were caught in a trap

Discussion in 'Motorsailers' started by peter radclyffe, Oct 8, 2011.

  1. peter radclyffe
    Joined: Mar 2009
    Posts: 1,417
    Likes: 62, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 680
    Location: europe

    peter radclyffe Senior Member

  2. Squidly-Diddly
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 1,741
    Likes: 124, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 304
    Location: SF bay

    Squidly-Diddly Senior Member

    16 biggest ships use 2x fuel of all cars? REALLY???

    I find that hard to believe. One of the comments say "air traffic".


    I can't believe the 16 biggest ships use as much fuel as all the cars in Dallas, TX.
     
  3. peter radclyffe
    Joined: Mar 2009
    Posts: 1,417
    Likes: 62, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 680
    Location: europe

    peter radclyffe Senior Member

    i dont know if its all true,it just seems worth looking at
     
  4. Stumble
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 1,896
    Likes: 71, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 739
    Location: New Orleans

    Stumble Senior Member

    I actually could easily believe it. But when you look at efficiency numbers the question isn't how much fuel is used per hour, or mile. Instead the question is how much fuel is used per mile/ton cargo moved. Under those metrics the larger the ships are orders of magnitude more efficient than rail or truck. And not even on the same planet as a car.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. CatBuilder

    CatBuilder Previous Member

    Exactly.

    This is why big, fuel thirsty freight trains are more efficient than trucks for moving freight.

    It's all about how many tons of cargo you move per unit of fuel.
     
  6. Squidly-Diddly
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 1,741
    Likes: 124, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 304
    Location: SF bay

    Squidly-Diddly Senior Member

    If true it certainly adds credence the theory that all this

    Carbon Crisis stuff is really about The Powers That Be controlling the rest of us.

    No one mentions these massive ships because:

    1)the ships make the The Powers That Be a lot of money.

    2)the ships allow The Powers That Be to manipulate costs, wages, production, etc on a global scale. How else could Communist Slave Masters in Red China destroy American manufacturing?


    "16 largest ships"???? Aren't there 100s or 1000s of ships 3/4 as big as the "16 largest"? Certainly there are 1000s 1/2 the size of the "16 largest".

    Does that mean auto emissions are almost totally irrelevant to the whole Carbon thing?
     
  7. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,718
    Likes: 316, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow I'm not a cat.

    Yep, and the whole carbon thing is a swindle and irrelevant to our well-being, except that the regulators have a negative effect on it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2011
  8. jehardiman
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 2,867
    Likes: 413, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 2040
    Location: Port Orchard, Washington, USA

    jehardiman Senior Member

    He must have Googled it...

    http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/killer-ships-27068.html

    FWIW, there are only 78,000 ships in the whole worlds fleets, sailing or not. Only 3800 are ships >60,000 GT and only ~600 of those are old enough (15+ years) to have poor emissions. The majority of emissions come from the 42,000 or so vessel less than 20,000 GT 15+ years old.
     
  9. Stumble
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 1,896
    Likes: 71, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 739
    Location: New Orleans

    Stumble Senior Member

    What I find interesting about this is that the marine industry as a whole is moving to reduce emissions, not because they necessarily care about emissions, but because the efficiency gains directly effect the bottom line of the ships underway. Unlike in cars or most consumer products, in the commercial world where the products are operational over 90% of the year, even a small efficiency gain equals a huge impact on the bottom line.

    Just for instance, wartzilla burns 1660gallons/hour or so. So obviously it burns a lot more fuel than a car engine, even compared to the worst hummer. On the other hand it produces .260 lb/hp/hr as compared to around .5 lb/hp/hr for a normal car. So it does twice as much shaft hp as a car for the same fuel burn.

    Now if someone comes out with an engine that is 1% more fuel efficient it would reduce the fuel consumption by a measly 16.6 gallons/hour. However if you assume that the engine is in operation 90% of the time, that comes out to a fuel savings of 130,874gallons per hour. Now this engine uses bunker fuel not diesel, and I am not doing a metric ton to gallon conversion, but it doesn't take much to see how much money this equals a year. By comparison a 1% fuel savings in a car is pretty negligible. Less in fact than the effect of not having your tires properly inflated.

    Additionally this 16 ships issue is only in a specific type of pollution, sulpher or SO2. For all other types of pollution the marine industry used a small fraction of the total amount released by cars. The difference is caused by the fact the ships are allowed to use high sulpher bunker fuel, with a sulpher concentration about 4,000 times higher than in road diesel. However this is changing. Bunker fuel sulpher content is being dropped from 4% to .5% over the next decade.
     
  10. FAST FRED
    Joined: Oct 2002
    Posts: 4,519
    Likes: 110, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1009
    Location: Conn in summers , Ortona FL in winter , with big d

    FAST FRED Senior Member

    Does that mean auto emissions are almost totally irrelevant to the whole Carbon thing?

    NO,,, the whole "Carbon thing" is a HOAX ,

    but useful for the rulers to add another layer of taxes on the Shepple.

    "Follow da money" , it always ends up in politicians hands.

    The climate has been "changing" for 4.3 Billion years , so charging for "change" is a great con.

    FF
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. Stumble
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 1,896
    Likes: 71, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 739
    Location: New Orleans

    Stumble Senior Member

    Really Fred?

    So let me guess, you also believe the earth is only 8,000 years old, and the moon is made of cheese, and evolution doesn't happen?

    When 99% of climatologists agree that anthropomorphic warming is occurring, and will lead to massive population upheavals, rising sea levels, ect... Your basis for not accepting that is what exactly?
     
  12. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 14,984
    Likes: 824, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    Unless you have some proof for your 99% claim, I would say you are throwing numbers around to try to win an argument.
     
  13. ancient kayaker
    Joined: Aug 2006
    Posts: 3,497
    Likes: 147, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2291
    Location: Alliston, Ontario, Canada

    ancient kayaker aka Terry Haines

    He read it on the Internet.

    The power of media is incredible, almost as much as their irresponsibility. About 8 months ago my wife -who has early stage osteoporosis - heard on a TV news channel that too much calcium is bad for one's health. It took me six months to persuade her to resume taking a calcium supplement. No retraction was issued that I heard about. In fact, the recommended amount for an adult of her age was reduced by a small amount, but I wonder how many old and not-so-old folk are going to have more trouble than they need have in a few years time because of what was obviously a gross exaggeration created for shock impact only.
     
  14. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,718
    Likes: 316, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow I'm not a cat.

    Shhhh! Don't tell the missus!

    Here are 15 foods high in calcium that don't come from a cow:

    Sesame Seeds
    A quarter cup of sesame seeds has 351 mg calcium.

    Spinach
    A cup of boiled spinach has 245 mg.

    Collard Greens
    A cup of boiled collard greens has 266 mg.

    Blackstrap Molasses
    One tablespoon has about 137 mg.

    Kelp
    One cup of raw kelp has 136 mg.

    Tahini
    Two tablespoons of raw tahini (sesame seed butter) have 126 mg.

    Broccoli
    Two cups of boiled broccoli have 124 mg.

    Swiss Chard
    One cup of boiled chard has 102 mg.

    Kale
    One cup of boiled kale has 94 mg.

    Brazil Nuts
    Two ounces of Brazil nuts (12 nuts) have 90 mg.

    Celery
    Two cups of raw celery have 81 mg.

    Almonds
    One ounce of almonds (23 nuts) has 75 mg.

    Papaya
    One medium papaya has 73 mg.

    Flax Seeds
    Two tablespoons of flax seeds have 52 mg.

    Oranges
    One medium orange has 52 mg.

    FROM: http://www.healthdiaries.com/eatthis/15-non-dairy-foods-high-in-calcium.html
     

  15. Lister

    Lister Previous Member

    It WAS an interesting thread.
    Reading Stumble was interesting. The 99% make Gonzo angry, but that has to be expected. He read only what's make him 'grumpy"
    The 99% was just a point. Probably not accurate but who cares?
    I think the comparisons between engines was in fact interesting.
    Kayaker I am sorry for your wife osteoporosis. My sister has it full blown.
    They have good medication, but it seams no cure per se.
    To much calcium can be detrimental, but you are right to convince her to take back her calcium. Go to the doctor to have blood work very often.
    But are we not all reading the Internet? (Invented by Al Gore)
    Lister
     
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.