Click for JetForums
Click for Trinity
Click for Pacific Mariner
Click for Northern
Click for McKinna
Click for Nordlund
Go Back   YachtForums.Com > GENERAL YACHTING DISCUSSION > General Yachting Discussion > REPORT: Pollution from 15 of world's biggest ships equal that of world's 760m cars

Login to YachtForums
Username
Password

Reply

REPORT: Pollution from 15 of world's biggest ships equal that of world's 760m cars

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 12-04-2012, 05:02 PM   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pompano Beach, FL
Posts: 16
REPORT: Pollution from 15 of world's biggest ships equal that of world's 760m cars

here is an amazing stat .....

REPORT: Pollution from 15 of world's biggest ships equal that of world's 760m cars

Says James Corbett, professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware: "Ship pollution affects the health of communities in coastal and inland regions around the world, yet pollution from ships remains one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system." It sounds serious, but how bad could it be? Staggeringly, if a report by the UK's Guardian newspaper is to be believed. According to their story, just one of the world's largest container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world's 760 million cars.

The problem isn't necessarily with the ships' 109,000-horsepower engines that endlessly spin away 24 hours a day, 280 days a year. In fact, these powerplants are some of the most fuel efficient units in the world. The real issue lies with the heavy fuel oil the ships run on and the almost complete lack of regulations applied to the giant exhaust stacks of these container ships.

The good news is that pressure is building from various governments around the world, including the United States, which just recently introduced legislation to keep these ships at least 230 miles away from U.S. coastlines. Similar measures are likely to follow in other countries like the United Kingdom.
theav8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 06:27 PM   #2 (permalink)
GFC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tri Cities, WA
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by theav8r View Post
The good news is that pressure is building from various governments around the world, including the United States, which just recently introduced legislation to keep these ships at least 230 miles away from U.S. coastlines. Similar measures are likely to follow in other countries like the United Kingdom.
Hmmmm, I guess I wouldn't want to be the one who had to pass that word on to the major ports in our country. It also would be tough to enforce beyond the territorial limits of each country,

Just sayin'
GFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 06:37 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dana Point, Ca
Posts: 356
Too much shipping, too many containers, start more manufacturing in your own country. Trade should be at a 50/50 balance, if only it were so easy

Strong manufacturing base = strong economy = jobs...........
PacBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 09:26 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Holland.
Posts: 236
Usually it takes just one or a few courageous nations that introduce tough legislation. Then other countries are far more likely to follow I think.
It's about time the shipping sector cleans up its mess.
davidwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 10:45 AM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 5,336
As far as I know, commercial ships have to transfer over from using this "bunker fuel" to diesel fuel, a few miles from the coast and when entering and exiting ports.
Capt J is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 11:08 AM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver BC and Florida
Posts: 807
Another great idea for the Government to raise taxes, a carbon tax introduced to "encourage" (punish) lower emissions, yet, the money seems to go to other programs which have nothing to do with carbon emission reduction, same as enviro fees on batteries etc, here in BC we have both and the money vanishes into the black hole of Government inefficiency. This is not to discourage carbon reduction, but surely, rewards to the polluters would get better cooperation ? rather than punishment.
dennismc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 11:36 AM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dana Point, Ca
Posts: 356
I think the interesting part is states like California will now have near coastal emission requirements, but the ship operators do not have to comply outside of this zone (20 - 30 miles, I think?)

So now the ships go to a different (global) port that do not have this requirement, and they operate back on bunker fuel, putting out the emissions and particulate matter that the cleaner cities will not allow and impacting the (ignorant) ports' population - the double standard continues......
PacBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 12:39 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Marmot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 9114 S. Central Ave
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacBlue View Post
I think the interesting part is states like California will now have near coastal emission requirements, but the ship operators do not have to comply outside of this zone (20 - 30 miles, I think?)...
California has a 24nm zone where the fuel must not exceed 0.1% sulfur content. In 2015 the distance off will extend to 200 miles around virtually all of North America north of the Mexican border.

The Baltic and North Seas already have this limit and virtually all of the EU has a coastal limit on sulfur content.

The "playing field" is slowly becoming level as far as ship exhaust emmissions surrounding the nations which provide the greatest share of cargo destinations are concerned. the only way to ignore the higher standards is to go play where no one can make much money.
Marmot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 05:59 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Kafue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 820
Reducing the sulphur content is one of the main issues in reducing the pollution.
Unfortunately, from what I understand, it is the reduction in the sulphur content which is contributing greatly to the infestation in diesel fuel tanks by the "algae".
It will be a big problem for boaters in the future, especially running the sophisticated engines.
Kafue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 06:10 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Marmot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 9114 S. Central Ave
Posts: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kafue View Post
, it is the reduction in the sulphur content which is contributing greatly to the infestation in diesel fuel tanks by the "algae".
The worst case of biological contamination I ever saw in fuel was in very high sulfur MGO. Algae does not grow in fuel oil tanks, it is a plant and requires light to grow.
Marmot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 06:24 PM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver BC and Florida
Posts: 807
I was informed years ago by Chevron Canada that the diesel bug grows in the water content of the fuel and in hotter climates specially where the fuel tanks are in the hot sun, this causes a layer of water to appear in the fuel and that's where the bug grows, some Countries have lower standards of max. allowable content of moisture in fuels and this may also contribute to the bug issue, so I am informed.
dennismc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 08:06 PM   #12 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Swamp fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boca Raton
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt J View Post
As far as I know, commercial ships have to transfer over from using this "bunker fuel" to diesel fuel, a few miles from the coast and when entering and exiting ports.
You are correct. When large ships that burn bunker fuel get within x miles of the pilot buoy, they switch to diesel. Reason being, if the ship has to do quick manueuvers with shifting, speed, etc. the motor could stop running. Nobody wants a dead ship underway. Then you play heck trying to get it running again.

Of course the topic of the thread is dealing with tree hugger emissions legislation, and cheap bunker fuel is nowhere as clean to burn in port as diesel or CNG.....I'm all for clean air, but I'm sick of the cost of goods rising due to enviromental legislation with scrubbers, cleaner fuel, etc.

There was a study I recently read that found if global shippers slowed their speed by 20% or so, the amount of fuel saved, emissions saved, etc. was pretty amazing. So what if it takes another week to get your latest I-phone. It will have costed less to get there, and the enviromentalists are happy.
Swamp fox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 08:17 PM   #13 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Trinidad and Tobago Yacht club
Posts: 41
misused facts

your facts are misused, did that report compare how much pollution is produced, per tonne mile of cargo moved. take this example the large container ship that produces as much pollution as 50 million cars. that large container ship will carry about 15,000 twenty foot containers over a very large distance, while the standard truck caries only one 40 foot container or two twenty foot containers . did that article say over what period of time that pollution was produced and how many miles were travelled by each vehicle. I can guarantee you that the efficiency of a large container ship in terms of fuel burned per tonne mile of cargo moved is almost ten times that of a standard trailer truck. just remember that everybody could skew facts and only tell you some of the information to try and make their point of view look better
Trinimax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 08:23 PM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dana Point, Ca
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swamp fox View Post

Of course the topic of the thread is dealing with tree hugger emissions legislation,
What's so wrong with better (cleaner) emissions?
PacBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 08:41 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Old Phart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: I dunno
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacBlue View Post
What's so wrong with better (cleaner) emissions?
Don't you just love LA at Dusk?!

Name:  L A at Dusk.jpg
Views: 16660
Size:  4.1 KB
Old Phart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are EST. The time now is 12:50 AM.

Click for McKinna
Click for Walker
Click for Bering
Click for Cape Scott
Click for Ocean Alexander
Click for Westport


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2