Click for Ocean Alexander Click for Alexseal Click for JetForums Click for McConaghy Click for Horizon

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

Discussion in 'General Yachting Discussion' started by theav8r, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. theav8r

    theav8r New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    Pompano Beach, FL
    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.
  2. GFC

    GFC Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    192
    Location:
    Tri Cities, WA
    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'
  3. PacBlue

    PacBlue Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Location:
    Dana Point, Ca
    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...........
  4. davidwb

    davidwb Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Messages:
    237
    Location:
    Holland.
    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.
  5. Capt J

    Capt J Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    6,270
    Location:
    Fort Lauderdale
    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.
  6. dennismc

    dennismc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    855
    Location:
    Vancouver BC and Florida
    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.
  7. PacBlue

    PacBlue Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Location:
    Dana Point, Ca
    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......
  8. Marmot

    Marmot Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Location:
    9114 S. Central Ave
    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.
  9. Kafue

    Kafue Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    Location:
    Gold Coast Australia
    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.
  10. Marmot

    Marmot Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Location:
    9114 S. Central Ave
    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.
  11. dennismc

    dennismc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    855
    Location:
    Vancouver BC and Florida
    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.
  12. Swamp fox

    Swamp fox New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    85
    Location:
    Boca Raton
    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.
  13. Trinimax

    Trinimax Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    Trinidad and Tobago Yacht club
    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
  14. PacBlue

    PacBlue Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Location:
    Dana Point, Ca
    What's so wrong with better (cleaner) emissions? :confused:
  15. Old Phart

    Old Phart Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,357
    Location:
    I dunno
    Don't you just love LA at Dusk?!

    L A at Dusk.jpg
  16. Swamp fox

    Swamp fox New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    85
    Location:
    Boca Raton
    Dead on.
  17. PacBlue

    PacBlue Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    458
    Location:
    Dana Point, Ca
    I can tell you the air quality in SoCal is so much better now than the period from the mid 60's to mid 80's, pretty amazing given the urban sprawl that continues to this day.

    LA County does not have a single diesel bus in its' fleet, they are all running on natural gas, and that trend will continue to reach into our industry as well.

    NASSCO just signed a contract for 2 x Container Ships powered by LNG, which will operate on the East Coast after being built in San Diego.
  18. Marmot

    Marmot Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Location:
    9114 S. Central Ave
    Not entirely accurate. The only time changeover is (operationally) required is when the engine fuel and cooling system will be shut down long enough to cool. The engine will maneuver quite well on heavy oil and there is considerable risk of damage and increased wear from changing over to distillate fuel.

    Even medium speed 4 stroke engines recommend not changing over unless absolutely necessary.

    The reason for changing over is to burn a low sulfur fuel and distillate is the best source for that fuel, otherwise a low sulfur heavy oil will work but is expensive and rare. We used to burn that in steam tankers in LA Long Beach harbor ... but then again, the oil company supplied the fuel and they could afford it.

Share This Page