Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retr0id | Hacker News Reader

> It is not a just transition if thousands of jobs are sacrificed in the name of short-term environmental gains.

I'm never happy to see people lose their jobs, but "short-term environmental gains" strikes me as a ridiculous way of framing a significant reduction of carbon emissions.

View on HN

They're taking all that government money but still making huge job cuts. So presumably production is going down?

Therefore more steel will be imported, shipped across the world using fossil fuels.

Shipping uses basically no energy. The ocean is, functionally, dead level. When the cargo gets to its destination it has gained no potential energy. This is why ocean freight is by far the least carbon-intensive way of moving material. You should not be concerned about whether anything was shipped from overseas, in the global scheme of energy inefficiency.

I don't know why you are being downvoted, because it's true...

See page 92 of David MacKay's wonderful "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" [1]. Figure 15.8 compares the energy intensity of different transport methods in kilo Watt hours per net ton kilometer. Shipping and rail are basically 1/10 to 1/20 of roadfreight. His conclusion is "Transporting freight by ship is surprisingly energy efficient".

[1] https://www.withouthotair.com/c15/page_92.shtml

The innumerate are numerous.

Anyone with rational concerns about transportation costs for materiel should be advocating to dismantle and depopulate Denver. Moving mass a short distance up by truck costs more than moving it half way around the planet by ship. Inland navigation is similarly negligible, which is why the whole Minnesota-Ohio-Pennsylvania steel complex works so well.

Because shipping enables us to source products from much more distant locations; this can cancel out a chunk of that per-KM advantage. It might still be true that in many instances shipping is better for the environment than local production plus rail transport. However since we’ve elected to misprice carbon externalities, there’s no reason to believe we’re getting this right.

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

Iron and Steel (7.2%): energy-related emissions from the manufacturing of iron and steel.

Transport: 16.2%

Shipping (1.7%): emissions from the burning of petrol or diesel on boats. This includes both passenger and freight maritime trips.

Rail (0.4%): emissions from passenger and freight rail travel.

Maybe we'll build Bering Strait crossing and switch to (electric) trains sometime in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_crossing

Those wouldn't kill so many whales.

https://nautil.us/why-ships-kill-thousands-of-whales-every-y...

~10 gallons of diesel per cubic meter container crossing the pacific. And the majority of that is high sulfur, which is prohibited almost everywhere except high seas due to environmental impact.

Are you agreeing with me or not? With 10 gallons of fuel a truck would carry a cubic meter of steel, which is a hell of a lot of mass, maybe 100 miles on level ground, with an expert driver and a tailwind.

I disagree that people should be dismissive of the environmental impact of shipping in general. It alone contributes 3% of global greenhouse gasses, not to mention all the water pollution.

I also disagree with your comparing an average per-cubic meter rate of a cargo shipment to a truck carrying a single 1m^3 steel cube. It is so far from being logical I can’t really respond at all.

I also disagree with your complete dismissal of the heightened impact of the sulfur used in high seas shipping.

This money is mostly going towards converting coal furnaces to electric furnaces, to meet the govts emissions targets, with Tata also investing money (the conversion costs more than 500m). But this steelworks is not profitable, and the conversion won't solve that.

If jobs are lost and industries move to regions with less environmental protection regulations, can you not imagine how these policies will have the opposite impact as intended ?

It is short term, India and China will produce more than you can cut, therefore global warming would still occur, just a bit later.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com