3 ms·

What experience do you have working directly in the oil industry? You're making very specific and bold claims related to the fungibility of oil, oil infrastruct

What experience do you have working directly in the oil industry? You're making very specific and bold claims related to the fungibility of oil, oil infrastructure, transpiration, etc and they simply don't line up with my experience. You won't replace oil pipelines or sea-based transportation by importing tanker trucks, its completely inpheasible on any reasonable timescale. Similarly, you will never replace petroleum-based transportation at scale in any near term future with electric or other non-petroleum sources. The power to weight ratio of oil, ease of transport of liquid oil, and scale of petroleum a powered vehicles is simply unmatched. Go ahead and do the math on what it takes to replace a diesel oil tanker at sea to cross from Iran to China or the US to Europe, and don't forget to consider all the materials required to make battery storage equipment for such a trip. It doesn't work today and we aren't near a solution today that can replace oil with a viable, sustainable alternative.

AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
> You're making very specific and bold claims related to the fungibility of oil, oil infrastructure, transpiration, etc and they simply don't line up with my experience. I'm not arguing that they're always and instantaneously fungible, my point is that the aren't any less fungible than they are when the thing you're transporting isn't oil, so it doesn't make much sense to make a special carve out for the cases where the load is also the fuel. > You won't replace oil pipelines or sea-based transportation by importing tanker trucks, its completely inpheasible on any reasonable timescale. An oil tanker ship holds around 55 million gallons. An oil tanker truck holds around 10,000. Truckloads per ship is therefore around 5500. If the round trip is around two hours, and assuming that pumping is a relatively small proportion of the time (you have high capacity pumps at both ends or bring a few percent more trucks so drivers can switch trucks instead of waiting or both), you'd need around 500 trucks and, assuming 8 hour shifts, 1500 drivers per oil tanker ship per day. In normal times something like 60 oil tanker ships go through the Straight per day, so if you had to do all of them it would be on the order of 30,000 trucks and 90,000 drivers. That's not a small number, but at the scale of global trade, it doesn't seem like an impossible number. And you wouldn't actually be doing all of them this way, you would be diverting as many as you can to other paths and only doing this where it's the least bad alternative. 10 ships a day would be ~5000 trucks. Is it infeasible to find 5000 tanker trucks in the world? > Similarly, you will never replace petroleum-based transportation at scale in any near term future with electric or other non-petroleum sources. You're not trying to replace all of it instantaneously, you're trying to substitute at the margins. Does it make sense to try to use electric trucks if you were doing the above, trying to run the trucks continuously in a place that presumably doesn't have adequate charging infrastructure? Almost certainly not. Does it make sense to convert fleets of millions of delivery trucks to electric or plug-in hybrids, when they're doing continuous stop and go that benefits from regenerative braking? Absolutely it does. Does it make sense to add a battery car to already-hybrid diesel electric freight trains so they can do regenerative braking on down grades, and add a pantograph and some overhead lines to the up grades so they can run electric there instead of burning diesel? Also yes. > The power to weight ratio of oil, ease of transport of liquid oil, and scale of petroleum a powered vehicles is simply unmatched. Go ahead and do the math on what it takes to replace a diesel oil tanker at sea to cross from Iran to China or the US to Europe, and don't forget to consider all the materials required to make battery storage equipment for such a trip. This seems like a pretty attractive option for large ships if you're worried about power to weight ratio: https://interestingengineering.com/energy/hd-hyundai-abs-plan-nuclear-powered-cargo-ship https://interestingengineering.com/energy/hd-hyundai-abs-pla...

AnthonyMouse 7mo ago

> You're making very specific and bold claims related to the fungibility of oil, oil infrastructure, transpiration, etc and they simply don't line up with my experience. I'm not arguing that they're always and instantaneously fungible, my point is that the aren't any less fungible than they are when the thing you're transporting isn't oil, so it doesn't make much sense to make a special carve out for the cases where the load is also the fuel. > You won't replace oil pipelines or sea-based transportation by importing tanker trucks, its completely inpheasible on any reasonable timescale. An oil tanker ship holds around 55 million gallons. An oil tanker truck holds around 10,000. Truckloads per ship is therefore around 5500. If the round trip is around two hours, and assuming that pumping is a relatively small proportion of the time (you have high capacity pumps at both ends or bring a few percent more trucks so drivers can switch trucks instead of waiting or both), you'd need around 500 trucks and, assuming 8 hour shifts, 1500 drivers per oil tanker ship per day. In normal times something like 60 oil tanker ships go through the Straight per day, so if you had to do all of them it would be on the order of 30,000 trucks and 90,000 drivers. That's not a small number, but at the scale of global trade, it doesn't seem like an impossible number. And you wouldn't actually be doing all of them this way, you would be diverting as many as you can to other paths and only doing this where it's the least bad alternative. 10 ships a day would be ~5000 trucks. Is it infeasible to find 5000 tanker trucks in the world? > Similarly, you will never replace petroleum-based transportation at scale in any near term future with electric or other non-petroleum sources. You're not trying to replace all of it instantaneously, you're trying to substitute at the margins. Does it make sense to try to use electric trucks if you were doing the above, trying to run the trucks continuously in a place that presumably doesn't have adequate charging infrastructure? Almost certainly not. Does it make sense to convert fleets of millions of delivery trucks to electric or plug-in hybrids, when they're doing continuous stop and go that benefits from regenerative braking? Absolutely it does. Does it make sense to add a battery car to already-hybrid diesel electric freight trains so they can do regenerative braking on down grades, and add a pantograph and some overhead lines to the up grades so they can run electric there instead of burning diesel? Also yes. > The power to weight ratio of oil, ease of transport of liquid oil, and scale of petroleum a powered vehicles is simply unmatched. Go ahead and do the math on what it takes to replace a diesel oil tanker at sea to cross from Iran to China or the US to Europe, and don't forget to consider all the materials required to make battery storage equipment for such a trip. This seems like a pretty attractive option for large ships if you're worried about power to weight ratio: https://interestingengineering.com/energy/hd-hyundai-abs-plan-nuclear-powered-cargo-ship https://interestingengineering.com/energy/hd-hyundai-abs-pla...