should sit back and think outside their own garage..

Those who say "ah but think of all those poor kids mining lithium" etc. Well every battery in every hand held device has been using lithium so why suddenly get all emotional about that now?
Plus the battery industry is moving away from lithium as different materials are being utilized and getting more and more efficient so less and less materials are needed.


The overall 'end of the game' effect is a huge positive and whilst transition is always painful I truly believe it's a better idea than the carry on regardless approach. IMHO

Richard, I respectfully disagree with your comment on the climate change BS. This is the reason for the lack of regard and movement towards sustainable energy methods, which are mostly proven. Nuclear for instance. Also, the idea of pumped hydro is a form of energy storage, which can be easily implemented in many parts of the USA and Canada.

All I ask for is for people to trust experts. There is so much misinformation out there. I’ve been in rooms with plenty of executives in the oil and gas sector. They completely understand that their future includes profiting off of climate change solution.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Giovannibravo

Richard, I respectfully disagree with your comment on the climate change BS. This is the reason for the lack of regard and movement towards sustainable energy methods, which are mostly proven. Nuclear for instance. Also, the idea of pumped hydro is a form of energy storage, which can be easily implemented in many parts of the USA and Canada.

All I ask for is for people to trust experts. There is so much misinformation out there. I’ve been in rooms with plenty of executives in the oil and gas sector. They completely understand that their future includes profiting off of climate change solution.

There is a lot of misinformation both ways. There is no way of escaping the climate history of Earth over the last 4.5 billion years.

The most recent ice age was between 120,000 and 11,500 years ago.

232 million years ago, it rained everyday and everywhere for 2 million years straight.

Those are just two examples.

Bottom line: Lots of significantly more extreme climate change has occurred throughout history relative to what we’ve seen over the last 150 years.

Without question, we could see a far more significant, naturally occurring climate change event than a 1 degree warming over a couple hundred years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by Giovannibravo

Richard, I respectfully disagree with your comment on the climate change BS. This is the reason for the lack of regard and movement towards sustainable energy methods, which are mostly proven. Nuclear for instance. Also, the idea of pumped hydro is a form of energy storage, which can be easily implemented in many parts of the USA and Canada.

All I ask for is for people to trust experts. There is so much misinformation out there. I’ve been in rooms with plenty of executives in the oil and gas sector. They completely understand that their future includes profiting off of climate change solution.

I agree we should trust experts. The experts at the US NOAA have shown that we are currently in an interglacial warming period, which began some 20,000 years ago near the end of the last glacial maximum. Since then, the planet has been steadily warming on its own.

The disagreement in the science is not whether the planet is warming. Clearly it is. There are no longer glaciers covering Chicago and New York City. The disagreement is how much of the current warming trend can be attributed to human activity. This factor is hotly debated amongst experts. It is not settled science, though click bait popular media would have you believe it is. So, when you say "let's listen to the experts", you should caveat that the experts haven't solidified the science on the human contribution to mother nature's existing warming cycle.

[brandrea]

Definitely works both ways. ^^^

We love to pick and choose which science we believe. In the same way that these things occurred millions of years ago according to science, science on the topic of global warming is somehow met with more skepticism.

You’d have to think that billions of more in population is the biggest drain on earths resources. Combine that with the industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels … I dunno, but global warming certainly seems plausible to me.

At the very least, it’s not very kind to mother nature.

[Giovannibravo]

Yes, we are in an interglacial warming period. However, if you look at the rate of warming now due to anthropogenic emissions, you can see we are warming much faster. The overarching notion that the earth has always been warming is critically flawed. In previous periods, we didn’t have people living in coastal communities being hit by severe hurricanes and typhoons at such a frequency. We didn’t have people living in the desert at severely high temperatures compared to just 50 years ago. We didn’t have as frequent droughts.

If it helps, I worked on software development for Carbon Capture and Storage and the oil/gas sector. I’m not biased because I profit regardless of my views. If you actually listen to the researchers, the evidence is quite clear. The climate is changing exponentially faster due to anthropomorphic emissions. Experts aren’t saying we need to abandon fossil fuels immediately. They are critical in the shift towards renewables.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Giovannibravo

Yes, we are in an interglacial warming period. However, if you look at the rate of warming now due to anthropogenic emissions, you can see we are warming much faster. The overarching notion that the earth has always been warming is critically flawed. In previous periods, we didn’t have people living in coastal communities being hit by severe hurricanes and typhoons at such a frequency. We didn’t have people living in the desert at severely high temperatures compared to just 50 years ago. We didn’t have as frequent droughts.

If it helps, I worked on software development for Carbon Capture and Storage and the oil/gas sector. I’m not biased because I profit regardless of my views. If you actually listen to the researchers, the evidence is quite clear. The climate is changing exponentially faster due to anthropomorphic emissions. Experts aren’t saying we need to abandon fossil fuels immediately. They are critical in the shift towards renewables.

We really don’t know how many hurricanes and how strong the hurricanes were in Florida 5,000 years ago. The only thing we know for sure is that 20 million people didn’t live there.

Also, I don’t think anyone said the earth has always been warming. Quite the contrary, we know Earth has had many ice ages throughout history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Giovannibravo]

Krash, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this topic. Geophysical science is based on forming reasonable explanations using data and known physical phenomena. It is well-established in the scientific community that rising global temperatures increase the amount of energy in these systems, making them stronger and more frequent.

All I am saying is for people to trust experts. Not politicians that have zero understanding on scientific research.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Giovannibravo

Krash, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this topic. Geophysical science is based on forming reasonable explanations using data and known physical phenomena. It is well-established in the scientific community that rising global temperatures increase the amount of energy in these systems, making them stronger and more frequent.

All I am saying is for people to trust experts. Not politicians that have zero understanding on scientific research.

Yeah, but my argument is that you can’t draw conclusions based on 150 years of data when the planet is 4.5 billion years old.

Also, you can’t draw conclusions without understanding the climate events of the past. It’s hard for me to conclude that some sort of naturally occurring climate event is not in our future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Maleg

Traditional hydro destroys watersheds and fish stocks. It's hard to permit new dam systems. Alternative hydro systems are like wind and solar, limited capacity. Nuclear package plants offer the most point of use capacity.

i honestly did not know that. Old dog me, new tricks.

Agreed, lets go nuke, just to be sure.