“We need the fossil fuels to get more fossil fuels to move the fossil fuels just to take the fossil-fuel thing to the fossil fuel store to get more fossil fuels!” -people that sell fossil fuels
It’s the rocket ship problem.
You need fuel to move the fuel that moves the fuel that moves the rocket
Sure, but when a lot of the things don’t need to carry the fuel with them and induction roadways do it all in the moment?
induction roadways
Do you mean railways?
No.
Here, let me DDG two words for you: https://www.enrx.com/en/Induction-Applications/Inductive-charging-and-power-applications/Dynamic-electric-roadway
This would be incredibly energy inefficient first of all, because a lit of energy gets lost when using induction and that rises really quickly with the distance from the source.
Second of all, that would be really expensive to build.
Third of all, this doesn’t solve the real problem of individualized travel. Cars are really inefficient, becuase: 1. Their infrastructure wastes a lot of space. Most people travel alone in their cars, which means, you have all this sourounding machinery you need to transport in addition, which is huge. Cars get into traffic jams, so the city decides to widen the rode. This moves the whole city further appart, which means people need the car more often, which means there are more traffic jams. 2. They are hugely energy inefficient, because (as said before), you need to move the whole car around just to transport one person 3. They are the most dangerous mode of travel and most often endanger bike drivers or pedestrians. 4. They are loud and stink
You could solve most of these problems with proper public transport. These “futuristic” ideas, like inductive roads or Musks Hyperloop are just a way for big companies to direct funding and attention away from public transport.
OK, well there’s a lot of engineers and scientists that you’ll have to find and explain how wrong they are. I wasn’t inventing induction roadways in my head, they’re a real thing and showing a lot of success for use cases like the trucking industry and use on highways where cars travel at speed most of the time.
If we could power vehicles on negativity and dismissiveness of electrifying fossil fuel infrastructure until everyone got the exact solution they wanted, we could all drive to the moon and back.
https://insideevs.com/news/777157/wireless-charging-highway-power/
https://www.prima.ca/en/project/inductive-electric-charging-road/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWW0wMahXfA
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666691X22000458
https://newatlas.com/automotive/electreon-vinci-wireless-charging-motorway/
The thing is, we already have the solution though. It’s public transport. Railways can also be used to transport cargo. For longer routes you can still use ships.
Your solution is the unrealistic one. Because we would have to invest an insane amount of money into that infrastructure. We could invest a fraction if that into public transport and we would be so much better off.
I don’t care how many scientists agree with you. Just think critically for like 10 seconds about this. How would this really improve anything over public transport?
Also there are a lot if scientists agreeing with me, so…
And one day we even become fossil fuel…
We don’t, we decompose. Fossil fuels are basically plants that died and were subsumed millions of years before bacteria and fungi evolved to decompose them.That doesn’t happen anymore.
… it’s people!!
Burn oil to pump oil
Burn oil to refine oil
Burn oil to ship oil
So we can burn oil at home.
cook oil to make plastic/chemicals
dump plastic/chemicals in the ocean
I read recently that they found bacteria in the ocean that’s actually metabolizing some (PET) plastics, so that’s kind of interesting. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/11/251104013023.htm
Please always provide a source.
The actual statistic is from here I think.
Looks like a screenshot of www.marinetraffic.com - red ships are tankers.
Not to mention all the fossil fuel used to build the ships in the first place.
There’s a lot of fossil fuel burned before that steel arrives at the shipyard.
Look, you’re not thinking about the shareholders. I NEED YOU to think about the shareholders! How will they ever make their billions? You selfish bastard!
/s just in case.
Not to mention that would drastically reduce dirty ocean water and countries can begin to clean up their coastlines.
Also, there would be less wars in the Middle East.
now imagine how much we could save if we used sailboats
I’m not sure actually. Sailboats might use less energy while moving, but they probably move slower so you need more of them for the same transport volume per year. So you need more ships, which need more steel to be produced. So you have higher emissions during production.
and more refrigerant for any perishables on the ships
China burns coal to produce them, so there’s no shipping since they have coal.
Wake me when China invades a country because they have coal.
Ya, they dont give a shit about the environment. Hence why we produce all our goods there, as we theoretically self flagellate ourselves for climate change.
China is actually one of the very few countries meeting its commitments so far. They’re even a bit ahead of schedule: renewable and nuclear power plants, fleet electrification (cars and trucks, plus advanced railways), planting large forests, etc.
Granted that won’t be sufficient, they should do more and faster, and they now see coming issues with the degradation of their soils and their water resources. But during that same time period, western countries rolled back environment policies and came back on their promises, going further and further away from adverting a catastrophe.
When I see a response like this I am reminded of “Americans wanting to be right at the cost of doing what is good.” At a certain point you should ask what is the intention behind your words?
A righteous thing isnt to run on climate change issues with no plan to affect things because you don’t want to touch imports.
Okay, but why start the framing as a problem with China? Last I checked their carbon emissions have flatlined, if we were to shift that manufacturing home it would likely be more carbon intensive due to our own inefficiencies. We could import green infrastructure but we’re a failing petro-state so here we are…
Internal Combustion Engine age.
At this point I’m starting to believe that we could replace all engines with hamster wheels with actual hamsters and it would be more efficient.
Link to article?
Less, now that we shut down the Straight of Hormuz
…and that would drop the amount of marine fuel needed. Compound interest.
which means we need to transport less fuel around, so less ships
And more unemployed seamen’s.
They can install solar panels or wire or something and not have to be away from their family for months at a time. Also the vast majority of seamen shipping oil are coerced captive workers from impoverished places with confiscated passports and no rights. Employed isn’t really the right word to use.
And more unemployed wharf removed.
Doesn’t anyone think about wharf removed!
Seaman certainly do.
I’m trying to pronounce the h’s here like Stewie Griffin.
Who whants a wharf removed with cool whip?
Sounds like a delectable combination.
I prefer my semen unemployed, thank you.
seamen’s
What kind of abomination is this?
i found them in my little brother’s sock
I really don’t know.
Employ them as the crew of an interplanetary solar sail expedition. We’ll be colonizing the moons of Jupiter in no time!
Just put some money into advanced sailing ship tech and in a decade we’ll have advanced clippers with many more seamen needed.
So overseas shipping rates drop and some of the companies convert their ships to give joy-rides in seas (because cheaper sea travel), while some seamen get to explore avenues like deep sea exploration (which seems to be a really underdeveloped field) and development.
Somehow I’m not seeing your average deck hand transitioning into deep sea exploration.
Well, the average deck hand can stay working at the normal ships that are shipping other stuff.
The above average ones can become a deck hand for the newer vehicles for deep sea operations.Both are probably already paid low enough that corporate can easily pay them while reducing shipping rates at the same time.
I’m thinking the deep sea exploration pays a bit more than a guy who can hook some cables on a crate.
But wtf do I know…
But of course, if the extra exploration rate can be afforded, then so can their salaries.
The only thing that matters is whether there will be someone wanting to do so.
Guy doing marine fuel enters the chat.
