One Giant Cargo Ship Pollutes As Much As 50M Cars 595
thecarchik writes "One giant container ship pollutes the air as much as 50 million cars. Which means that just 15 of the huge ships emit as much as today's entire global 'car park' of roughly 750 million vehicles. Among the bad stuff: sulfur, soot, and other particulate matter that embeds itself in human lungs to cause a variety of cardiopulmonary illnesses. Since the mid-1970s, developed countries have imposed increasingly stringent regulations on auto emissions. In three decades, precise electronic engine controls, new high-pressure injectors, and sophisticated catalytic converters have cut emissions of nitrous oxides, carbon dioxides, and hydrocarbons by more than 98 percent. New regulations will further reduce these already minute limits. But ships today are where cars were in 1965: utterly uncontrolled, free to emit whatever they like." According to Wikipedia, 57 giant container ships (rated from 9,200 to 15,200 twenty-foot equivalent units) are plying the world's oceans.
Which is worse? (Score:4, Interesting)
One big ship or lots of smaller ships? Is it time to lose "the fear" and go nuclear on cargo vessels?
Another Slashverisement for HighGear Media? (Score:4, Interesting)
First off, this article appears ripped straight from the UK Guardian. Secondly, what's with all the promotion of HighGear Media sites recently? Slashdot is not your megaphone, guys, lay off.
Ironic? (Score:2, Interesting)
And here's the ironic part. If they could clean up these ship emissions, and then relax or completely remove all emission rules for cars, the overall pollution would go down, gas mileage would improve, oil consumption would drop, and the price of vehicles would go down (ever price a catalytic converter?). Just from cleaning up 15 ships!?!
Concentration (Score:3, Interesting)
Devil's advocate here: where do these ships pollute?
The environment can 'support' a certain rate of air pollution, but the diffusion rate of air pollution means that certain regions build up localized pollution far higher than the average pollution level (e.g. LA, New York, etc..). Car emissions and factory emissions need to be fairly strict to ensure that levels remain low, despite the concentration of pollution caused by urbanization. By its very nature, container ship owners want their vessels at sea as much as possible, and while they're crossing oceans, there's not exactly any urban concentration effect going on. So it makes sense that this kind of shipping be held to the lower standard of emissions (i.e., basic environmental sustainability).
Re:What are they going to do about it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Its not just giant ships... (Score:2, Interesting)
Its not just giant ships that are a problem. Planes, recreational boats, and even lawn mowers spew largely unfiltered exhaust into the air too. I never understood why the U.S. is so strict with car emissions, but so lax on other things that make significant contributions to air pollution.
Re:Ironic? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you look it mentions nothing about carbon emissions. They're talking about a certain set of pollutants only.
Re:Could be a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually sailing ships required the destruction of vast forests (one of the reasons Britain wanted North American colonies was for the wood to build ships with). They generally didn't last that long and had to be replaced frequently. So their effect on the environment wasn't minimal.
Bullshit. Ships didn't require THAT much wood, and Britain didn't want North America simply to build wooden ships. They wanted North America because things like you know, houses are still made of wood. But more importantly, they wanted America for its other resources, including sheer space for colonization.
As for the ships not lasting all that long... by what standard? A typical non-aircraft carrier, steel-constructed US Navy vessel has a service life of around 30 years. Wooden commerce and naval vessels from the 1600's onwards had service lives of about.... 30 years. Navies went to steel because they made better warships, not because of any scarcity of wood. Nelson's favorite warship, HMS Agamemnon, was in service 28 years and was still one of the prime warships of the Royal Navy when she was wrecked in bad weather in 1809. It wasn't uncommon for navies to put a ship in the yards after 15 years, cut her in half, and literally splice in a section to maker her bigger, then return her to service as a larger vessel for another 15 years or so.
Re:Stop Buying Crap! (Score:4, Interesting)
. Buy a quality product that will last you the rest of your life ...
Easier said than done. Aside from things that are designed not to last, things wear out - regardless of their quality.
Also, how can you really tell? Consumer Reports doesn't do studies on how long things last on most of their reviews and even then, it's only for the first few years, like with appliances. And the "you get what you pay for" line is not true.
I just consume less overall.
Re:Could be a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh, I worked on one of these as a college project:
http://www.google.com/images?q=wingsail [google.com]
Don't really see them scaling up all that well, though :P
Actually there's some book on the physics of flight that argues that for sufficiently long distances, air cargo on the scale of the 747 is actually the cheapest / most efficient way to deliver just about anything with a higher price / weight ratio than coal.... had some interesting comparisons to road and rail as well.
Re:One can dream... (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole thing is so distorted. The REASON that we don't mandate these ships use strong pollution controls or clean fuels is specifically because pollution is part quantity, part location. If there's nobody to breathe a pollutant before it degrades, it's not hurting anyone. Car exhaust is released at ground level in populated areas.
In terms of fuel consumed and CO2 released, ship pollution from transporting a car (and all of its component parts) is a small fraction of the fuel consumed and CO2 released in the vehicle's lifespan. Cargo ships are the most efficient way, from a fuel and CO2 perspective, to move a given mass of freight (even more than trains), at nearly 500 miles per gallon per ton. You can haul your average car from Tokyo to LA using under 20 gallons of fuel. Now, there's going to be all sorts of soot and sulfur released from that fuel because the regulations are so lax -- but who's it going to hurt in the middle of the Pacific's vast nutrient-devoid dead zones? You're probably doing more to fertilize them than hurt them.
The actual pollution problems, BTW, are when the ships show up in port. The "last leg" of travel causes the vast majority of their health consequences, and there's a lot of work underway to clean it up.
Re:Could be a problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Sailing ships moved at an average of 3 to 4 knots, depending on if the winds were favorable. Modern diesel powered ships move at an average rate of 12-15 knots and are substantially less affected by wind and currents than sailing ships (especially these big ones). Plus, they have substantially more power than a sailing ship could ever pull off, allowing for bigger ships (the problem here) which allows for more cargo per trip. This has substantially reduced the cost and risk of shipping which has reduced the price of traded goods, increased trade (which while there's goods and bads with increased trade historically reduces international tensions and leads to more amicable relations), and effectively increased the collective wealth and purchasing power of individuals (by reducing costs).
There isn't a single decent sailing proposal out there that even comes close to matching what a diesel engine can do, and I have looked (I work in the industry). So while it may seem like a good idea on paper, it is in reality a totally terrible idea.
There are plenty of ways to reduce emissions already underway in the shipbuilding industry; the US Navy and European Navies generally lead the way. There is a hybrid engine out for smaller combatants; there is diesel electric propulsion, there's more emissions friendly engines already on the market... It's an iterative process but the work is already being done. But that's the only real way to do it; going back to sail is a pipe dream.
So what? (Score:2, Interesting)
These ships are mostly out in the middle of nowhere...
I don't see half a million people hanging on the side of the boat sucking down exhaust.
I really don't understand why a lot of the attacks on emissions in the last 6 months or so, have been on diesel engines, which are usually the "greenest" form of ICE... extremely low greenhouse gas emissions for the energy produced (if you're the type that cares about that), and we can use so many fuel sources other than dinosaurs.
Let's try this...
Two identical cars, one diesel, one gasoline; both in a sealed garage for an hour.
I'll take the diesel.
I'll walk out with a bad cough for a week or so, and die at 89.5 instead of 90.
You won't walk out.
So again, other than some bureaucrat screaming, and counting on the "commoners" not having any sense of scale (let's face it, thousands, millions, billions... how is that different from "one, two, many"?) this is someone with a product to sell trying to guilt us into buying it.
Re:One can dream... (Score:5, Interesting)
The majority of open ocean is a nutrient-poor environment even for algae and plankton.
It is a less productive desert than just about anywhere else on Earth.
What 'nutrient-rich zones that died off' am I missing?
Re:Could be a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
The British needed 5000 to 6000 trees to build a single (large) warship, back in the day. That's quite a lot of wood if you ask me. In fact, that's a pretty big forest.
Re:Could be a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked as a tree thinner a long time ago. Our job was to go into an area (in the national forest) and thin the little baby trees down to about one every 10 feet. Then the ones that were left would grow faster, straight and tall - and since we preferentially removed less valuable species, the ones that remained tended to be the more valuable ones. I figured out that I was killing about 12000 baby trees per day (over about 10 acres). The ones that were left would be about 430 per acre, so ten acres would provide about 4300 trees. So it's not a very big forest in pure acreage. The time it takes to GROW the trees is significant, of course. There's a long time between a four-foot sapling and a mighty Douglas Fir - especially for the big diameter trees where you get more of the 'clear' knot-free wood.
Old boat builders (and some present-day boat builders) look especially for certain parts of trees. For example, the curved sections where the tree spreads out its roots tend to be very good for 'knees', taking advantage of both the curved grain and the extra density and strength that the trees develop in that area.
Re:Stop Buying Crap! (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, speaking as a graduate student (who in the last couple of years has lived in several cities across the US), having "cheep" (aka. affordable) stuff is exactly what I want. Partially because I know I will be moving soon. Possessions, especially nice possessions, tie you down. Nice possessions own you. If you have nice things then you must take care of them because you cannot afford to replace them.
I don't need the fancy $65 iron: I just need ironed clothes for an interview (the $4 iron works just fine).
I don't need to spend thousands on a desk: a cheep $75 writing surface works well.
Disposable things means I can walk away from my apartment every day and not fear things getting stolen, or burned down, etc. Sure bad things still can happen, but I can more easily afford them.
Re:One can dream... (Score:3, Interesting)
That may be true at extreme depths, but I doubt it very much for the waters at the surface or close to it. But I'm sure you can provide citations for your claim. Right?
Re:One can dream... (Score:4, Interesting)
When my father was in the US Navy in the 1963 the aircraft carrier he was on, the USS Ranger, had a drag-race with the USS Kitty Hawk. It made the cover of hot rod magazine. The USS Ranger won. I'd call this flooring it.
Apparently the captain asked the admiral if it was OK. He said no so the captain told him to go back to sleep and did it anyway.
Re:One can dream... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Which is worse? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Could be a problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Not necessarily. Just like any powered system, there is a maximum point where you gain maximum fuel efficiency; that's typically what ships are designed for to get the most out of the fuel.
But the reason they reduce speed (or do not reduce speed) has a lot more to do with shipping capacity than anything else. A ship operates just about 24/7 minus any maintenance time. So assume a 1,000 container ship can make 10 runs from Hong Kong to Los Angeles in a year, that means there is 10,000 containers delivered per year. If demand decreases for container cargo (as it is now), then if they slow the ship down so it can only make 9 runs per year, you've just reduced your capacity by 10%. Demand goes down, companies respond by reducing supply, in the case of shipping that means slowing down ships. If the demand picks up the run the ships faster, increasing containers delivered to 11,000.
Right now that's going on; shipping has slowed down so much that modern cargo ships are sailing slower than 19th century clipper ships, just to reduce capacity:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shipping-glut-is-so-bad-globally-that-ships-are-now-sailing-slower-than-19th-century-clippers-just-to-keep-busy-2010-10
Re:Could be a problem (Score:2, Interesting)
No, they also used Huon Pine. Lovely wood, grows straight as an arrow, completely insect and mold proof, and easy to carve, perfect for ships' masts. Shipbuilders did their best to completely deplete the only source of that timber (Huon Valley, South Tasmania). Fortunately, it's a protected species now. They're not really farmable, taking several hundred years to reach a decent size (a "sapling" with a 3 inch bole could be a hundred years old). They are one of the oldest living organisms in Australa, with some examples alive after 3000 years.
Please don't cut them down for wind power, they're pretty.
Re:One can dream... (Score:5, Interesting)
Chlorophyll map of the world's oceans [seakeepers.org].
Now pay close attention to the scale at the bottom. Even the stuff in green has 1/20th the photosynthetic activity as the stuff in red. Note how tiny of an area is in red.
Most of the world's oceans are *extremely* poor in life. The limiting factor for photosynthesis in most of the world's oceans is not light or CO2, but iron. Iron sinks in aggregate and is poorly soluble.