4 ms·

Do you think 90% is really feasible any time soon? Wouldn't that require nonexistent new technology for air travel and container ships?

nine_k 8y ago
For air travel, yes. Large ships are large, and, unlike aircraft, have sufficient room and carrying capacity to install reasonably efficient carbon-capturing devices. It will cost a lot, of course.
- WalterBright 8y ago
  There was a push to add computer-operated sails to cargo ships in the 80s. I don't know what happened to it - likely the cost of fuel dropped.
  - larkeith 8y ago
    There's a company that makes kite sails for cargo ships, which have proven effective [1]. However, as the fuel costs are payed by the shipper, there is a lack of economic incentive for ship owners to purchase them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails
    - unBrainSurgeon 8y ago
      Hmmm, so what's a good mechanism for routing around moral hazards like just making the customer pay for the fuel? We see lots of models for corporate raiders using loss leaders to attack bloated industries, but not much else. Also, with technology, the actual cost of development is extremely murky and variable. The only things that seem to motivate loss leader tactics is the end game of cornering a market. In the case of SkySails, ship owners are averse to the up front cost, even if it means leaving money on the table, long term, by keeping their prices the same, but saving the fuel money with the sail, and pocketing the difference. So, push to integrate with newly built ships, and then what? Offer freebie/rebate deals? But then they never get used because crew are lazy, and bored, but not that bored, and lazy wins. Plus dealing with tangled lines means the kite is all but ruined without a rigger available. So does that mean training at least one crew member to rig the kite? It seems like maybe SkySails would need to operate a consultancy, where they supply a crew member who operates the kite on commission, collecting a cut of the savings in fuel costs. Then it becomes not unlike the vending machine model. Companies permit vending machines on the premises, because they know employees want snacks, so they let a coin-op company install soda and candy machines, and they get a cut of whatever the machine pulls in. So now, if that works, and then SkySails attacks the ship building angle, they've grown an ecosystem of consultant experts, and some of them can operate as free agents, once ship builders normalize SkySail integration as a common well-known add-on to maritime operations. Sounds like a business odyssey, thinking it over, but with decades of quiet patience and dedication, maybe it'd work.
- larkeith 8y ago
  There's also currently a lack of incentives for ship owners to invest in emissions-reducing technologies, even if the cost per voyage is reduced - see SkySail's troubles [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails
  - Reason077 8y ago
    The real issue that fuel oil is so cheap. If customers are paying for the fuel, and fuel was a significant cost, then they'd certainly be interested in shopping around for a ship that can offer lower fuel consumption. But fuel oil is really just a byproduct of refining crude. It's the muck left over when you've extracted everything else that's useful. And of course, it is not taxed, so prices don't account for it's environmental externalities. If we can reduce overall demand for petroleum products, this should eventually cause fuel oil prices to rise because there'll be less crude being refined, and thus reduced supply.
baddox 8y ago
You don’t have to reduce every carbon emitter by 90% to get an overall 90% reduction.
- larkeith 8y ago
  Air traffic alone accounts for about 3.5% of our climate impact [1]. How many major carbon emitters can you afford to ignore before a reduction of 90% becomes impossible? [1] http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Time to revive dirigibles. And tell people that we're sorry, but those extravagant vacations on another continent now come with a couple days of stay in a luxury hotel flying above the ocean.
yk 8y ago
Air travel is actually not that hard, just very energy inefficient. A turbine will work with almost anything that burns, that is the reason why airplanes use kerosene, it is the cheapest fossil fuel. To get green airplanes you just need to replace the kerosene with something else that burns, most vegetable oils should work fine after a bit of refinement. The real problem is, you need lots of oils and there synthesis and using chemical fuel as energy storage seems a certainly feasible path, however it is again quite a bit more complicated than just drilling a hole in the ground.
- growlist 8y ago
  This would imply a vast additional amount of biomass production, which would place its own load on the environment in loss of biodiversity, run off pollution etc.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    Another externality of bio-fuel is increased cost of food, which could create issues in poorer countries which already have tense food situations.
    - growlist 8y ago
      Indeed, forgot that. Biomass seems such a great idea that I was tremendously disappointed in A-level Geography to find out its downsides.

nine_k 8y ago

For air travel, yes. Large ships are large, and, unlike aircraft, have sufficient room and carrying capacity to install reasonably efficient carbon-capturing devices. It will cost a lot, of course.

WalterBright 8y ago
There was a push to add computer-operated sails to cargo ships in the 80s. I don't know what happened to it - likely the cost of fuel dropped.
- larkeith 8y ago
  There's a company that makes kite sails for cargo ships, which have proven effective [1]. However, as the fuel costs are payed by the shipper, there is a lack of economic incentive for ship owners to purchase them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails
  - unBrainSurgeon 8y ago
    Hmmm, so what's a good mechanism for routing around moral hazards like just making the customer pay for the fuel? We see lots of models for corporate raiders using loss leaders to attack bloated industries, but not much else. Also, with technology, the actual cost of development is extremely murky and variable. The only things that seem to motivate loss leader tactics is the end game of cornering a market. In the case of SkySails, ship owners are averse to the up front cost, even if it means leaving money on the table, long term, by keeping their prices the same, but saving the fuel money with the sail, and pocketing the difference. So, push to integrate with newly built ships, and then what? Offer freebie/rebate deals? But then they never get used because crew are lazy, and bored, but not that bored, and lazy wins. Plus dealing with tangled lines means the kite is all but ruined without a rigger available. So does that mean training at least one crew member to rig the kite? It seems like maybe SkySails would need to operate a consultancy, where they supply a crew member who operates the kite on commission, collecting a cut of the savings in fuel costs. Then it becomes not unlike the vending machine model. Companies permit vending machines on the premises, because they know employees want snacks, so they let a coin-op company install soda and candy machines, and they get a cut of whatever the machine pulls in. So now, if that works, and then SkySails attacks the ship building angle, they've grown an ecosystem of consultant experts, and some of them can operate as free agents, once ship builders normalize SkySail integration as a common well-known add-on to maritime operations. Sounds like a business odyssey, thinking it over, but with decades of quiet patience and dedication, maybe it'd work.
larkeith 8y ago
There's also currently a lack of incentives for ship owners to invest in emissions-reducing technologies, even if the cost per voyage is reduced - see SkySail's troubles [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails
- Reason077 8y ago
  The real issue that fuel oil is so cheap. If customers are paying for the fuel, and fuel was a significant cost, then they'd certainly be interested in shopping around for a ship that can offer lower fuel consumption. But fuel oil is really just a byproduct of refining crude. It's the muck left over when you've extracted everything else that's useful. And of course, it is not taxed, so prices don't account for it's environmental externalities. If we can reduce overall demand for petroleum products, this should eventually cause fuel oil prices to rise because there'll be less crude being refined, and thus reduced supply.

baddox 8y ago

You don’t have to reduce every carbon emitter by 90% to get an overall 90% reduction.

larkeith 8y ago
Air traffic alone accounts for about 3.5% of our climate impact [1]. How many major carbon emitters can you afford to ignore before a reduction of 90% becomes impossible? [1] http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Time to revive dirigibles. And tell people that we're sorry, but those extravagant vacations on another continent now come with a couple days of stay in a luxury hotel flying above the ocean.

yk 8y ago

Air travel is actually not that hard, just very energy inefficient. A turbine will work with almost anything that burns, that is the reason why airplanes use kerosene, it is the cheapest fossil fuel. To get green airplanes you just need to replace the kerosene with something else that burns, most vegetable oils should work fine after a bit of refinement. The real problem is, you need lots of oils and there synthesis and using chemical fuel as energy storage seems a certainly feasible path, however it is again quite a bit more complicated than just drilling a hole in the ground.

growlist 8y ago
This would imply a vast additional amount of biomass production, which would place its own load on the environment in loss of biodiversity, run off pollution etc.
- baud147258 8y ago
  Another externality of bio-fuel is increased cost of food, which could create issues in poorer countries which already have tense food situations.
  - growlist 8y ago
    Indeed, forgot that. Biomass seems such a great idea that I was tremendously disappointed in A-level Geography to find out its downsides.