You are correct.
Agriculture, shipping, and power generation together dwarf the petroleum used by road vehicles.
Comment on why is fossil fuel still used?
it_depends_man@lemmy.world 1 day ago
We can’t replace it fully.
We can replace it with cars. We can replace it with trains as well, but electrified track is more expensive than just plopping a diesel engine there and filling her up. Track for that is just steel+concrete and rocks and stuff.
We can not replace it with air planes, helicopters, rockets. At all. We could reduce air travel and stuff like fighter jets.
We can also not replace it for cargo ships. And that’s pretty bad news. Luckily ships are crazy efficient, so the actual CO2 and other pollution per ton and kilometer is very very low. If you get a delivery, that delivery comes in a fossil fuel truck to your doorstep, that truck will emit more CO2 than the ship will, going either from china to Rotterdam or the US westcoast. And also global transportation is probably more than necessary.
Anyway, the big problem we can solve are cars and planes.
CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 1 day ago
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Cargo ships could be replaced with nuclear. It would also be a significant gain as they are a significant source of pollution beyond CO2.
it_depends_man@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Theoretically yes, but in practice nuclear is very complicated technology that requires a lot training, expertise, care, maintenance and oversight.
Putting it into military ships and ice breaking ships makes sense because of their unique circumstances.
With cargo ships there are a lot of additional complicating factors: cargo ships regularly break and sink. Not a lot, but frequently enough that it is a legitimate concern. We already have trouble regulating regular cargo ships sea-worthiness and issues like environmental pollution through ship breaking, notably in india. That’s another issue btw…
The biggest problem is the sheer number of cargo ships. Any risk of an accident gets multiplied by that.
You can browse the wiki page on nuclear propulsion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion (btw, if it was economic to do it they would have done it already) It’s “obvious” that the number of ships with nuclear propulsion are in the low hundreds. Meanwhile we have more than 100.000 merchant ships in operation at the moment. www.ener8.com/merchant-fleet-infographic-2023/
Operating “a few” ships safely is one thing, doing it with literally hundreds of thousands is something completely different.
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 22 hours ago
Reactors aren’t bombs, they don’t just go boom. One of them sinking is far less dangerous than thousands of gallons of fuel in existing tankers. The economics are terribly different than electric cars, it makes no sense to replace a ship with 20 year of life left, but it’s worth considering for a new ship.
There is still the anything nuclear is the boogie man problem.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 6 hours ago
And what about when terrorists like the Houthis capture one? Just trust they can’t extract the materials to build dirty bombs?
fizzle@quokk.au 1 day ago
I don’t think that’s feasible. Imagine for-profit corporations being responsible for nuclear reactors floating around in international waters. I don’t trust them with diesel certainly not nuclear.
It’s easy to underestimate the maintenance requirements. Australia, UK, and US just signed a treaty to develop and produce nuclear subs. It’s a big deal. It’s going to take many decades and 100s of billions of dollars before UK and Aus have the capability to build and maintain nuclear subs.
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
For profit companies already run reactors. Putting them on a boat is well understood. Nuclear subs are more about the sub part and military tech than the nuclear part.
fizzle@quokk.au 15 hours ago
For profit companies already run reactors on dry land, which don’t move, and are heavily regulated and constantly observed.
Obviously, the risk profile is vastly different when you put the reactor on a boat.
Putting them on a boat is not well understood. Australia just doesn’t have personnel experienced with any kind of reactor. We don’t have a nuclear industry. It’s not as simple as plonking a box named “reactor” on the boat and calling it a day.