It’s going to be interesting to see how they are going to build these vessels. As far as I know it takes 800 kg of coal to make 1 tonne of steel.
MIT while looking for a process to produce oxygen on the moon found a way to manufacture steel without coal but the value of the finished product would make it more of an interest to jewellers than ship builders.
An online article recently stated that biofuels “are carbon neutral since plants absorb the C02 released by being burned.” Really? Plants can now distinguish the source of CO2, absorbing ONLY the CO2 produced by burning biofuels? How insane is that??? But if we accept their conclusion, then we should accept the conclusion that burning fossil fuels is good because it produces CO2 which is used by plants to produce biofuel!
That is the kind of insanity that passes for science in the world today.
Contrast that to an executive with Toyota who recently stated that there are not enough raw materials in the entire world to produce the specific materials needed to build a totally electric economy. That is a sane, responsible recognition of fact, something those pushing this nonsense about anthropogenic global warming totally lack.
True. What is more, a top executive with Toyota recently stated publicly that there are not enough raw materials on the planet to produce an all electric economy. Even if there were, as you correctly stated, those manufacturing activities all contribute to the doctrine of anthropogenic global warming, a position that is false though it supports their entire house of cards.
I think that article misrepresented a true statement. Usually biofuels are considered carbon neutral because plants absorb CO2 (regardless of source, as you point out) and then when you burn them release C02. Carbon in - carbon out = carbon neutral. Petroleum products on the other hand do not absorb carbon, only carbon out = not neutral.
Re: Toyota exec, that is one of those, “yes, but” statements. Missing a whole lotta important context and detail. Because something is hard should we not do it, just a big societally collective “fuck it”?
Don’t worry, we will be burning fossil fuels for a long time to come. But lets burn them for the things that matter and are hard to decarbonize, like airplanes, and not burn them for dumb shit that works better and is cheaper on electricity anyway, like commuter cars, which also makes for cleaner air. Cleaner air isn’t just about climate change, for example, on bad air days my friends Mom who has COPD struggles to breath and this will certainly accelerate her death. Ditto for kids with asthma, etc.
Also we humans are really good at finding ways of extracting energy from the earth. All we’re really quibbling about is whether energy extraction will continue as is, petroleum, or be weighted in a petroleum/solar/wind/lithium/watever mix. Why is that really so contentious?
We’re not idiots, the idea is to use energy that results in less emission overall, not no emissions ever.
Those behind the push for the total electrification of our economies have publicly stated their goal to totally eliminate the use of ALL fossil fuels. So, while you may not be in favor of an absolute “no emissions ever” policy, those pushing the agenda clearly are. Not only that, but they misrepresent technologies such as hybrid electric as being “green” when in fact those technologies are not green as they all require some form of power to drive the generators that power the electric motors, and the most common source of fuel for those engines is fossil fuel.
In the end, I have never heard anyone say they do not care that certain emissions can be harmful to life on earth. The point is that the discussion should be based on science fact, not emotional rhetoric which frequently has no basis in fact. Additionally, governments should not force their personal positions on industry as governments cannot be trusted as they are clearly biased, and many are totally corrupt.
For the record, I did not categorize or imply that you or anyone else was an idiot. My position was an attempt to point out the fallacies in the discussion on emissions as those pushing for decarbonization try to silence and denigrate those who disagree with their agenda, when this topic should be conducted on an open, honest, and scientifically factual basis.
mariner, the article you cited ignores much of the facts about the entire process of manufacturing EVs, namely that the process of mining ore for steel and for batteries is extremely energy intensive, most of which comes from fossil fuels. Then there is the pesky fact that very few countries generate 100% of their electricity from renewable sources. Add to that the article ignores the disposal costs of batteries and windmills which often cost more than the battery.
The article skipped the part of the threshold for when your EV that cost more Co2 to build beats the ICE car.
One makes more carbon at source and cleans the city and one is less at source but pollutes your city.
The other thing to study is when does the EV beat the 20 yr old car?
If Co2 is an issue could the world survive a change to EV in the next couple of years?
Thats without the issue of the battery at end of life, thats 1200lbs in a 100kwh Tesla.
Is there a 1200lbs component in an ICE car we cant recycle today?
Even when you talk recycle whats the Co2 cost of that?
Yes, politicians, Greta and the like are prone to hyperbole. I agree with a lot of things some on that side of things say, but at the same time I think a far more likely and realistic outcome is a reduction of fossil fuel use, replaced with renewables when the technology merits it. As technology matures, more replacement will be practical. What I really fear is reasonable people that tend to be on the right politically will discount all/most efforts to reduce fossil fuel use because they find the rhetoric on the left to be so off putting. And sometimes they’re right! But would be a tragic reason not to work on pollution & emissions reduction. Even for those that don’t care about some of this stuff, I think we are all going to find that adaptation is far more expensive than previously thought.
Yes, governments are subject to special interests, it’s true. But that cuts both ways. As I think Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” So we must make the best of it. They do need to force positions (I don’t know if they are personal, they were elected?) on industry, whether it be lightly or not is of course up for debate. But some regulation is necessary. We must pay taxes, I personally do want my employer to have workplace health and safety standards, etc. So again, all we’re really talking about is where the line is, not whether this is a line at all.
Noted and thank you, apologize if I inferred to much.
Totally agree, cherry picking is easy. My article was just the top google result, not meant to be the be-all end-all answer to that issue. The trend in most developed countries more and more power is developed by lower emission sources than ever before. That your article cites Botswana’s power supply to suggest that EVs aren’t powered by clean power is frankly hilarious. And again, if one goes to this area of analysis, then lets consider the cost of refining gasoline, which is also very energy intensive.
Battery recycling IS a HUGE issue and needs work. Lithium mining is a HUGE issue and needs work. What is important I think is the recognize the problem and work on solutions. Some will be stupid and fail. Some will be good and adopted and in 10 years no one will even notice that they are “green”.
What frustrates those that worry about pollution/climate change is that one group of people seems to want to poke holes in solutions but provide none of their own. Well, if you (the proverbial, not you specifically) don’t have anything to offer then I guess the rest of us will just get on with it. Some think there isn’t a problem at all and we should all just be left alone, but more and more people disagree with that position.
Yes, typically EVs have about ⅔ of their lifetime emissions generated in production and ⅓ in use. ICE are flipped, ⅓ in production and ⅔ in use. The real question is less the split of when the emissions were generated, but what the combined lifetime emissions are overall, right? This article gives a good breakdown.
Most of the lifetime impact studies are based on milage, not age. I’m with you there, if only all American’s drove 20 year old cars and reduced consumption we’d be better off. But people don’t do that, on average. Also totally agree that any Tesla owner (example) who gets a new model every year is not helping anything but his own ego.
Re: complete change to EV in the next couple years - we know that isn’t happening, so I wouldn’t worry about it.
Yeah, battery recycling is a huge problem. On the other hand, I don’t know about the impacts of ICE recycling either. I think the important thing is to try to make improvements and move forward. But you’re right, we don’t want to shoot ourselves in the foot. On the other hand, doing nothing doesn’t appear to be working that great either. (waiting for our friend from Oz to chime in soon).
The planet did flourish, but the dinosaurs also weren’t working on releasing millions of years of stored carbon in the narrow timespan of a few centuries. So we are all living that experiment right now. Hope it works out.
And before anyone brings it up, yes, we know that the world will be just fine if we do nothing. What I think we are talking about is if the humans on the earth will be fine. By fine I mean spreading out the impact of an admittedly ever but rapidly changing climate to give civilization time to adapt in a way that still allows for upward mobility, relatively good quality of life, blah blah blah.
Reading through the WSJ this morning I wanted to underscore a thought I’ve had on the future of energy-the 2020s will be the decade of an energy mix. Renewables will come into the picture in a big way this decade, but it doesn’t matter if you spend a dollar or a trillion dollars today, they are still years off. Consumer habits have to change as well since 97% of cars on the road today are fossil fueled.
The “mix” of energy will have traditional oil producers competing with their take on carbon neutral fuels against the picturesque alternatives such as wind and solar. Hydrogen is also trying to make an entrance, and it will be fascinating if LNG infrastructure and knowledge will help to transition to such a fuel. To capture this moment at another time in history, look at the automotive industry in the 1920s, where steam, battery, and gas cars competed for acceptance. Examples of competition among fuels are already here such as oil produced with wind energy (already happening in west Texas with Exxon) and renewable fuels being produced by tradition refinery companies (Phillips 66 already doing this in California).
It would seem that one political philosophy will push a narrative that all energy must be electrified, but I’ve thought that there would be an event that would cripple an electric only infrastructure and change the opinion of the public. This could be a cyber attack on an offshore wind grid, a chip shortage, or a drop in industrial production due to restricted electrical supply. While I do believe in wind and hope it brings many stable jobs to Mariners, I believe this decade will be one of an energy “mix” where we see a “revenge of the old economy” and oil prices rising among scarcity concerns, both legitimate and panic.
Quoted from the WSJ article “Climate Policy Meets Cold Reality”
In short, all of Europe’s green chickens are coming home to roost. Several U.K. retail electricity providers have collapsed in recent weeks because of the surging price of gas. Energy experts warn that some German power suppliers are in danger of going insolvent. Germany’s electricity prices, which were already the highest in Europe because of heavy reliance on renewables, have more than doubled since February.
Skyrocketing power prices have caused U.K steel makers to suspend production. A former energy adviser to the U.K. government warned last week that the country’s energy shortage this winter could prompt a “three-day working week”—a reference to the coal and rail worker strike in 1974 that caused the government to ration energy for commercial users. The European Steel Association has warned that the Continent’s producers are becoming globally uncompetitive. Fertilizer producers, which use gas as a feedstock, are raising a fuss. Norway’s Yara International plans to curb 40% of its fertilizer production capacity in Europe. U.S.-owned CF Industries earlier this month halted operations at its fertilizer plant in northeast England, threatening downstream businesses.
When europeans in living in their dark caves they might be thankful that the high level of Co2 in the atmosphere makes it comfortable…lol
Of course it was warm back when all that fossil fuels co2 was in the atmosphere so its not like we are moving into the unknown.
sure so no change from today but it will be a step in the right direction and data will be there to contest.
it will be another tool to force by cost the use of renewable energy.
A widget from china made from coal power should cost more then a widget made in a factory powered by renewables.
Shipping will be added to the Co2 total as well