Ukraine struck Russia’s largest oil refinery, located in the city of Omsk, on Monday, marking what its forces say was its furthest-ever drone attack in the war.

The Omsk facility, which processes about 21 million tons of oil a year, is in Western Siberia and about 1,700 miles from Ukrainian territory — roughly the distance between Los Angeles and Houston.

  • merdaverse@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    We need some research into how effective drone strikes against refineries are to stop climate change. Are they a net gain in carbon emissions, considering the cost of manufacture and the prevented emissions?

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        You need to cut demand. If the price goes up

        Prices going up does help cut demand.

        Back in the '70s when oil prices spiked, people started buying more fuel efficient cars, and drove less.

        Today, after the Hormuz related price increases, demand for EVs has abruptly increased.

        If the price of oil continues to increase, that trend will also continue.

      • Photonic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 days ago

        Perhaps, but you can’t tell me Russia can build them faster than Ukraine can destroy them. And in the meantime it means millions of fewer barrels worth of greenhouse gas emissions.

            • Danquebec@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              I was thinking more of the globalized market for oil.

              If Russia can export less refined oil, that can encourage the construction of new refineries elsewhere. This could negate the impact of drone attacks on reducing CO2 emissions.

              But as others have said, there’s demand destruction that can have an effect.

              • freebee@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                How many years does it take to build a refinery from scratch? 3? 8? And perhaps a new refinery elsewhere will be a tad cleaner?

                The real outcome however, could be that Russia tries to quickly apply bandaids to their broken infrastructure to get it up and running again fast. And that way their oil refining could become more polluting than ever.

                I think on the global scale, Hormuz has a way bigger influence on helping many countries move towards renewables faster.

      • testaccount372920@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 days ago

        In many cases it’s cheaper to replace it with green alternatives. The refineries have competition from windmills, solar plants, etc. It’s not a given that new refineries will fill the gap in the market that destroyed refineries leave.

        I do expect the destruction of refineries to be more positive for the climate than if they had continued producing. Especially if you factor in the demand for reliable supply and strategic availability of energy.

      • nodiratime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 days ago

        Raise the price enough, and the sold amount will drop. Also, people/industry will begin to look for alternatives.

    • goferking (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Gotta make it worse.

      There’s the emissions from while it’s on fire plus some of the chemicals in it are worse after being burned like that then in regular emissions. Or become other environmental issues on their own once released/burned.

      Then the emissions from building a new one.

      It’s so much better to just shut it down because no one needs it than blow them up

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Also on the comparison of “on fire” vs used as fuel - IDK about the emissions during the refining process, but when gas or diesel is burnt as fuel in a car, there are typically several emissions control systems reducing the pollution produced

        • nlgranger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          I doubt the majority of engines consuming oil are euro-5 compliant: cargo ships, airplanes, military vehicles, electricity generators, water heaters, tractors, none of these typically use catalytic converters.

          • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Good point, I was just thinking about cars. Cars are what typically takes the blame for pollution, but it’s really more the big industries doing it at scale

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Then the emissions from building a new one.

        In Russia’s case, depending on how things go, that many not apply all that much.

        If things go far enough it might lead to Ukraine striking construction sites of oil refineries. Still not great, but much less worse than an actual running refinery.

    • frongt@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well, the oil is going to get burned eventually, so it’s a question of “burn the refinery now” or “continuously burn oil from ongoing production now and in the future”.