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

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

  1. balsaboatmodels
    Joined: Jan 2007
    Posts: 43
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: Boonville, MO, pop.8700; & 415 buildings on Nation

    balsaboatmodels Junior Member

    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.
     
  2. kach22i
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 2,418
    Likes: 111, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1222
    Location: Michigan

    kach22i Architect

  3. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    What a bunch of crap! I'm amazed! :D
    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.
     
  4. Jeff
    Joined: Jun 2001
    Posts: 1,368
    Likes: 71, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 923
    Location: Great Lakes

    Jeff Moderator

  5. Marco1
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 113
    Likes: 28, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 240
    Location: Sydney

    Marco1 Senior Member

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

  6. apex1

    apex1 Guest

    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.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Ike
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,220
  2. CocoonCruisers
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    756
  3. missinginaction
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    974
  4. sdowney717
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,805
  5. Knut Sand
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,312
  6. Alan Kelly
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,089
  7. gonzo
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    2,703
  8. daiquiri
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,724
  9. rasorinc
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,049
  10. goodwilltoall
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,279
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.