| Author |
Message
|
| Cyberia |
 Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:47 pm Post subject: How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the worlds cars |
 |
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 575
|
Last week it was revealed that 54 oil tankers are anchored off the coast of Britain, refusing to unload their fuel until prices have risen.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.
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.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html
.
_________________
Think big! If you have a gun, you can rob a bank. If you have a bank, you can rob everybody. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:34 am Post subject: Re: How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the worlds |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1854
|
Individual nations can regulate the emissions from ships operating in their coastal waters, so it's probably the case that while these 54 ships are anchored offshore they are not burning bunker C but perhaps some cleaner middle distillate fuel oil. The EPA regulates sulfur, CO and NOx (but not of course CO2) in US coastal waters and I'm guessing the UK equivalent body does the same. Once on the high seas however the ships can burn whatever they can buy cheaply, which will often be high sulfur bunker fuels. It needs to change.
The economics of shipping are beyond me, but on the face of it it seems these tanker owners would have been smarter to reduce their cruising speed, thus saving large quantities of fuel, and would have had to park their ships for less time.
One action the UK could take is to charge a "parking fee". Maybe they do this already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Lynx_Foxx |
| Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 5
Location: Iraq
|
Badly tittled thread.
Why would an anchored ship burn any fuel? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| HexHammer |
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 72
|
| Lynx_Foxx wrote: |
Badly tittled thread.
Why would an anchored ship burn any fuel? |
Dunno the excat reason why, but I'v too noticed that huge ships poluting like there's no tomorrow, when perfectly lying still at the dock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Geo |
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 171
Location: New Zealand
|
| HexHammer wrote: |
| Lynx_Foxx wrote: |
Badly tittled thread.
Why would an anchored ship burn any fuel? |
Dunno the excat reason why, but I'v too noticed that huge ships poluting like there's no tomorrow, when perfectly lying still at the dock. |
Electricity production. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| skeptic |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 1110
|
| Why are not the super ships running on nuclear power? The United States and Russia have proven with their military vessels that it can be done. Nuclear power means no atmospheric pollution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dave Wilson |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 08 Nov 2009
Posts: 117
Location: Cumbria UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| skeptic |
| Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 1110
|
There are already nuclear reactors available that are small, safe, and suitable for a large container ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S
As for pirates. It has always seemed to me that there is a simple solution to that problem. Set up a number of base ships at each end of 'pirate alley'. Commercial ships pay a fee to take on board a team of well armed and highly trained commandos. Such a fee would be a fraction of the ransom for recovering a pirated vessel. They drop the commandos off at the other end of the alley. If attacked by pirates, the commandos take pains to make sure there is nothing left of said pirates to put on trial. After a few such incidents, I suspect the pirates will look for an alternative means of earning a living! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| cypress |
| Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Banned (Trolling)
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Posts: 1219
Location: New Orleans
|
Economics drives nearly everything. The cost is prohibitive and the benefit uncertain.
_________________
The world is incredible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
