On another video somewhere, it was claimed that half the tonnage being shipped is for fossil fuels, so if the general economy shifts away from fossil fuels, this will cause a feedback effect on the shipping industry whereby demand for shipping falls.
Demand for shipping is impossible to fall as it's relatively that cheap transportation. As long as the trade is going up, the shipping industry will go up
Awesome video, Hyundai is really in the future front of sustainable investment and technology on all areas. Really nice to see how shipping industry can be cleaned up 😊❤
By the late 1970s, I/we already restarted global trade and modern economies. Our plans and companies with our partners, and software that simulated them and juiced them up. It is just a matter of them unfolding before our very eyes, we said. Hyundai probably kept knocking in, so this video is newer?
The American navy uses Nucleur energy which leaves no CO2. MINI REACTORS COULD POWER THESE VESSELS and ships could be be run at full speed which would increase efficiently by 20%.
the problem with commercial vessels is that they would become very dangerous if pirates takes the control. many armies around the world actually uses nuclear too.
@@MsEverAfterings nuclear is not dangerous at all! were not in the 70´s anymore! with very small nuclear reactors there is even much better control of the system.
An interesting addition would be to address the efficiency problem as related to propeller design, could have a huge impact on carbon emissions. See the video by Ziroth "This Genius Propeller Will Change Transport Forever". When added to these ideas it might significantly add to the efficiency gains.
The Vikings founded this idea through the shape of the vessels used. Bubbles flowed the length of the hull to reduce friction. Ideas have to start somewhere.
Build a tunnel under the Baring Straight for trains and power them electronically with solar and nuclear. 5 continents connected by train and no need for ships.
@@Anonymous-zu7dh Yea but it seems more like a regulation problem, instead of economics or safety etc, nuclear carriers etc are all working without any safety issues. and nuclear beats all these other sources out the water.
it's important for everyone to know that "conventional fuel" is not the same as what you use for your car. It is conventional to the shipping industry, which is the absolute worst dirtiest nastiest cheapest fuel that could be considered combustible. If they switched to regular consumer grade fuel they would help improve emissions so much it's unreal. This video also didn't really talk about converting to nuclear which has improved so much so much as of late that it wouldn't take up any space and run for 30 years without refueling which is more time that could be spent traveling.
@kreek22 they exist. Any negative thoughts or concerns you may have about nuclear reactors have already been solved years ago. People in general are fearful because they don't understand or they think that because one reactor fails they're all bad.
Chemical Engineer here. Methanol makes very little sense to me as an alternative fuel. You may be capturing CO2 during the Methanol Synthesis process but it is just released when it is combusted in the engine. Perhaps it burns more efficiently than traditional Bunker Fuel but when the complete lifecycle analysis is considered I struggle to see the scientific benefit. Now the public relations benefit is very clear to me and that's the problem with so many of these alternative fuels - we waste so much money on ideas that sound great but the math doesn't pan out.
Amazing idea. It is also extremely expensive and outside military operations will create a lot of new nightmares. Total cost of ownership of a nuclear powered ship is insanely high, and you need to deploy a security force on every vessel in order to avoid turning it into a dirty bomb...
It was tried during the cold war. These nuclear powered cargo ships couldn't enter many ports. Because be it paranoia or not, not many countries were happy with a nuclear reactor sitting in port.
@@Anonymous-zu7dh I'd also be concerned about the environmental dangers this would entail. We only have one Earth... maybe try to keep the oceans somewhat clean. At least with a damaged cargo ship you could pump out the fuel. Other than that, I am in favour of nuclear power, but perhaps keep it on land.
@@Melior_Traiano we already have nuclear powered ships though. Aircraft carriers, submarines and Russia has ice breakers. But yes there's a huge difference between having a national military operate a nuclear powered ship and a for profit company. Nuclear waste/radiation isn't as dangerous as often depicted in movies, I don't believe a single person died from radiation (some died as a result of the evacuation though) in Fukushima, they even have gone back to living there, next to the plant, but it's far from harmless as well.
@@Anonymous-zu7dh I know, but in numbers they are relatively few. Imagine if the thousands of cargo ships that support global commerce were all running on nuclear power. The risk of a nuclear disaster would be greatly increased.
Bio-LNG or Biomass Pyrolysis oil are cheaper. Bio LNG is already commercialized and Biomass Pyrolysis oil is nearing commercialization. These fuels can be made from residual biomass which is produced at the rate of hundreds of millions of tons yearly.
Instead of technology, think energy, vibration, sound and aether on how these structures were built. Overemphasis is being placed on "tools" and "construction." The power does not come from the tool. The power comes from knowledge and understanding that these "people" had that created these buildings. This knowledge and understanding are what is lacking today. Note that "aether" was removed from the periodic table, which many believe is the key to bridging energy and matter. In addition, the word ether was reportedly removed from all books during and after the 1800's. "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." Nikola Tesla
Why not produce hydrocarbons in a clean way, like biogas? Wind power with kites on a ship sounds promising. This is the first time I have heard about microbubble technology. Should it become mandatory?
@@aucontraire1986 If by controlling you mean chilling, well duh, but it still takes too much energy to chill and keep chilled, exacerbating the already
@@concinnus I have asked chatGPT to give me some info, please take a look below In 1 m³: Gaseous Hydrogen (700 bar): Stores 42 kg = 5040 MJ of energy. Liquid Hydrogen: Stores 71 kg = 8520 MJ of energy. Liquid Ammonia: Stores 682 kg = 12685.2 MJ of energy (if directly combusted as ammonia).
@@concinnus I think in the case of ships it might be more profitable, we just need to change our point of view. Separate from the ship autonomous floating hydrogen full energy capsules, that track ships.
Its the competitive monopoly game monetary system which in a a financial model does NOT allow for the renewable revolution, changing the economics is the key to developing the real zero carbon fuel : HYDROGEN , HYDROGEN HYDROGEN ... THE ONLY WAY. FIX THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
Scale it and scale it fast. We don't have time. Use hedging, insurance, and pensions. Insurance and pensions will collapse anyway given what will come if we don't adapt fast enough.
I don't think we have until 2050. Just look at the state of a) the global and local weather systems and knock on effects to growing seasons b) the state of our ice masses that are melting exponentially.
China has become the largest shipbuilder in the world. It should transition to using nuclear power, including Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs), to power its ships. This move would help China effectively achieve its economic and environmental goals. Chinese-owned ports will have no problem accepting nuclear-powered ships. Light Water Reactors (LWRs) have a 0.5-1% fuel efficiency, while Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) can achieve up to 98% fuel efficiency.
Methanol? Isn’t that a fossil fuel with carbon emissions? Where is the breakthrough? And ammonia is a byproduct of fossil fuels. And LNG is the same process just less efficient. These are not “solutions”.
Too REALLY ACHIEVE NET ZERO WE NEED TO TO CONSUME LESS ONE MOBILE. PHONE EVERY TEN YEARS TELEVISION EVERY 15 years Then we would not need so many ships , tou can only truly create net zero by consuming less
@@DCexpat yes it’s super difficult. the end goal is to hope that r&d catches up to make it make sense. Right now hydrogen cost for cars is equivalent to like $20/gallon.
30% is a bit high, but 10-20% is realistic, which is still quite significant. Drag is a major concern and the marine organisms that attach themselves to hulls add a lot of it. Remember those full body Olympic swimsuits that were banned because they provided too much of an advantage? Drag matters.
@@DCexpatstill I think they exaggerated the number, with that amount of fuel lost, shipping industry should have done something years or decades ago, they are not dumb. Most if not almost all of the cost is from fuel, I mean just 1% decrease in fuel will be worth improvement, this is cargo ship after all not cruise.. If that's true they will make it as clean as possible every shipment therefore doesn't let it buildup, the fact they don't make the number they present questionable. I don't think Bloomberg question the number provided by the company. Other things is how clean really is the methanol. They don't provide comparative scaling.
"If shipping were a country, it'd be in the top 10 CO2 producers" -- surely true, & right now we know that's horrible amounts, but the phrase is bad practice since even a top 10 producing micrograms together will still be "10 worst". Hard values here & there, please.
Nothing new here... 🤣 I've been hearing these words for a long time now... I'll be the happiest person if this black tar dries up in the shipping industry... 😁 Less decarb... ✌️
Koreans are so cool, they just tell the truth without any shame 😄
The confident ones like to put straightforward rather than coat the truth with sugar 😂
More dog with your noodles!
Above your pay grade here, little man.
I'll give you a minute to let that humiliation and acceptance sink in.
Kim jong un is cool hmmm
On another video somewhere, it was claimed that half the tonnage being shipped is for fossil fuels, so if the general economy shifts away from fossil fuels, this will cause a feedback effect on the shipping industry whereby demand for shipping falls.
It’s more like 70-80%
Demand for shipping is impossible to fall as it's relatively that cheap transportation. As long as the trade is going up, the shipping industry will go up
4 years on and Nothing to show😅 Always full.of virtue signaling!! Train Wreck Climate
@@badbad-cat Wait until we get those flying boats!
Amazing series by Bloomberg and the journalist it's doing an amazing job.
❤❤ hyundai
She A Great Introduction
This Momentum series by Bloomberg is one of the best thing on youtube. Thank you for this, keep bringing the informative videos.
Awesome video, Hyundai is really in the future front of sustainable investment and technology on all areas.
Really nice to see how shipping industry can be cleaned up 😊❤
Excellent coverage . Thank you 🙏 from Japan
Love the bubble carpet ride idea
Amazing work Haslinda, one of the best clean tech videos I have ever watched!
Thanks
Dhanywad
OM
I love the little robots getting rid of barnacles with bubbles :D
By the late 1970s, I/we already restarted global trade and modern economies. Our plans and companies with our partners, and software that simulated them and juiced them up. It is just a matter of them unfolding before our very eyes, we said.
Hyundai probably kept knocking in, so this video is newer?
The American navy uses Nucleur energy which leaves no CO2.
MINI REACTORS COULD POWER THESE VESSELS and ships could be be run at full speed which would increase efficiently by 20%.
Nuclear has to change its image of being dangerous first. These ships probably will be turned away from the ports due to Nuclear’s bad rep.
From what I understand, running at full speed actually is less efficient.
@@TwilightMystsnot less efficient if you are using nuclear
the problem with commercial vessels is that they would become very dangerous if pirates takes the control. many armies around the world actually uses nuclear too.
@@MsEverAfterings nuclear is not dangerous at all! were not in the 70´s anymore! with very small nuclear reactors there is even much better control of the system.
Can someone please explain how HSBC fits in this presentation.
An interesting addition would be to address the efficiency problem as related to propeller design, could have a huge impact on carbon emissions. See the video by Ziroth "This Genius Propeller Will Change Transport Forever". When added to these ideas it might significantly add to the efficiency gains.
The Vikings founded this idea through the shape of the vessels used. Bubbles flowed the length of the hull to reduce friction. Ideas have to start somewhere.
It's hard to tell now what they really mean by "clean" and "green".
Build a tunnel under the Baring Straight for trains and power them electronically with solar and nuclear. 5 continents connected by train and no need for ships.
Ok, send 500B prepayment first, the rest payable in tranches
@АгронДепартье lot cheaper than rebuilding both radioactive countries after the fallout settles....just saying.
@ Where fo you see nuclear ships (apart from Russian icebreakers with excellent track record) ?
Oil is the common component. Shipping is a byproduct.
Did I miss something? The solutions in this video don't demonstrate a pathway to net zero shipping, only minimal improvements.
There is no magical solution to decarbonize shipping, but due to its scale, the sum of any improvements will be beneficial in the long run.
methanol/ammonia synthesized with clean energy do provide zero emission shipping
There ARE intelligent, sophisticated solutions to fossil fuels.
Anti-fouling Coatings use arsenic? Why haven't we ban this yet?
Too bad that Daphne Technology that focuses on gas engine exhaust was not mentioned
Nice series, besides the content I very much like the music and video quality!
Maybe try that new photonic technology that got for vehicle combusting engines….20% more power and with less 20% omissions
Thank you Haslinda Amin & Momentum for this Update 👍❤️
How about small nuclear power plant driven super commercial carriers and LNG driven smaller commercial carriers.
Nuclear powered shipping was tried during the cold war. Not many ports would allow them to dock.
@@Anonymous-zu7dh Yea but it seems more like a regulation problem, instead of economics or safety etc, nuclear carriers etc are all working without any safety issues. and nuclear beats all these other sources out the water.
🔥
Make giant Nuclear container ships.
What's with the posing and slo mo?
it's important for everyone to know that "conventional fuel" is not the same as what you use for your car. It is conventional to the shipping industry, which is the absolute worst dirtiest nastiest cheapest fuel that could be considered combustible. If they switched to regular consumer grade fuel they would help improve emissions so much it's unreal. This video also didn't really talk about converting to nuclear which has improved so much so much as of late that it wouldn't take up any space and run for 30 years without refueling which is more time that could be spent traveling.
Suitable nuclear reactors would have to be developed.
@kreek22 they exist. Any negative thoughts or concerns you may have about nuclear reactors have already been solved years ago. People in general are fearful because they don't understand or they think that because one reactor fails they're all bad.
This video should be titled, “South Korea’s take on zero emission BS”.
Please do deep information based non spoon fed versions of your videos
You could use less slo-mo, focus less on anchor and more on actual topic.
Isn’t she the attraction? Who lives like that? So clean and tidy, perfectly manicured all of the time, and a house that cleans and organizes itself.
Nuclear is the front-runner for supertanker fuel without any doubt
Chemical Engineer here. Methanol makes very little sense to me as an alternative fuel. You may be capturing CO2 during the Methanol Synthesis process but it is just released when it is combusted in the engine. Perhaps it burns more efficiently than traditional Bunker Fuel but when the complete lifecycle analysis is considered I struggle to see the scientific benefit. Now the public relations benefit is very clear to me and that's the problem with so many of these alternative fuels - we waste so much money on ideas that sound great but the math doesn't pan out.
There is a solution that is already being used on large ships for decades without producing any emissions its called nulcear reactors.
Amazing idea. It is also extremely expensive and outside military operations will create a lot of new nightmares.
Total cost of ownership of a nuclear powered ship is insanely high, and you need to deploy a security force on every vessel in order to avoid turning it into a dirty bomb...
nice ad.
25% means net zero, Okkk guys😅
Fascinated by the “Magic Micro Bubbles Carpet”
Nuclear reactor powered ships best alternative.
Shipping would be the best place to develop SMR small modular reactor industry.
It was tried during the cold war. These nuclear powered cargo ships couldn't enter many ports. Because be it paranoia or not, not many countries were happy with a nuclear reactor sitting in port.
@@Anonymous-zu7dh I'd also be concerned about the environmental dangers this would entail. We only have one Earth... maybe try to keep the oceans somewhat clean. At least with a damaged cargo ship you could pump out the fuel. Other than that, I am in favour of nuclear power, but perhaps keep it on land.
@@Melior_Traiano we already have nuclear powered ships though. Aircraft carriers, submarines and Russia has ice breakers.
But yes there's a huge difference between having a national military operate a nuclear powered ship and a for profit company. Nuclear waste/radiation isn't as dangerous as often depicted in movies, I don't believe a single person died from radiation (some died as a result of the evacuation though) in Fukushima, they even have gone back to living there, next to the plant, but it's far from harmless as well.
@@Anonymous-zu7dh I know, but in numbers they are relatively few. Imagine if the thousands of cargo ships that support global commerce were all running on nuclear power. The risk of a nuclear disaster would be greatly increased.
Bio-LNG or Biomass Pyrolysis oil are cheaper. Bio LNG is already commercialized and Biomass Pyrolysis oil is nearing commercialization. These fuels can be made from residual biomass which is produced at the rate of hundreds of millions of tons yearly.
Yay, cavitation!
She Great Of Bringing What Can We Fix The Economy And Emissions Of Cost Fuel Help With The Supply Chain .
Instead of technology, think energy, vibration, sound and aether on how these structures were built. Overemphasis is being placed on "tools" and "construction." The power does not come from the tool. The power comes from knowledge and understanding that these "people" had that created these buildings. This knowledge and understanding are what is lacking today.
Note that "aether" was removed from the periodic table, which many believe is the key to bridging energy and matter. In addition, the word ether was reportedly removed from all books during and after the 1800's.
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." Nikola Tesla
We have nuclear powered submarines but no nuclear or hydrogen powered ships?
Small small ships can help the situation like reaching the right destination at right time ha grosaries
Why not produce hydrocarbons in a clean way, like biogas? Wind power with kites on a ship sounds promising. This is the first time I have heard about microbubble technology. Should it become mandatory?
Why not consider Hydrogen, it's energy denser?
Not volumetrically, unless it's liquid, which is too problematic.
@@concinnusships can do a better job at controlling liquid hydrogen than a small car though
@@aucontraire1986 If by controlling you mean chilling, well duh, but it still takes too much energy to chill and keep chilled, exacerbating the already
@@concinnus I have asked chatGPT to give me some info, please take a look below
In 1 m³:
Gaseous Hydrogen (700 bar): Stores 42 kg = 5040 MJ of energy.
Liquid Hydrogen: Stores 71 kg = 8520 MJ of energy.
Liquid Ammonia: Stores 682 kg = 12685.2 MJ of energy (if directly combusted as ammonia).
@@concinnus I think in the case of ships it might be more profitable, we just need to change our point of view.
Separate from the ship autonomous floating hydrogen full energy capsules, that track ships.
Stop shopping in Asia and build in the Americas and it will also help reduce the migration.
And a great benefit to the environment.
Its the competitive monopoly game monetary system which in a a financial model does NOT allow for the renewable revolution, changing the economics is the key to developing the real zero carbon fuel : HYDROGEN , HYDROGEN HYDROGEN ... THE ONLY WAY. FIX THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
RAS HOUSE MUSIC 🎶 LABORIE BEACH ⛱️ ST LUCIA 🇱🇨🥇🥈🇱🇨
Scale it and scale it fast. We don't have time. Use hedging, insurance, and pensions. Insurance and pensions will collapse anyway given what will come if we don't adapt fast enough.
I hope somebody will be able to create something that will clean the air too while you guys still try to find a way to reduce carbon emission.
😮
I don't think we have until 2050. Just look at the state of a) the global and local weather systems and knock on effects to growing seasons b) the state of our ice masses that are melting exponentially.
Wind turbines, foils and even sails are needed on ships to save fuel.
Wind turbines.... On a ship.... Really.... Think about it.
Anyone else hear her pronounce it hee-un-day
Tarrifs and sanctions have consequences. These are higher levels of smuggling. Thanks USA. Will you never learn?
China has become the largest shipbuilder in the world. It should transition to using nuclear power, including Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs), to power its ships. This move would help China effectively achieve its economic and environmental goals. Chinese-owned ports will have no problem accepting nuclear-powered ships.
Light Water Reactors (LWRs) have a 0.5-1% fuel efficiency, while Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) can achieve up to 98% fuel efficiency.
China has plans for a Thorium Molten Salt Reactors to be put in a cargo ship.
Methanol? Isn’t that a fossil fuel with carbon emissions? Where is the breakthrough? And ammonia is a byproduct of fossil fuels. And LNG is the same process just less efficient. These are not “solutions”.
there isnt a solution to keep consuming
presented by hsbc...funded by shady drug money ..long live !!
Mankinds effect on the climate of the earth is equal to throwing a rock into the Grand Canyon.
Mathane
Too REALLY ACHIEVE NET ZERO WE NEED TO TO CONSUME LESS ONE MOBILE. PHONE EVERY TEN YEARS TELEVISION EVERY 15 years Then we would not need so many ships , tou can only truly create net zero by consuming less
👸💜🎙️💖🧔
I can't understand her accent.
Completely useless. There are no alternatives. Waste of time
so their answer is to replace a single use fuel, with another single use fuel, yay, clueless
This is a silly video.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
more idiocy
"In the bigger scheme of things, this is peanuts"
-me after drinking 5 shots
It is not a major polluting industry - all your next statements are now questionnable
Why are we going through an expensive transition and investment but not going to hydrogen?
It’s too hard to make green and store
@KhanJoltrane much harder than the other engineering problems? What's the end goal then?
@@DCexpat yes it’s super difficult. the end goal is to hope that r&d catches up to make it make sense. Right now hydrogen cost for cars is equivalent to like $20/gallon.
not a chance that a dirty hull causes 30% more emissions
30% is a bit high, but 10-20% is realistic, which is still quite significant. Drag is a major concern and the marine organisms that attach themselves to hulls add a lot of it. Remember those full body Olympic swimsuits that were banned because they provided too much of an advantage? Drag matters.
If the shape of a car matters, then why wouldn't the shape of a boats hull? Water is much more dense than air, so it would matter even more.
@@DCexpatstill I think they exaggerated the number, with that amount of fuel lost, shipping industry should have done something years or decades ago, they are not dumb. Most if not almost all of the cost is from fuel, I mean just 1% decrease in fuel will be worth improvement, this is cargo ship after all not cruise.. If that's true they will make it as clean as possible every shipment therefore doesn't let it buildup, the fact they don't make the number they present questionable. I don't think Bloomberg question the number provided by the company. Other things is how clean really is the methanol. They don't provide comparative scaling.
"If shipping were a country, it'd be in the top 10 CO2 producers" -- surely true, & right now we know that's horrible amounts, but the phrase is bad practice since even a top 10 producing micrograms together will still be "10 worst". Hard values here & there, please.
Nothing new here... 🤣 I've been hearing these words for a long time now... I'll be the happiest person if this black tar dries up in the shipping industry... 😁 Less decarb... ✌️
I'll give you an alternative : ☢️
omg another climate change propaganda film
omg The last climate denier even showed up.
Ships should use automated kite wind power and be covered in solar cells and be electric.
Shipping is huge, largely thanks to people taking advantage of capitalist inequalities in the world.
STOP using fossil fuels!!!
Switch to solar and wind power, electric vehicles.