How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world

This is gross!!


<snip>
We've all noticed it. The filthy black smoke kicked out by funnels on cross-Channel ferries, cruise liners, container ships, oil tankers and even tugboats.

It looks foul, and leaves a brown haze across ports and shipping lanes. But what hasn’t been clear until now is that it is also a major killer, probably causing thousands of deaths in Britain alone.

As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.

Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations.

But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use.<snip>

more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

ships carry, it is probably a good trade off.

We may return to sails over time, but not for perishable cargos.

"But, away from a handful of low-sulphur zones, including the English Channel and North Sea, the IMO gave shipping lines a staggering 12 years to make the switch. And, even then, it will depend on a final ‘feasibility review’ in 2018.

In the meantime, according to Corbett’s figures, nearly one million more people will die.

Smoke and sulphur are not the only threats from ships’ funnels. Every year they are also belching out almost one billion tons of carbon dioxide. Ships are as big a contributor to global warming as aircraft – but have had much less attention from environmentalists.

Both international shipping and aviation are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol rules on cutting carbon emissions. But green pressure is having its effect on airlines. Ahead of next month’s Copenhagen climate talks, airlines have promised to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html#ixzz0fYyVzHcn


Maybe you are OK with these statistics... I am not.

But without the super-cheap fuel, China would not be able to sell their goods here, and we'd have to start manufacturing here again. Can't have that.

We sure don't need to make a mess of this finely engineered and finely tuned economic system we all enjoy.

Let them pollute and stuff, we need pollution so that we can all be rich beyond our wildest dreams.

just as a boost. more wind, less oil. simple physics.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/dec/13/ben-bova-dirigibles-might-make-comeback/

Would move tons of freight for very little cost. Combine them with electric engines and a skin that is photovoltaic and ...

Also these huge ships do not have to burn the worst fuels. We need to start prioritizing our deliveries and design large slow moving ecolocially sustainable ships for most cargo and less sustainable for perishibles. As for shipping green bananas from one continent to another perhaps we should invest in passive solar greenhouses for local production of exotic produce so that it doesn't have to be transported long distances and it can vine ripen. It'll taste better and it'll be more nutritious.

the problem is they burn residual fuel. Since cars do not burn sulfur fuel at all, the comparative argument overreaches itself. It's unlikely that the writer would like to pay the cost of shipping by air (also a specious argument). Fuel use at sea has been virtually unregulated while refinery efficiencies have improved, meaning the fuel quality keeps getting worse.

The slow-speed two stroke engines now coming into use have improved efficiencies from before, but 4 stroke medium speed engines run cleaner. Both burn straight residual or a blend.

Europe already has more rigorous standards than before, but California, in cooperation with shipping companies and marine diesel engine manufacturers is leading the charge in terms of air quality improvements. More and more engines are able to burn ultra-low sulfur fuel. There are still problems with lack of lubricity wearing out fuel injection systems.

But yes, a 108,000 HP engine uses about 250 tons of fuel per day at full power.

I was Chief Engineer on a 1973 built ship. We carried 1500 TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit) containers. The vessel burned 140 tons per day at 23 knots. I then went on a 1997 built 4500 TEU vessel. It burned 140 tons per day at 24 knots. Now the big Maersk ships carry 13,000 TUE's and burn 250 tons per day at 26 knots. That's about 62,500 gallons.

2 TEU's would be one truckload. (So how much fuel do 6,500 trucks use?)

The strange thing about containerization is that when it started it was a low volume high value operation. Cargo rates depend on the value of the commodity carried (and the distance). Over time it became so prevalent and successful that ship gluts would occur, dropping prices. This in turn lead to changes in cargo being carried. For example, cement in bags. The answer to carrying low revenue cargo was to build bigger ships.

One of the tankers is nicknamed "the Santa"...

despicable...


K&R.

The pollution from cars comes from the extraction of the fuel, the manufacture of the fuel, and the delivery of the fuel.

Studies have found that children who live near a gas station have a higher leukemia rate, presumably from the evaporation of the gasoline.

http://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2009/02/15/oem.2008.042432.abstract

Sorry, while pollution from low grade diesel fuel is problematic, this is an apples/oranges situation.

Bill

All that filthy used oil that we turn in for "recycling" at our local auto store.

Raw crude oil is cracked and separated into gasoline, diesel, heating oil, etc.

The low grade junk is burned in diesel ships.

However if you prohibited them from burning it what would you do with it?
Store billions of gallons of it each year? Dump it back into the earth?

Any cost in "getting rid of it" would make all the other fractional oil products (gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc) much more expensive.


You can't turn 100% of crude oil into high grade gasoline. The physics doesn't work that way.

Crude oil is a mix of hydrocarbons. The refinery is simply separating out the various hydrocarbon chains.



If you want gasoline then you are going to get low grade junk and lots of it. As long as we are converting billions of gallons of oil into billions of gallons of gasoline we will have billions of gallons of low grade junk and there will be a market for it.

Want to solve this problem. Substantially cut world oil usage.

...if they just filtered the smokestacks, a lot of the problem could be controlled?

Eventually there might even be a market for the particulates filtered out.

I feel like this is kind of misleading.

I'm certainly glad they don't use smaller ships...I'm pretty sure it would be much, much
less efficient.
Big ships aren't the problem. Big ships burning shitty fuel are the problem. Any ship
burning shitty fuel, for that matter.

That being said, they should totally be working to use less polluting fuel.