[Schroedingersat]

> Liquid natural gas is less dense than water, so of course ocean transportation of it is not mass limited. Did it really no occur to you that I was referring to transportation of lithium batteries?

You were comparing LNG by mass to batteries by mass.

Now you're trying to pretend I was comparing volume to volume rather than a ship full.

So I guess the answer is no. You've never considered saying anything in good faith.

[Manuel_D]

Again, let's look at the comment chain:

> A sensible 'normalised' comparison might be energy carried per displacement kilotonne or some such.

Defrost explicitly specified mass, "per displacemet kilotonne" To which you responded:

> Answering the original question, it's about 10-20x as much usable energy for the oil

10-20x is the ratio of energy density by volume, not mass.

I'm going to extend assumption of good faith, as it's easy to forget that there's two different measures of energy density. But yes, you did respond to someone asking about relative energy density by mass with the relative energy density by unit of volume. And the energy density by mass is indeed the limiting factor when shipping bulk lithium ion batteries, so this is a misleading (but probably not bad faith) figure to cite.

[Schroedingersat]

No, see I answered the actual question, which is oil. Which is mass limited. With how much energy would be available to do work at the destination.

You jumped to a ship two orders of magnitude larger and then insisted LNG carrying was mass limited, not volume limited.

I did not forget anything, merely pointed out the bizarre attempts to mislead.

[Manuel_D]

> No, see I answered the actual question, which is oil. Which is mass limited.

Correct, and then you turned around and gave a figure for the relative energy density by volume, instead of mass (which would be a disparity 3-6x larger). And mass is the limiting factor for bulk shipping lithium ion batteries.

[Schroedingersat]

What are you even talking about?