Re: [marxmail] The US ban on Chinese EV's

[Travis Reid via groups.io]

This is great information.  Ostensibly, any change to shipping energy supplies would need to be agreed upon by multiple nations at once who would then need to legislate the use of greener energy.  Otherwise, nobody would take the financial hit of putting nuclear reactors on their ships.  It’s important to note that almost all foreign goods are currently delivered by foreign ships due to laws regarding American ships that dictate the use of American crews, who have strong union contracts and cost more to use.  Requiring American freight companies to use clean energy and also requiring that any goods delivered to the U.S. be brought in either on American ships or on foreign ships with clean energy would force the issue and possibly create more job opportunities for American crews.   On May 22, 2024, at 12:07, David Walters <david.walter...@comcast.net> wrote:  [Edited Message Follows] Michael wrote: I know this is "pie in the sky" but the long run attempt to rein in spewing carbon into the atmosphere MUST include cutting down trans-oceanic shipping --- until we can run container ships with solar collectors or giant batteries charged by land-based wind and solar farms --- we need to drastically reduce all international trade in heavy goods --despite the economics' profession's anathema to "protectionism" it actually has important pro-environmental side effects ---  This is, for the moment, pie-in-the-sky. The best number I've seen about covering a ship sailing through very salty waters and lots of cloud cover for solar collectors is around 3% of needed generation. And of course battery storage is more effective than ever adding solar cells to the ship itself, where the ship could simply charge up at dockside. The ship if it could get say, a 30MW battery (that is about the size of the one of the USS Gerald Fords -- aircraft carrier--FOUR reactors) that can run for 480hours (approx 10 days across an ocean being 480 hours x 30MW give us 14,400 MW hours) it would likely cost about 5 times what it cost to build a ship. What IS being investigated and proposed is the use of Small Modular Reactors...essentially sealed-for-the-life-of-the-reactor...to replace fossil fuels for ocean going transport. All new maritime reactors used for the U.S. Navy are of this type of "nuclear battery" that is designed never to be refueled and run for 30 years straight, decommissioning occurring when the ship is decommissioned.   Anyway, let us propose something else. It is generally accepted that maritime contribution to GHG emissions is approx 10% (a little over that). To address climate change more generally, we don't have to reign in ALL sources of GHGs in order to begin slowing it down. We only need to address "most" of it, in "general". Low hanging fruit here is generation, secondly is transportation. Ocean going freight and tankers could be addressed last if at all.   David   _._,_._,_ Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#30459) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [arch...@mail-archive.com] _._,_._,_