Topic: One ship equals fifty million cars (pollution)

[Serniter]

I'm not sure about the accuracy of this article, but it does indicate an alternate target for pollution control.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/06/02/a-single-container-ship-may-emit-as-much-as-50-million-cars/

[tpl]

I trust that statistic about as far as I can throw it.   A better comparison would be: If there was a road from China to,say, San Francisco, what would be the pollutant load of the number of trucks required to carry the same load while running on Chinese diesel fuel.    Ships are very efficient.

It would not be impossible and well within the state of the refinery art to remove most of the sulphur from bunker C. It would not be cheap and I wonder if it would mean a total rebuild of those diesels.

It would not be difficult, just very, very  expensive, to make nuclear powered container ships. Would the North Koreans and Iranians be allowed to have them ?

I wonder what the pollutant load would be if we went back to proper coal fired steam ships.

[Honda Owner]

proper coal fired steam ships

What? The coal burned by cargo ships is all soft coal and terribly dirty. It would also be economically impossible because of the time it takes to coal a ship would drastically affect the turn around times. Then there is the CO2 and other pollutants getting the coal to the port to begin with. Then there is the labour to stoke the furnaces, cleaning.......

Here in Vancouver all ships at dock must, as of last year, connect to the local power grid. They are not permitted to run their diesels in port.

[The Mighty Duck]

It would not be difficult, just very, very  expensive, to make nuclear powered container ships. Would the North Koreans and Iranians be allowed to have them ?

This will (sadly) never happen in merchant shipping.  Too big a risk of a ship being boarded by pirates and nuclear material falling into the wrong hands.  Too big a risk of a poorly maintained ship having a disaster in port.

[tpl]

Notice the word "if" in my sentence.    As for the labour to stoke the boilers... don't you have lots of unemployed on the east side of V ?

The note about not being allowed to run the diesels in port... that seems like a very good idea to me.  

[tpl]

It would not be difficult, just very, very  expensive, to make nuclear powered container ships. Would the North Koreans and Iranians be allowed to have them ?

This will (sadly) never happen in merchant shipping.  Too big a risk of a ship being boarded by pirates and nuclear material falling into the wrong hands.  Too big a risk of a poorly maintained ship having a disaster in port.

I know.    Poor maintenance probably not a problem as ALL countries would insist on fully qualifies crew. As for pirates... I doubt that they could catch a ship doing 30 knots and once you have decided to have properly qualified crew then it is less difficult politically to arm them to any level required.      This is not serious as I know that most countries could not afford ships like that and would not allow nuclear powered ships in port anyway.   

[Honda Owner]

don't you have lots of unemployed on the east side of V ?

That particular group of people, most of whom are not from British Columbia by the way, don't have any intention of actually working. It would cut into their  crack smoking time.

[safristi]

....at ONE TIME....having a crack ARMY woz a good thing.............

[Rupert]

Transporting heavy loads and bulk cargoes around the UK was done in units that carried maybe 20tons operated by a man and his wife, with a single horse as motive power in the old days. 7 ft. wide narrow boats on 3,500 miles of waterway, most of it still remaining. That was state of the art back then and 3 mph could be achieved at times. Braking and cornering was performed with care.

I dont know about carbon emissions, there must have been gas of some kinds but it was all remarkably efficient and trouble free and there were side benefits...rose gardens of the age did very well. Before the steam engine and railways this system ruled.

Today the canals are used as much as ever but mainly for pleasure now with the 7 ft wide craft fitted out full length as comfortable accomodation. Speeds have increased though with internal combustion engines used. You can do 4 mph now. Do more than that and a speed copper will chase you on his bicycle along the fading tow path.

[tpl]

Going up and down hill was performed with care as well.       

There are still strings of barges used on many rivers worldwide towed by a single powered vessel.

[rrocket]

I trust that statistic about as far as I can throw it.   

I believe it.  There are several cruise ships that burn 200 gallons per MILE.  When I watched a "how it's made", they showed a new cruise ship and said it takes a gallon to make the ship move fewer than 20 feet!!

So yea..they burn tons of fuel.  When I was on my cruise, the leaflet they handed out had the ship burning 2500 gallons per HOUR.

Most ships burn 900-1200 TONS per 7 days cruise.  Assuming approx. 8 lbs per gallon, (that's 250 gallons a ton) the average cruise ship burns 225,000 to 300,000 gallons per week.  And I have a hard time believing it's cleaner than a car...

So I don't doubt that number...

[dr_spock]

Maybe a measurement of amount of fuel burned per mass of cargo/people moved per distance would be a better comparison.

 

[Rupert]

The horse and narrow boat would win every time...nose bag full of oats...go for hours.

[aquadorhj]

The horse and narrow boat would win every time...nose bag full of oats...go for hours.

But horses fart.  and fart contains methane.  and methane is green house gas. green house gas is pollution.   Why do you HATE earth!! 

[EV Dan]

The horse and narrow boat would win every time...nose bag full of oats...go for hours.

But horses fart.  and fart contains methane.  and methane is green house gas. green house gas is pollution.   Why do you HATE earth!! 

I always wondered how cow  horse farts compare in terms of climate change to a 6 cyl engine running at 2000rpm and thus making 2000/2 * 6 = 6000 fpm (farts per minute). Anyone has statistics on cows? It seems just another brainwash perpetrated by the fossil industry 

[The Mighty Duck]

Maybe a measurement of amount of fuel burned per mass of cargo/people moved per distance would be a better comparison.

  The article is not particularly clear.  Is one container ship the equivalent of 50 million cars over the course of its lifetime?  How many additional trucks would be required to completely replace container ships?  Absolute pollution numbers are of little use here.

This is a good case for buying local, though.  The 100-mile diet is gaining a lot of fans, and that's likely a good thing.  And I think we can certainly agree that there's no reason ships can't be cleaner.  The article mentions the US is imposing a low-emissions zone in its territorial waters.  on that one, I think.

[huota]

I don't know about the accuracy of the facts in the article, but I do believe that ships are nasty polluters. I live by a seaway where over 200 hundred ships go by every day and the sky brown, unlike over the mainland.

[Rupert]

Humans fart as well...not me of course...but I bet you do. Why do you hate the rest of us? 

[aquadorhj]

I always wondered how cow  horse farts compare in terms of climate change to a 6 cyl engine running at 2000rpm and thus making 2000/2 * 6 = 6000 fpm (farts per minute).

Strictly speaking, since exhaust gas exits from car every 4 revolution, it should be 2000/4 * 6 = 3000 fpm.  gotcha there, ain't I?   

Back on topic.  Yes, pollution is bad.

[Rupert]

Every two revs per cyl. for a 4 stroke. Every rev for a 2 stroke. I think.