Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,533

    Default Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

    Big polluters: one massive container ship equals 50 million cars


    By Paul Evans
    April 23, 2009


    15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars



    April 23, 2009 The Guardian has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds 90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles. The recent boom in the global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by volume.
    The title of world’s largest container ship is actually held by eight identical ships owned by Danish shipping line Mærsk. All eight ships are 1300ft (397.7m) long and can carry 15,200 shipping containers around the globe at a steady 25.5 knots (47.2 km/h, 29.3 mph) . The only thing limiting the size of these ships is the Suezmax standard, which is the term used to define the the largest ships capable of transiting the Suez Canal fully loaded. These ships far surpass the Panamax standard (ships that can fit through the Panama Canal), which is limited to ships capable of carrying 5,000 shipping containers.
    Not only are shipbuilders resetting the world record for size on a regular basis but so are the diesel engines that propel them. One of the eight longest container ships in the world, the 1,300 ft Emma Mærsk also has the world's largest reciprocating engine. At five storeys tall and weighing 2300 tonnes, this 14 cylinder turbocharged two-stroke monster puts out 84.4 MW (114,800 hp) - up to 90MW when the motor's waste heat recovery system is taken into account. These mammoth engines consume approx 16 tons of fuel per hour or 380 tons per day while at sea.
    Unregulated emissions
    In international waters ship emissions remains one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel used in ships is waste oil, basically what is left over after the crude oil refining process. It is the same as asphalt and is so thick that when cold it can be walked upon . It's the cheapest and most polluting fuel available and the world's 90,000 ships chew through an astonishing 7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all exported oil production from Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil exporter.
    Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.
    South Korea's STX shipyard says it has designed a ship to carry 22,000 shipping containers that would be 450 meters long and there are already 3,693 new ship builds on the books for ocean going vessels over 150 meters in length due over the next three years. The amount of air pollution just these new ships will put out when launched is equal to having another 29 billion cars on the roads.
    The UN's International Maritime Organisation (IMO) released a report in 2007 saying a 10% reduction in fuel burning was possible on existing ships and 30-40% possible for new ships but the technology is largely unused, as the regulations are largely voluntary.
    Nuclear future?
    Oddly enough there is never any mention of alternative power sources such as nuclear power. Nuclear marine propulsion has been in widespread naval use for over 50 years starting in 1955. There are 150 ships in operation that use nuclear propulsion with most being submarines, although they range from ice breakers to aircraft carriers. A Nimitz class supercarrier has more than twice as much power (240,000 hp, 208 MW) as the largest container ship diesel engines ever built and is capable of continuously operating for 20 years without refueling (some French Rubis-class submarines can go 30 years between refueling). The U.S. Navy has accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships.
    Airborne pollution from these giant diesel engines has been linked to sickness in coastal residents near busy shipping lanes. Up to 60,000 premature deaths a year worldwide are said to be as a result of particulate matter emissions from ocean-going ship engines. The IMO, which regulates shipping for 168 member nations, last October enacted new mandatory standards for phasing in cleaner engine fuel. By 2020, sulphur in marine fuel must be reduced by 90% although this new distilled fuel may be double the price of current low grade fuels.
    Paul Evans
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    56,744

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Good to see you recognising nuclear fuels as beneficial for the environment, at last.
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    San Francisco Bay
    Posts
    11,694

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    I remember Savanah was the first nuclear cargo ship. States Lines and Isbrandtsen operated her on contracts for MARAD, IIRC. My dad worked for APL as a bean counter and we followed her closely when I was a kid. Nuclear power wasn't practical back then, and probably not now, because it was far more expensive than oil screw driven vessels. The government subsidies (which was my dad's area of expertise) were huge, much more than for oil driven ships. She caused all sorts of union hassles that tied her up for quite a while. The maritime unions objected to the higher pay scales of the nuclear workers union guys and if the maritime unions' scale was comparable, there was no way the ship could operate at a profit.

    Savannah was strikingly beautiful. She was a cargo-liner carrying a limited number of passengers first class. That caused additional expense for the steward's crew and that was just at the time when jet airline travel was kicking the slats out of the trans-oceanic passenger business. She was break bulk, being in the days before intermodal cargo containers and the placement of her reactors and turbines, as well as the passenger accommodations, left little space to make money hauling real cargo. My dad said the stevedores hated her because her sleek shape made the holds difficult to load. She sure was a looker, though.



    The Navy has a much bigger budget and no profit constraints. The Navy doesn't have to worry as much about complying with all sorts of safety and environmental regulations, either. The Navy has no unions to contend with. And on and on and on. In particular, the advantage in range between refueling (i.e. almost never) is of major import to the Navy, but the cargo vessels make port regularly and refueling cycles really aren't a big issue for them so the biggest advantage of nuclear over oil is not of much importance in a cargo vessel.. In theory, nuclear it's a good idea, but in practice it didn't pencil out. And once containers took over, cargo ships didn't really have to be much more than powered barges with a bow. The only thing remarkable about them these days is how big they are. It's funny how when I was a kid and a new vessel would come into SF, people would run down to check her out. Not so anymore. They come in, unload and load and are gone, sometimes in hours. You never know they are there.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Barrie, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,889

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    I suspect it's crap.

    Here's the engine Manual.

    http://www.mandieselturbo.com/downlo...ed/s80mec9.pdf

    Dave

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,533

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Here's a Wiki entry .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk

    She and similar ships have been criticised for burning bunker fuel, which has a high sulphur content,[44] 2.5 to 4.5%, over 2,000 times more than allowed in automotive fuel.[44]
    In internationally-agreed Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs) fuel with a maximum of 1.0% [2010] sulphur is used, to be reduced to 0.1% in 2015. Reduced sulphur in the fuel affects the lubrificatory properties, which could lead to lower reliability, and higher costs for maintenance and repair in addition to purchasing the more expensive low-sulphur fuel.
    In Europe, new rules regarding the operation of marine shipping will require ships to burn cleaner fuel. MARPOL Regulation 14 will limit global sulphur content to 0.5% in 2020, but a review of global fuel availability due to conclude in 2018 may delay the new regulation until 2025.[45]


    Engine and hull[edit]


    She is powered by a Wärtsilä-Sulzer 14RTFLEX96-C engine, the world's largest single diesel unit, weighing 2,300 tonnes and capable of 109,000 horsepower (81 MW) when burning 3,600 US gallons (14,000 l)[32] of heavy fuel oil per hour. At economical speed, fuel consumption is 0.260 bs/hp·hour (1,660 gal/hour).[33] She has features to lower environmental damage, including exhaust heat recovery and cogeneration.[34] Some of the exhaust gases are returned to the engine to improve economy and lower emissions,[35] and some are passed through a steam generator which then powers a Peter Brotherhood steam turbine and electrical generators. This creates an electrical output of 8.5 MW,[36] equivalent to about 12% of the main engine power output. Some of this steam is used directly as shipboard heat.[37] Five diesel generators together produce 20.8 MW,[36] giving a total electric output of 29 MW.[27] Two 9 MW electric motors power the main propeller shaft.[36][38]
    Two bow and two stern thrusters provide port manoeuvrability, and two pairs of stabilizer fins reduce rolling.[36]
    A special silicone-based paint, instead of biocides used by much of the industry, keeps barnacles off of the hull.[22] This increases her efficiency by reducing drag while also protecting the ocean from biocides that may leak. The paint is credited with lowering the water drag enough to save 1,200 tonnes of fuel per year.[39] The ship has a bulbous bow, a standard feature for cargo ships.
    The turning diameter at 24 knots (44 km/h) is 0.81 nmi (1.50 km). The engine is near midship to make best use of the rigidity of the hull and to maximize capacity. When banking 20 degrees, the bridge sways 35 metres.[40]

    What does 3600 gals of fuel oil weigh? I get about 11.5 tons .x 24 = 275 tons, not as much as the lead article but considerable.
    Last edited by PeterSibley; 02-18-2014 at 10:16 PM.
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    6,897

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Are the numbers correct? Yes. Does the article paint an accurate picture? No, it's rather sensational.

    When you look at air pollution, you need to look at all the constituents of pollution, their sources, and the efficiency of shipping methods. For example, ships are hands down the most efficient method of transportation of cargo. "1 US gal (3.785 l, 0.833 imp gal) of fuel can move a ton of cargo 857 kilometres (533 mi) by barge, or 337 km (209 mi) by rail, or 98 km (61 mi) by truck." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...transportation

    Here's a bit of a primer on marine air pollution and MARPOL Annex VI.

    http://www.imo.org/blast/mainframe.asp?topic_id=233

    I recently wrote a short paper giving an overview of marine air pollution and methods of control, I wish I could post it here. There's a great deal being worked on right now to reduce pollution from ships. Wet, dry, and hybrid scrubbers, selective catalytic reduction, exhaust gas recirc, etc.

    Here's a Q&A from Lloyd's on NOX reduction you might find interesting.

    https://www.cdlive.lr.org/informatio...0July%2002.pdf

    If you have any specific questions I could try to answer them.
    I'll just take my chances with those salt water joys.

    AR

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,533

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    No specific questions, I really don't know enough to ask a sensible one! Thus ''the is this correct?'' in the thread title.

    One actually, the effect of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere? I have some dim remembrance that it causes haziness in the upper atmosphere and may be reflecting some of the sun's heat ? Is that completely wrong or do I remember something correctly ?
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,533

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    https://www.cdlive.lr.org/informatio...0July%2002.pdf

    Interesting , thanks . Perhaps common rail is the next step.
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Diamond, Ill / Savannah, Ga
    Posts
    9,274

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    No specific questions, I really don't know enough to ask a sensible one! Thus ''the is this correct?'' in the thread title.

    One actually, the effect of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere? I have some dim remembrance that it causes haziness in the upper atmosphere and may be reflecting some of the sun's heat ? Is that completely wrong or do I remember something correctly ?
    It also causes acid rain. Sulfur dioxide is one of the key pollutants regulated in the fossil fuel power industry. The exhaust can be scrubbed to remove the majority, but that has its own issues, mainly cost and another PITA unit to operate.

    Cheers,

    Bobby

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    6,897

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    No specific questions, I really don't know enough to ask a sensible one! Thus ''the is this correct?'' in the thread title.

    One actually, the effect of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere? I have some dim remembrance that it causes haziness in the upper atmosphere and may be reflecting some of the sun's heat ? Is that completely wrong or do I remember something correctly ?
    SOX is a big contributor to acid rain, as it reacts with water for form sulphuric acid. Near ground level it's a respiratory irritant and a contributor to smog (along with NOX, VOCs, and CO). I'm not sure how high the effects of that haze go.
    I'll just take my chances with those salt water joys.

    AR

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wow-Ming
    Posts
    17,700

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    One actually, the effect of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere? I have some dim remembrance that it causes haziness in the upper atmosphere and may be reflecting some of the sun's heat ? Is that completely wrong or do I remember something correctly?
    Sulphur pollution scatters light, with the most visible effect being a whitish haze. Visibility (the distance one can see clearly) is reduced in proportion. Where there are distinct plumes (e.g. from smokestacks) one can see layered haze. Most combustion sources emit both nitrogen and sulphur oxides (SOx and NOx) so the haze often has a brownish tint from the nitrogen and from particulates.

    Given a reliable estimate of the sulphur content of the fuel, the tons per hour consumed, and the number of ships, it would be fairly simple to arrive at the amount of sulphur air pollution, although it would be distributed unevenly.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,533

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    I knew about acid rain and the low level smog effects but I was wrong about upper atmosphere reflection ?
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canadia
    Posts
    6,897

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Doing a little googling, and looks like you might have something there.

    The powerful eruption of such an enormous volume of lava and ash injected significant quantities of aerosols and dust into the stratosphere. Sulfur dioxide oxidized in the atmosphere to produce a haze of sulfuric acid droplets, which gradually spread throughout the stratosphere over the year following the eruption. The injection of aerosols into the stratosphere is thought to have been the largest since the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, with a total mass of SO
2 of about 17,000,000 t (19,000,000 short tons) being injected—the largest volume ever recorded by modern instruments (see chart and figure).This very large stratospheric injection resulted in a reduction in the normal amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface by roughly 10% (see figure). This led to a decrease in northern hemisphere average temperatures of 0.5–0.6 °C (0.9–1.1 °F) and a global fall of about 0.4 °C (0.7 °F).[7][25] At the same time, the temperature in the stratosphere rose to several degrees higher than normal, due to absorption of radiation by the aerosol. The stratospheric cloud from the eruption persisted in the atmosphere for three years after the eruption.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_P...mental_effects

    There's been some talk of using the phenomenon for climate manipulation.
    I'll just take my chances with those salt water joys.

    AR

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,533

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Ah!! Thank you , I'd forgotten where I read about the high altitude sulphur ( this is getting a long way away from ships ! ). It was in a New Scientist article on a possible trigger for the cold and wet years just prior to the Black Death . Apparently sulphur from an eruption around 1345 has been found in both North and South poles ice.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/stothers_05/
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Australia and Tasmania
    Posts
    16,055

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    The hull of that Maersk ship borders on elegant

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Baltimore Maryland
    Posts
    11,412

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Cleek View Post
    I remember Savanah was the first nuclear cargo ship. States Lines and Isbrandtsen operated her on contracts for MARAD, IIRC. My dad worked for APL as a bean counter and we followed her closely when I was a kid. Nuclear power wasn't practical back then, and probably not now, because it was far more expensive than oil screw driven vessels. The government subsidies (which was my dad's area of expertise) were huge, much more than for oil driven ships. She caused all sorts of union hassles that tied her up for quite a while. The maritime unions objected to the higher pay scales of the nuclear workers union guys and if the maritime unions' scale was comparable, there was no way the ship could operate at a profit.

    Savannah was strikingly beautiful. She was a cargo-liner carrying a limited number of passengers first class. That caused additional expense for the steward's crew and that was just at the time when jet airline travel was kicking the slats out of the trans-oceanic passenger business. She was break bulk, being in the days before intermodal cargo containers and the placement of her reactors and turbines, as well as the passenger accommodations, left little space to make money hauling real cargo. My dad said the stevedores hated her because her sleek shape made the holds difficult to load. She sure was a looker, though.



    The Navy has a much bigger budget and no profit constraints. The Navy doesn't have to worry as much about complying with all sorts of safety and environmental regulations, either. The Navy has no unions to contend with. And on and on and on. In particular, the advantage in range between refueling (i.e. almost never) is of major import to the Navy, but the cargo vessels make port regularly and refueling cycles really aren't a big issue for them so the biggest advantage of nuclear over oil is not of much importance in a cargo vessel.. In theory, nuclear it's a good idea, but in practice it didn't pencil out. And once containers took over, cargo ships didn't really have to be much more than powered barges with a bow. The only thing remarkable about them these days is how big they are. It's funny how when I was a kid and a new vessel would come into SF, people would run down to check her out. Not so anymore. They come in, unload and load and are gone, sometimes in hours. You never know they are there.

    She's about 500 yards from where I sit typing this. Still a beautiful ship.
    Ratus ratus bilgeous snipeous!

    You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
    Mahatma Gandhi

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    High plains drifter
    Posts
    8,264

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Regulations will bring sulpher down. The ship pictured is modern and is probably super clean. Shipping is the most environmentaly friendly transport. ECA areas include all of the developed world. No dirty ships are allowed in North American waters.


    hosting imagenes

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tuscon AZ
    Posts
    5,212

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Adams View Post
    She's about 500 yards from where I sit typing this. Still a beautiful ship.
    I remember that ship because they made plastic models of that ship.
    I love the smell of fresh cut plywood in the morning.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tuscon AZ
    Posts
    5,212

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Check out this video on this page.
    http://www.wartsila.com/en/engines/l...nes/RT-flex96C
    Also look at what they do to reduce Co2 omisions.
    http://www.wartsila.com/en/engine-se...ustion-control
    I love the smell of fresh cut plywood in the morning.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    I am a MSc student of Shipping Operations at Southampton University. I am undertaking a dissertation on “Atmospheric Pollution from Shipping” and would kindly ask to answer a few questions to enable collection of data for my dissertation. The information obtained from this interview will be used entirely for academic purposes. Names of individuals and organizations will be treated with anonymity. Thank you for your participation.

    Link hereunder:
    https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/AirPollution

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    1. What is your opinion regarding sustainable development in your port?



    1. What kind of facilities are provided in your port in order to implement sustainable development for your port?



    1. How many shore-side electricity/cold ironing/on-shore power supply has been provided in your port and how long you have been using this facility?



    1. What type of shore-side electricity do you provide in your port, and could you specify it in term of capacity?



    1. Who are your customers (ro-ro vessels, passenger vessels, container vessels) that are using shore-side electricity services?



    1. How is your strategy to promote your port services, particularly shore-side electricity/cold ironing/on-shore power supply services?



    1. What is the main obstacle or problem in term of operational and technical in implementing shore-side electricity, and how you cope with that?



    1. How do you convince your customers to use shore-side electricity?



    1. What is your source of energy in order to supply shore-side electricity?



    1. How much emissions can be reduced after using shore-side electricity?



    1. What methodology did you use in order to calculate your shore-side electricity tariff?



    1. How you calculate externality cost in your port?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    23,471

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

    Big polluters: one massive container ship equals 50 million cars


    By Paul Evans
    April 23, 2009


    15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars



    April 23, 2009 The Guardian has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds 90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles. The recent boom in the global trade of manufactured goods has also resulted in a new breed of super sized container ship which consume fuel not by the gallons, but by tons per hour, and shipping now accounts for 90% of global trade by volume.
    The title of world’s largest container ship is actually held by eight identical ships owned by Danish shipping line Mærsk. All eight ships are 1300ft (397.7m) long and can carry 15,200 shipping containers around the globe at a steady 25.5 knots (47.2 km/h, 29.3 mph) . The only thing limiting the size of these ships is the Suezmax standard, which is the term used to define the the largest ships capable of transiting the Suez Canal fully loaded. These ships far surpass the Panamax standard (ships that can fit through the Panama Canal), which is limited to ships capable of carrying 5,000 shipping containers.
    Not only are shipbuilders resetting the world record for size on a regular basis but so are the diesel engines that propel them. One of the eight longest container ships in the world, the 1,300 ft Emma Mærsk also has the world's largest reciprocating engine. At five storeys tall and weighing 2300 tonnes, this 14 cylinder turbocharged two-stroke monster puts out 84.4 MW (114,800 hp) - up to 90MW when the motor's waste heat recovery system is taken into account. These mammoth engines consume approx 16 tons of fuel per hour or 380 tons per day while at sea.
    Unregulated emissions
    In international waters ship emissions remains one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system. The fuel used in ships is waste oil, basically what is left over after the crude oil refining process. It is the same as asphalt and is so thick that when cold it can be walked upon . It's the cheapest and most polluting fuel available and the world's 90,000 ships chew through an astonishing 7.29 million barrels of it each day, or more than 84% of all exported oil production from Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil exporter.
    Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet. One large ship alone can generate approx 5,200 tonnes of sulphur oxide pollution in a year, meaning that 15 of the largest ships now emit as much SOx as the worlds 760 million cars.
    South Korea's STX shipyard says it has designed a ship to carry 22,000 shipping containers that would be 450 meters long and there are already 3,693 new ship builds on the books for ocean going vessels over 150 meters in length due over the next three years. The amount of air pollution just these new ships will put out when launched is equal to having another 29 billion cars on the roads.
    The UN's International Maritime Organisation (IMO) released a report in 2007 saying a 10% reduction in fuel burning was possible on existing ships and 30-40% possible for new ships but the technology is largely unused, as the regulations are largely voluntary.
    Nuclear future?
    Oddly enough there is never any mention of alternative power sources such as nuclear power. Nuclear marine propulsion has been in widespread naval use for over 50 years starting in 1955. There are 150 ships in operation that use nuclear propulsion with most being submarines, although they range from ice breakers to aircraft carriers. A Nimitz class supercarrier has more than twice as much power (240,000 hp, 208 MW) as the largest container ship diesel engines ever built and is capable of continuously operating for 20 years without refueling (some French Rubis-class submarines can go 30 years between refueling). The U.S. Navy has accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships.
    Airborne pollution from these giant diesel engines has been linked to sickness in coastal residents near busy shipping lanes. Up to 60,000 premature deaths a year worldwide are said to be as a result of particulate matter emissions from ocean-going ship engines. The IMO, which regulates shipping for 168 member nations, last October enacted new mandatory standards for phasing in cleaner engine fuel. By 2020, sulphur in marine fuel must be reduced by 90% although this new distilled fuel may be double the price of current low grade fuels.
    Paul Evans
    In a word, no.

    https://splash247.com/mind-sulphur-cap/
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Seymour, TN
    Posts
    10,231

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Oi! Envy81 (and wouldn't we just LOVE to explore the roots of THAT 'handle'?)

    Has it occurred to you that there may, perhaps, be a more appropriate forum to which your questions about pollution by Very Large Marine Engines might be posted?

    This is a WOODEN BOAT forum, i.e. sail and SMALLER diesel engines.

    You did find a fallow field in Andrew (who tolerates we small, channel-obstructive mobile collision operatives) whose expertise in Very Effin' Large Ships is beyond question, but REALLY, a WOODEN BOAT FORUM?

    What WERE you thinking?

    .................................................. .................................................. .

    OOOPS! Quite an old O.P.

    Who resurrected this, and WHY?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Odessa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    162

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    I heard a discussion about this on the podcast version of More or Less from the BBC. Could not find the episode again but if remember correctly the paper this study was originally based on was about what would happen in a worse case scenario of emissions standards (and of course only Sulfur Oxides), it was not intended on being a reflection of the what was happening at the time, and of course emissions standards have been improving. It was then picked up and morphed by some less diligent outlets.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Toodyay, Western Australia
    Posts
    704

    Default Re: Pollution and shipping .... is this correct ?

    Not so long ago ships were powered by nothing more than men and lots of sails, no sulphur emissions. Weird how 'progress' so often seems to mean anything but.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •