5 ms·

Given that we ship cargo in incredible amounts across all oceans, ranging from liquids, bulk to containers and cars everyday with zero nuclear-powered carho ves

by hef19898 3y ago

Given that we ship cargo in incredible amounts across all oceans, ranging from liquids, bulk to containers and cars everyday with zero nuclear-powered carho vessels, calling nuclear your only option is odd.

Manuel_D 3y ago
In case it wasn't clear, I'm talking about carbon-free propulsion options. Batteries don't have the energy capacity required for long distance shipping, and their weight is a big issue for ships. 300 mile range is fine for an EV, it's not for a ship.
- hef19898 3y ago
  That's what IRENA worked out in the frame of the initiative to decarbonise ocean shipping by 2050 when it comes to fuel: >> In the short term, advanced biofuels will play a key role in the reduction of CO2 emissions. In the medium and long-term, green hydrogen-based fuels are set to be the backbone for the sector’s decarbonisation.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Present biomass energy doesn't have remotely close to scale required to decarbonize ocean transportation. I'm sure the "advanced" part of advanced biomass assumes some mega-algae or something else that is far more productive than existing biomass, but if that technology hasn't been developed yet then you might as well just say nuclear fusion is the solution. Hydrogen is currently produced via steam reformation [1], which emits carbon dioxide. Electrolysis is less efficient and corrosion of electrodes inhibits scale. Nuclear maritime propulsion is far more mature than any of the alternatives. Submarines and warships have been using it for over half a century. Could a technological breakthrough create a better alternative? Maybe, but we can't move ships with potential technologies until said technologies make the transition from "potential" to "real". 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Then go and get funding for it! Because apparently you know better than anyone else who was involved in defining this strategy. And given many, to domain experts, just hairbrained ideas get, or used to get, VC funding, it should be easy, right? And a tremendous market, just imagine what a hyper-unicorn one can build by having the monopoly on power the cargo vessels of the future!
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        Venture capitalists expect most of their bets to fail. It's very possible that none of their synthetic fuel startups will succeed. It is not at all reasonable to assume that a technological breakthrough will transpire just because venture capitalists are funding it. Otherwise, we should just sit back and let nuclear fusion solve climate change. Surely you don't think you know better than the VCs funding fusion, right? And for what it's worth, some shipbuilders are exploring nuclear cargo ships: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/maritime-industry-explores-nuclear-power-ships-technology-opens-up-2023-09-19/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/maritime-industry-exp...
        hef19898 3y ago
        The important bit is about the timeline: At least ten yeara to proof of concept. There is no industrial base dor this at the moment. And then there is the IRENA commission, tasked with developing a strategy to decarbonize shipping, and they went with green fuel instead of nuclear. And that commission included ship builders, operators and other domain experts.
        Manuel_D 3y ago
        The International Renewable Energy Agency's [1] job is to advocate for more widespread adoption of wind and solar. Nuclear power threatens that objective. This is about as naive as trusting fossil fuel companies' paid-for scientists on climate change. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Renewable_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Renewable_Energy...
- ponector 3y ago
  You can create a fuel with solar energy and use it in the ship's engine. Hydrogen or whatever will be available. But heavy oil is much cheaper and will be used forever untill gasoline/diesel cars/trucks will pass away.
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    Heavy oil ships are already being banned from numerous ports. That will only accelerate. Shipbuilders are gearing up to build anhydrous ammonia fueled replacements. Anhydrous ammonia will be produced at massive scale in tropical synthesis facilities for delivery worldwide. This is why long-term storage is not considered important.
    - ponector 3y ago
      Not ships are banned, but usage of heavy fuel. That means the last few hundred miles ship goes using diesel. But in international waters any kind of fuel could be used.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        And that is about to change as well.

Manuel_D 3y ago

In case it wasn't clear, I'm talking about carbon-free propulsion options. Batteries don't have the energy capacity required for long distance shipping, and their weight is a big issue for ships. 300 mile range is fine for an EV, it's not for a ship.

hef19898 3y ago
That's what IRENA worked out in the frame of the initiative to decarbonise ocean shipping by 2050 when it comes to fuel: >> In the short term, advanced biofuels will play a key role in the reduction of CO2 emissions. In the medium and long-term, green hydrogen-based fuels are set to be the backbone for the sector’s decarbonisation.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Present biomass energy doesn't have remotely close to scale required to decarbonize ocean transportation. I'm sure the "advanced" part of advanced biomass assumes some mega-algae or something else that is far more productive than existing biomass, but if that technology hasn't been developed yet then you might as well just say nuclear fusion is the solution. Hydrogen is currently produced via steam reformation [1], which emits carbon dioxide. Electrolysis is less efficient and corrosion of electrodes inhibits scale. Nuclear maritime propulsion is far more mature than any of the alternatives. Submarines and warships have been using it for over half a century. Could a technological breakthrough create a better alternative? Maybe, but we can't move ships with potential technologies until said technologies make the transition from "potential" to "real". 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Then go and get funding for it! Because apparently you know better than anyone else who was involved in defining this strategy. And given many, to domain experts, just hairbrained ideas get, or used to get, VC funding, it should be easy, right? And a tremendous market, just imagine what a hyper-unicorn one can build by having the monopoly on power the cargo vessels of the future!
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Venture capitalists expect most of their bets to fail. It's very possible that none of their synthetic fuel startups will succeed. It is not at all reasonable to assume that a technological breakthrough will transpire just because venture capitalists are funding it. Otherwise, we should just sit back and let nuclear fusion solve climate change. Surely you don't think you know better than the VCs funding fusion, right? And for what it's worth, some shipbuilders are exploring nuclear cargo ships: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/maritime-industry-explores-nuclear-power-ships-technology-opens-up-2023-09-19/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/maritime-industry-exp...
      - hef19898 3y ago
        The important bit is about the timeline: At least ten yeara to proof of concept. There is no industrial base dor this at the moment. And then there is the IRENA commission, tasked with developing a strategy to decarbonize shipping, and they went with green fuel instead of nuclear. And that commission included ship builders, operators and other domain experts.
        Manuel_D 3y ago
        The International Renewable Energy Agency's [1] job is to advocate for more widespread adoption of wind and solar. Nuclear power threatens that objective. This is about as naive as trusting fossil fuel companies' paid-for scientists on climate change. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Renewable_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Renewable_Energy...
ponector 3y ago
You can create a fuel with solar energy and use it in the ship's engine. Hydrogen or whatever will be available. But heavy oil is much cheaper and will be used forever untill gasoline/diesel cars/trucks will pass away.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  Heavy oil ships are already being banned from numerous ports. That will only accelerate. Shipbuilders are gearing up to build anhydrous ammonia fueled replacements. Anhydrous ammonia will be produced at massive scale in tropical synthesis facilities for delivery worldwide. This is why long-term storage is not considered important.
  - ponector 3y ago
    Not ships are banned, but usage of heavy fuel. That means the last few hundred miles ship goes using diesel. But in international waters any kind of fuel could be used.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      And that is about to change as well.