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

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by Bamby, Dec 30, 2009.

  1. Bamby
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 5
    Likes: 43, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 889
    Location: USA near Wheeling, W.V.

    Bamby Junior Member

    Natural News.com: http://www.naturalnews.com/027803_pollution_ships.html

    Large shipping vessels owned by globalist corporations are used to deliver slave labor goodies from China.*

    Large 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, some scientists are beginning to evaluate their environmental effect. One of the most disturbing facts discovered about these giant ships is that a mere 16 of them emit as much sulfur as do all the cars in the world combined.

    Fred Pearce, a science writer and environmental consultant for New Scientist, has been studying the shipping industry for quite some time. He has focused particularly on their use of filthy, toxic fuel that is polluting the air at a staggering pace. According to his assessment, thousands of people die every year from the toxic fumes that are emitted from their smokestacks, lingering in the air as a brown haze for many days. If current practices continue, he estimates that upwards of a million people will die in the next decade due to ship pollution.

    The type of fuel typically used in large ocean craft is composed of the dirty leftovers from the refined fuel that is used in cars, trucks, and other land vehicles. It is thicker than land fuel and high in sulfur. It is essentially a cheap, filthy form of fuel that would never be permitted for use on the mainland but that are tolerated on international waters. The chemicals found in the smoke trails of this “bunker fuel” are known to cause severe inflammation, cancer, breathing problems and heart disease.

    The sheer size of these ships is astounding, measuring a quarter of a mile long on average. Each one holds approximately 14,000 full-size shipping containers, typically carrying goods from Asia to Europe and North America. There are over 100,000 ships and counting on the seas today.

    The reason why reckless ship pollution is allowed to continue is due to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) policy that permits bunker fuel containing up to 4.5 percent sulfur to be used in international waters. This number is 4,500 times higher than the sulfur amount permitted in vehicle fuel in the European Union.

    The IMO has reluctantly agreed to reduce the sulfur limit to 3.5 percent by 2012 and, eventually, to 0.5 percent. The biggest barrier to enacting stricter pollution guidelines is the increased cost of cleaner fuel. Bunker fuel is inexpensive and plentiful, allowing shippers to make use of the leftover byproducts of clean fuel production.

    Sources for this story include: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    Absolutely. Let's make them illegal right now and replace them with green technology. What's Congress doing tonight?
     
  3. Fanie
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 4,603
    Likes: 174, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2484
    Location: Colonial "Sick Africa"

    Fanie Fanie

    While it is nice to complain about it, one should be able to suggest an alternative working replacement for the problem.
     
  4. Bamby
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 5
    Likes: 43, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 889
    Location: USA near Wheeling, W.V.

    Bamby Junior Member

    No Mark it wasn't meant so much about making them illegal as to the actual irony of it all. Huge polluters throughout the world such as this seem to operate under the radar without issues being made. While government bodies throughout the world actually have the nerve to suggest and point at my pet dog, along with the gas that also escapes your *** as major contributors to the so called climate change.

    Now they're also trying to impose a vast increase in the amount of ethanol in our fuel to so call reduce environmental emissions output. Even my brand new efficient outboard motor warns it will void my warranty if found I was running fuel higher than the 10% I'm forced to put in it now never mind what it will do to my lawn equipment I currently have and own.

    I'm nowhere near well off as you probably are Mark and I simply can't afford for them to environmentally make my motor a $10,000 boat anchor with new regulations, let alone all my lawn equipment. And what in the heck are the environmentalists trying to prove in snuffing my small footprint on this Earth while exempting and overlooking such major source contributions to the actual perceived problem.
     
  5. apex1

    apex1 Guest

    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
     
  6. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    This is kind of junk "science" that labels environmental nazi's as quacks.

    Thinking people would be less skeptical of things like AGW if complete crap like this was divorced from the discussions.

    It amazes me what some "scientist" will say and what some media will report just to create income.

    One sane response:

    I am concerned about the effect on the planet caused by humans. I think the impact of humans on the planet is like a viral infection that has been out of control for centuries. I think the planet is quite capable of dealing with it. Humans might not survive the planet's healing process. We won't be missed.
     
  7. apex1

    apex1 Guest

    Rhough

    Go to Istanbul and take a deep breath! There are no volcanic activities around, and the road traffic is less than in a 1 million city in Europe. But the Bosphorus goes through the city, with one ship every 5 minutes.

    I know the study, and the figures are wrong, but
    junk science?
     
  8. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    Yes

    Taking a measurable result that is "verified" by statements like "Go to Istanbul and take a deep breath!" then claiming that the result will be millions of deaths globally is junk science.

    The sulfur from natural sources is far greater than from the ships, so it follows that IF sulfur is a global problem that 100's of millions die from the natural sulfur in the air.

    Cause and effect?

    If sulfur is that big a problem, go after the major sources first, cap the the volcanoes.

    Capping two volcanoes would over compensate for all global shipping, but the statement "Go to Istanbul and take a deep breath!" would still be valid.

    Yes, junk science.
     
  9. apex1

    apex1 Guest

    forget it.......................

    I do´nt waste my time on that.
     
  10. Guest62110524

    Guest62110524 Previous Member

    the ships diesel, the modern crosshead , is the most mechanically efficient engine of any type ever produced It uses less fuel per bhp than your car
    whatis criminal tho IMO are 10000 shp luxury yachts with 5 people on board
     
  11. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    My post (#2) was simply to bring on the next logical step in your sequence. Like Richard said there are advances being made but it has a price. Would you like to see more commodities priced out of the equation - No bananas in Europe, no BMWs in the States? I think I read you Bamby, that you would just as soon stop shipping nearly entirely but that is definitely going to serve to make all of us much poorer.
    If it's any help, the tankers here have camaras on their exhaust, my guess is that they are to assist the engineer real time on how the engine is running but it is also observed by the EPA and watchdog agencies in Alaska. (I don't know if you have this phenomenon elsewhere but, in Alaska, funded by the "excess" profits of the oil companies and settlements from the '89 spill (Exxon Valdez) watchdogs watch everything we do, ostensibly to stop pollution but with the hidden agenda of shutting down industry.)
    Do you realize that even small boats, like mine, narrowly defeated a measure to require all run-off to be accounted for on every boat, e.g., rain!? If we had not defeated this, there would be no boat washing, and a forest of paper would have been used to implement and educate about this sillyness.
    The consequences to the most innocuous excersises sometimes goes beyond imagination. Seriously, trying to limit pollution almost made Alaska's waters off-limits to all but the affluent. Is that the kind of thing you are striving for?
    "nother example. Our fuel has less than 5,000PPM sulphur now. Yes, my two year-old wet exhaust tubing still looks new but my 500 HP engine is now about 450. We lost that many BTUs. They are getting ready to institute a < 5,00PPM requirement now. Will that drop it another 50 HP? Will all of the older diesel owners that require lubrication dump used motor oil in their tanks to lubricate the fuel pumps? My contention is that it is wonderful to see a truck or a boat not have anything coming out of the exhaust but it all has a price. It makes us poor in another way. The guy lubricating with engine oil or Mystery oil, or two-stroke oil, is now polluting more than he was before! I'm burning more fuel to get to the same point.
     
  12. TollyWally
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 774
    Likes: 26, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 423
    Location: Fox Island

    TollyWally Senior Member

    One would think that do gooders would understand the law of unintended consequences since they prove it over and over again. The greatest harm that ever came from the Valdez spill was the fallout mischief from the $ the state extracted. Funny how the state got all theirs up front and the little people got something like 20% after 20 years.
     
  13. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    Looks like I fired before this was added? (I did not delete it from the post when I replied).

    If you state the study and the figures are wrong, does that not invalidate the alarmist rhetoric?

    How much of the sulfur content of bunker fuel is in the sludge that is not burned? I have no idea, was it taken into consideration?

    The statement:
    Says to me that a IMO reduction from 4.5% to 3.5% will have little effect.

    Any bets that this study assumes that ALL bunker fuel is 4.5% sulfur to get to the doomsday predictions?

    The article is so obviously flawed that it is hard to consider that any action is needed ... another Chicken Little "The sky is falling."

    The large number of such spectacular, alarmist, headlines in just my lifetime that have turned out to be false makes me treat each new one with more and more skepticism.

    One day we'll meet an "End of the World" sign holder that happens to be right, after so much exposure to quacks how will anyone know that this one might be right?

    Sorry for the absurd response. I thought it was as credible as the cited article. :)

    When the logical discussion drowned out by the extreme absurdities on either side, does that not make real progress harder to achieve?
     
  14. apex1

    apex1 Guest

    Right, obviously we typed at the same time. You your reply and I my addition.
     

  15. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 188, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Shipping is the most energy efficient way of transporting goods throughout the world. More efficient than airplanes, trucks or trains, per ton-mile. We have already discussed this in these forums. All that eco-scaremongering is simply crap.

    Cheers.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Ike
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    468
  2. CocoonCruisers
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    160
  3. missinginaction
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    436
  4. sdowney717
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,073
  5. Knut Sand
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    786
  6. Alan Kelly
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,068
  7. gonzo
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    2,060
  8. daiquiri
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,189
  9. rasorinc
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,549
  10. goodwilltoall
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,794
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.