Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the worlds cars

  1. #1 How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the worlds cars 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    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/sciencete...ars-world.html


    .


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the worlds  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Iraq
    Posts
    6
    Badly tittled thread.

    Why would an anchored ship burn any fuel?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Foxx
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by HexHammer
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Foxx
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,005
    Nuclear powered ships is most certainly the way to go, but one of the down sides to this is capture by pirates, especially in the waters off East Africa. I am most certain that there are a lot more down sides too. Nuclear powered ships for Western Nations only ?
    A snippet from Sky News. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wor...ff_East_Africa
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    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!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Economics drives nearly everything. The cost is prohibitive and the benefit uncertain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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