Just 16 Ships Expel as Much Pollution as.....

[balsaboatmodels]

Originally Posted by Bamby

Natural News.com: http://www.naturalnews.com/027803_pollution_ships.htmlLarge shipping vessels have become commonplace in today’s global marketplace as goods are imported and exported across the world. While the high levels of pollution they create are something that most people don’t think too much about,

Hey, I know, let's replace the 16 huge polluting ships with 127 smaller cleaner ones.

And then take people's homes away and fill in wetlands to make larger ports to handle the increased number of vessels.
Oh, wait, we'll have to do some dredging too and dump that stuff somewhere.

[kach22i]

RE: Just 16 Ships Expel as Much Pollution as All the Cars in the World
http://www.naturalnews.com/027803_pollution_ships.html

Freaky if this stands to be true under closer scrutiny of the facts.

[Guillermo]

What a bunch of crap! I'm amazed!
I think it would be good to have critical minds and check info before posting it at the forums.

Some more accurate numbers:

5.2-7.8 SOx megatonnes/year from ships in 1996
http://unfccc.int/files/methods_and_...imoghgmain.pdf

Total anthropogenic Sulphurs emissions: 79 megatonnes/year [Bates et al., 1992; Spiro et al., 1992; Andreae, 1990].

More:
Annually, international shipping utilizes only between 2% and 4% of the world’s fossil fuels. It accounts for around 5% of the global sulfur emissions from human activity [Corbett and Koehler, 2003; Corbett and Koehler, 2004].


This also interesting:

"The global annual average net cloud forcings due to shipping (year 2012) are in the range of −0.27 to −0.58 W/m2 with regional cooling occurring most over the remote oceans."

From: "Assessment of Near-Future Policy Instruments for Oceangoing Shipping: Impact on Atmospheric Aerosol Burdens and the Earth’s Radiation Budget" Axel Lauer, Veronika Eyring, James J. Corbett, Chengfeng Wang and James J. Winebrake . Environ. Sci. Technol., 2009, 43 (15), pp 5592–5598

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es900922h


Cheers.

[Jeff]

This story was picked up here as well -> Killer ships

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by apex1

It is easy to process Bunker C further and to get rid of the sulfur, sand and metal in it. In fact Bunker C is refinery residue that is´nt destillable any further without a unsensible (unprofitable) effort. But a catalytic processing is established for long and desulfurization a proven technology.
Yet 0,27$ per liter for further processing, is a substantial amount of money when IFO 380 (Bunker C) is about 500$ per metric ton (1200 liter).
No miracle, no wonder, plain economy.

All the major ports of the world do not allow to burn Bunker C while in port, that will expand further, sure.
But who is going to pay for it?
WE

Regards
Richard

Richard. Would centrifuging the bunker fuel eliminate/reduce sulphur or just tar and solids?

Originally Posted by Marco1

Richard. Would centrifuging the bunker fuel eliminate/reduce sulphur or just tar and solids?

Only the latter, solids. Tar is a valuable ingredient due to high calorific content.

The only way today to further processing is the catalytic process.