this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
241 points (91.4% liked)

Degrowth

776 readers
1 users here now

Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This is just insane. Not only are cars themself mostly unnecessary, if the right infrastructure is provided, but SUVs also use more resources to run and be produced then small cars, without any advantage over them. So an obvious waste, which could easily be cut to reduce emissions.

Source IEA: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/suvs-are-setting-new-sales-records-each-year-and-so-are-their-emissions

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you could eliminate 80% of fuel costs you could make smaller vessels much more cost effective

Ships don't work that way. There are a couple of reasons other than fuel economy why they keep building them as big as they can:

  • Hull speed is proportional to waterline length. In other words, bigger ships can go faster.

  • Bigger ships have better economies of scale for the crew.

Also, winds aren't reliable enough for any ship to sail 95% of the time, unless you count being becalmed as "sailing."

[โ€“] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Yes, theoretical hull speed is proportional to hull speed, but mondern cargo ships aren't optimized for speed - old school clippers were.

They are also more cost effective for crew - which is why you need to automate as much as possible. Electronic winches, hydraulic booms or sheets, instance access to weather, Electronic monitoring, tides and conditions forecasting and access for a harbour pilot to take over could eliminate alot, if not all of transit crew.

Will it be as fast and reliable- no. But if you can make the cost savings outweigh the drawbacks you can make a presentable business case.