3 ms·
From the fucking article: Fossil fuel cargoes travel long distances in very large flows, so their decline removes more than a proportional share of cargo mass.
by halJordan 4mo ago
From the fucking article: Fossil fuel cargoes travel long distances in very large flows, so their decline removes more than a proportional share of cargo mass. It removes a larger share of the ocean work and the fuel burned to do that work.
And if I can get on my soapbox. This same problem (carrying fuel to feed the transportation unit) is well studied in medieval England because it was one of the main determinants of where cities and castles were placed (albeit unknowingly at the time). And we see what happened in England when they were able to get out from under feeding oxen.
- idontwantthis 4mo agohttps://acoup.blog/2022/07/15/collections-logistics-how-did-they-do-it-part-i-the-problem/ https://acoup.blog/2022/07/15/collections-logistics-how-did-... The Tyranny of the Wagon
- bryanlarsen 4mo agoAre you making a reference to the Tyranny of the Rocket Equation? The Earth's gravity is so large that it's almost at the limit of chemical rockets. A typical rocket is 90% propellant by mass, 8% structure and 2% payload.
- jfengel 4mo agoFTA: "We may call this problem the ‘tyranny of the wagon equation’ as a number of readers have noticed the similarity to the tyranny of the rocket equation."
- idontwantthis 4mo agoGod’s work.
- pfdietz 4mo agoIt's mathematically very similar.
- throwup238 4mo agoYes it’s a reference to the tyranny of the rocket equation. The same principle applies to wagon logistics because the animals and driver are constantly eating the food the wagons carry.
- api 4mo agoI’ve wondered if this belongs on the Fermi paradox pile. Many biospheres may be more massive planets that are so hard to get off that a space enterprise never starts. Meanwhile lighter planets might have trouble holding onto atmospheres.
- zahlman 4mo ago> It removes a larger share of the ocean work and the fuel burned to do that work. Sure, but as long as ratio of fuel moved:fuel used is good enough, people won't care (as demonstrated by historical data). This isn't an argument that leads to change. For those not already convinced of the climate crisis, you'll need to lean on economics.
- megaman821 4mo agoThat is orthogonal to the point. Shipping is considered a hard industry to reduce CO2 emissions, like aviation, but unlike aviation, 50% of the distance ships are traveling are just delivering fuel. So solving non-shipping fuel use solves nearly half of shipping fuel use. The remaining uses of shipping are also much more tractable to electrify.
- Spooky23 4mo agoIt’s also a clue as to why there’s such serious political opposition to wind and solar and to some extent nuclear for electric generation. Point of use generation is disruptive to many industries… not just petroleum but automotive, trucking, various services that serve both, etc. There’s a significant portion of the population employed by schlepping oil around and doing things with it to support those activities.
- Danox 4mo agoIt’s called civilization and with 8 billion people on the planet oil and gas isn’t going away fertilizer and drugs aren’t gonna go out of style.
- Spooky23 4mo agoVery marginal changes in consumption have large impacts on profitability for oil industry stakeholders. Only an idiot would say “solar makes oils and gas go away”, which is why I didn’t say that. Conversely, subsidizing pickup trucks so insecure men feel powerful at 9 mpg doesn’t secure the future of fertilizer and pharma.
- dboreham 4mo agoSee also Coals from Newcastle.