5 ms·
From HN guidelines [0]: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at th
by adamsvystun 5y ago
From HN guidelines [0]:
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
You could have said:
"Punishing supply would not do much without decreasing demand, it will just redistribute the profits. Moreover, the profits might go to less morally sound places."
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- whatever1 5y agoI stated facts. 1) Supply tends to meet demand at the cost of the marginal supplier. 2) If the West is not willing to, the rest of the folks will be happy to do so. Btw more than 50% of the global liquids demand is for diesel, jet fuel and bunker fuel for ships. At the time of writing we do not have any viable alternatives for these, and we do not expect to have them ready and scaled up in the next 8 years.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoThe first nuclear powered container ship was built in 1959, and we could have had zero emissions ships all this time. We can replace all jet fuel with biofuel, all diesel with electric or hydrogen.
- whatever1 5y agoSo to be clear, the viable path you refer to includes complete elimination of gasoline usage globally, 100% conversion to biojet fuel and biodiesel from jet and diesel respectively, and ~ 50% of the world vessel fleet to be converted to nuclear. In 8 years.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoWhat's your guess then for the % convesion possible? Is that the whole argument, how many % is feasable in the time frame?
- whatever1 5y agoTiming supply and demand is of essence. This extreme scenario of fossil demand destruction is the only scenario where Aramco does not become an effective monopoly for decades. That is if we don’t start a World War to solve the upcoming energy crisis.