4 ms·

>If you strip out the pools and bars, concert venues, and all that jazz, it gets to be a very lean operation But they will still put out a lot of pollution, it

>If you strip out the pools and bars, concert venues, and all that jazz, it gets to be a very lean operation But they will still put out a lot of pollution, it's the nature of shipping right now. And then you look at what would happen in aggregate, and you realize that there would still be a pollution problem. Will they put out as much pollution as the airline industry? Open question. I know there are about 39 to 40 million flights a year, carrying roughly 4 billion passengers. Assuming all of that would switch to, let's say, rail and shipping, what does that do to your pollution profile? My own suspicion is that it could be made much better with rail over time. (After taking an initial hit, that would be admittedly enormous, in building out the necessary infrastructure.) For shipping, hard to say. We don't have anywhere close to the number of ships necessary for that kind of passenger scale, so we'd take an even larger hit in the build out phase. Secondarily ships, even the new ones, would still be enormously dirty for the environment. Much moreso than trains. At passenger scale in the billions? I'd bet that the pollution profile would be somewhat lower than planes, but still a significant contributor. We'd have to go back to sail ships to make it pollution free. (Even then you would have a little pollution here and there.) Can't think of many other modes of transport that aren't scifi or in research phases right now. I mean there are airships for instance, but that build out would take a long time because I'm not convinced we've even settled on a utilitarian design there. Tough problems all around really. Just stopping trans-oceanic travel, or drawing it down in a draconian fashion, really does seem one of the best solutions. But it's completely unworkable in today's world. No one would cooperate with that.

bryanlarsen 7y ago
> But they will still put out a lot of pollution, it's the nature of shipping right now. Which is going to be seriously restricted in 2 months time: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/30/imo-2020-the-winners-and-losers-of-a-global-shipping-revolution.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/30/imo-2020-the-winners-and-los... > Will they put out as much pollution as the airline industry? This question is so broad it's meaningless. What kind of pollution matters, and where it's emitted also matters. More Sulfur, less CO2, etc.. > For shipping, hard to say. We don't have anywhere close to the number of ships necessary for that kind of passenger scale As of July 2016, the world had a capacity of 20 million standard shipping containers. > We'd have to go back to sail ships to make it pollution free. That's not the only option: battery weight is not an issue in ships; their consumption per tonne-kilometer is so low that solar can contribute a lot, et cetera. It's still probably most efficient to just burn a clean fuel and then sequester the CO2. > Just stopping trans-oceanic travel, or drawing it down in a draconian fashion, really does seem one of the best solutions. Letting perfect be the enemy of the good is one of the big reasons holding the world back from making progress on environmental issues.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >As of July 2016, the world had a capacity of 20 million standard shipping containers. And if we could pack passengers into shipping containers, or even house them on freighters without refitting, we'd be great. But we can't, because people don't want to go from flying on airplanes to sitting on the floor of a cargo hold. So the build outs are still necessary. We need new ships. >What kind of pollution matters, and where it's emitted also matters. More Sulfur, less CO2, etc The goal is to cut down on all pollution. >That's not the only option: battery weight is not an issue in ships; their consumption per tonne-kilometer is so low that solar can contribute a lot, et cetera. It's still probably most efficient to just burn a clean fuel and then sequester the CO2. All of which calls for even more build outs and refitting, in addition to even more pollution expended in pursuance of those activities. >Letting perfect be the enemy of the good is one of the big reasons holding the world back Which is exactly the reason that the very next line designates such a solution, "completely unworkable in today's world."
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

bryanlarsen 7y ago

> But they will still put out a lot of pollution, it's the nature of shipping right now. Which is going to be seriously restricted in 2 months time: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/30/imo-2020-the-winners-and-losers-of-a-global-shipping-revolution.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/30/imo-2020-the-winners-and-los... > Will they put out as much pollution as the airline industry? This question is so broad it's meaningless. What kind of pollution matters, and where it's emitted also matters. More Sulfur, less CO2, etc.. > For shipping, hard to say. We don't have anywhere close to the number of ships necessary for that kind of passenger scale As of July 2016, the world had a capacity of 20 million standard shipping containers. > We'd have to go back to sail ships to make it pollution free. That's not the only option: battery weight is not an issue in ships; their consumption per tonne-kilometer is so low that solar can contribute a lot, et cetera. It's still probably most efficient to just burn a clean fuel and then sequester the CO2. > Just stopping trans-oceanic travel, or drawing it down in a draconian fashion, really does seem one of the best solutions. Letting perfect be the enemy of the good is one of the big reasons holding the world back from making progress on environmental issues.

bilbo0s 7y ago
>As of July 2016, the world had a capacity of 20 million standard shipping containers. And if we could pack passengers into shipping containers, or even house them on freighters without refitting, we'd be great. But we can't, because people don't want to go from flying on airplanes to sitting on the floor of a cargo hold. So the build outs are still necessary. We need new ships. >What kind of pollution matters, and where it's emitted also matters. More Sulfur, less CO2, etc The goal is to cut down on all pollution. >That's not the only option: battery weight is not an issue in ships; their consumption per tonne-kilometer is so low that solar can contribute a lot, et cetera. It's still probably most efficient to just burn a clean fuel and then sequester the CO2. All of which calls for even more build outs and refitting, in addition to even more pollution expended in pursuance of those activities. >Letting perfect be the enemy of the good is one of the big reasons holding the world back Which is exactly the reason that the very next line designates such a solution, "completely unworkable in today's world."
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]