16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times
Topic started on 22-11-2009 @ 11:01 AM by xSMOKING_GUNx
I don't know how many of you are actually concerned with pollution issues, as I have noticed that past threads on the subject seem to come and go from the recent posts list fairly quickly.

This is not a global warming thread, it is more of a pollution and health thread.

As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.


Hmm; interesting..............

There are now an estimated 100,000 ships on the seas, and the fleet is growing fast as goods are ferried in vast quantities from Asian industrial powerhouses to consumers in Europe and North America.


So if just sixteen of these ships can contribute as much pollutant as 800million cars then you start to get the picture when you realise there are around 100,000 ships on the seas.

James Corbett, of the University of Delaware, is an authority on ship emissions. He calculates a worldwide death toll of about 64,000 a year, of which 27,000 are in Europe. Britain is one of the worst-hit countries, with about 2,000 deaths from funnel fumes. Corbett predicts the global figure will rise to 87,000 deaths a year by 2012.


Looks like there will be a few less people around to worry about whatever is supposed to occur in 2012.

For decades, the IMO has rebuffed calls to clean up ship pollution. As a result, while it has long since been illegal to belch black, sulphur-laden smoke from power-station chimneys or lorry exhausts, shipping has kept its licence to pollute.


Well, It doesn't look like there is too much pressure on the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) to put a stop to this growing issue.............

A year ago, the IMO belatedly decided to clean up its act. It said shipping fuel should not contain more than 3.5 per cent sulphur by 2012 and eventually must come down to 0.5 per cent. This lower figure could halve the deaths, says Corbett.

It should not be hard to do. There is no reason ship engines cannot run on clean fuel, like cars. But, away from a handful of low-sulphur zones, including the English Channel and North Sea, the IMO gave shipping lines a staggering 12 years to make the switch. And, even then, it will depend on a final ‘feasibility review’ in 2018.

In the meantime, according to Corbett’s figures, nearly one million more people will die.


Source

Well it looks like the IMO is attempting to do something about the deadly pollution but over the period of the stated twelve years, ships will also increase in number.

And at the expense of a million people, come on people, nobody cares about the lives of others anymore.

What can be done?


reply posted on 22-11-2009 @ 12:03 PM by Detailed Perfection
16 ships = 800,000,000 automobiles

That seems very hard to believe to me, to be honest.

How are they relating the correlation between the two?

16 ships operating for 1 hour = 1 hour of global traffic?

16 ships operating for 10 years = 1 year of global traffic?

The article may have explained and I overlooked it, but I'm curious as to what the conditions are/were that led to a comparative.

On a side note ...
In February of this year I contacted the offices of Al Gore about an engine design that my dad had created that uses no fuel and produces no exhaust. Gore's office told me that all of his environmental issues are handled by KPCB and gave me their contact info.
I emailed 18 members that were listed as part of the "KPCB GreenTech Team". Not a single person replied to the email. Al Gore never replied either.
Around the same time I emailed Dan Sperling who is the director for Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. I watched an episode of The Daily Show w/ John Stewart and Mr. Sperling was a guest. He was talking about the current situation with global pollution and transportation.

SO .. I emailed Dan Sperling. Email subject: "The Future of Transportation and It's Impact on Society". The email is fairly long, medium length maybe, and covers a lot of information regarding the impact of global transportation and how my engine design could help change it. This engine design is a limitless application that can be implemented into everything from a weed eater to the largest ships in the world, civilian or military.

Mr. Sperling did return my email. He said he was a busy man and then included a link to Amazon.com where I could buy his books.


It makes me wonder if these "GoGreen" people have any sincerity in their actions to actually make a change or to just make some change.

BTW .. If anyone is interested I have the emails still.


reply posted on 22-11-2009 @ 12:04 PM by loam
reply to post by xSMOKING_GUNx


Originally posted by xSMOKING_GUNx
This is not a global warming thread, it is more of a pollution and health thread.


Indeed.

Hopefully the focus of your thread will be respected.

I particularly liked the graphic found in your source article:



Interesting subject.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by loam]


reply posted on 22-11-2009 @ 12:11 PM by DontTreadOnMe
Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic

The subject of this thread is pollution from ships and its effects.
There are plenty of threads around to discuss Al Gore, green/electric cars, etc.



reply posted on 22-11-2009 @ 12:30 PM by ChemBreather
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


I apollagize, if you watch the video, it shows al gore as a man polluting even more than you and I , yet he speaks of us as polluting shcum.

Sorry agian...


reply posted on 22-11-2009 @ 02:10 PM by xSMOKING_GUNx
Originally posted by Detailed Perfection
16 ships = 800,000,000 automobiles

That seems very hard to believe to me, to be honest.

How are they relating the correlation between the two?

16 ships operating for 1 hour = 1 hour of global traffic?

16 ships operating for 10 years = 1 year of global traffic?


I can see what you are getting at.

There is a lot more to account for in this equation, such as:

The type of fuel used, relatively clean lead free petrol in cars compared to the thick dirty bunker fuel of cargo ships.

Bunker fuel is also thick with sulphur. IMO rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur. That is 4,500 times more than is allowed in car fuel in


So already, for every gallon of fuel a car pollutes the air with, the ships gallon is 4,500 times more polluting.

Source original artical

Then break down the number of cars per single ship, makes the figures a lot easier to digest.

Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year.


Source

A large percentage of cars especially within Europe are small engined (around 1000cc), when these cargo vessels have engines putting out up to 136,000 bhp compared with the average car of under 100bhp.

And also these Cargo ships travel as close to non stop throughout their lifetime as they possibly can, thousands upon thousands of miles without stopping the engines, most of the time running at full (or close to full) power, where as a large percentage of cars may only travel for a few hours per week.

I would expect, taking in to account that a certain percentage of cars are not running (broken, crashed) but not recorded.

There is a percentage of second car owners etc..............I am sure there are also many other factors to account for.

The more you think it through, the easier it is to get your head around.

Hjalti Pall Ingolfsson from Icelandic New Energy, commented that ships are fast becoming the biggest source of air pollution in the EU. It is estimated that by 2020 emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from ships will exceed land-based emissions in Europe.


Source

Thats all European land transport, natural and industrial pollution put together!!

More to read?



Regards S_G


reply posted on 22-11-2009 @ 04:45 PM by Detailed Perfection
reply to post by xSMOKING_GUNx


Thanks for the info.

Yeah I can understand the idea once they start talking about in terms of comparative usage.

That was actually the idea I that I had in mind when I said it was hard to believe to be accurate.

Thanks again Smoke.


reply posted on 22-11-2009 @ 10:37 PM by TheRedneck
xSMOKING_GUNx touched on this, but I thought I would expound on it.

This source states that
IMO rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur.
and also that
A year ago, the IMO belatedly decided to clean up its act. It said shipping fuel should not contain more than 3.5 per cent sulphur by 2012


Is anyone here ware of the requirements for gasoline and diesel fuel?

On January 1, 2006, the sulfur content for gasoline produced at most refineries was lowered to a per-gallon maximum of 80 parts per million (ppm), with an overall maximum annual average of 30 ppm.
Source: www.npradc.org...

The sulfur content of this fuel – called Ultra Low-Sulfur Diesel, or ULSD – may not exceed 15 parts per million (ppm). EPA’s rules required 80 percent of highway diesel fuel to meet the new standard by June 2006, and by June 2010, all highway diesel fuel must meet the 15 ppm standard.
Source: www.npradc.org...

So, gasoline must meet requirements of 30 ppm. Diesel fuel is even lower in sulfur, meeting the 15 ppm requirement (as a former truck driver, I can personally state that the vast vast majority of truck stops now have ULSD, as it is a violation of Federal Law to use anything else in engines manufactured in 2007 or later). Yet ships are allowed to use fuel with sulfur content of 4.5%, which is 45000 ppm! that is actually 1500 times the limit for gasoline and 3000 times the limit for diesel!

Now consider that there are laws that limit the amount of time a diesel engine can operate at idle (including time spent running air conditioning, heating, and electrical production for drivers). I would bet good money that these ships are idling the entire time spent waiting to load or unload.

Even worse is the realization that the goals for sulfur reduction are 3.5%, or 35000 ppm, by 2012, and a hopeful future goal of 0.5%, or 5000 ppm. Even of they reach their final goal, the ships will still be putting out 167 times what cars do, and 333 times what trucks emit!

Thank you OP, for bringing this into the open. Unlike CO2, SO2 is indeed a dangerous pollutant, including being the principle component of acid rain.

TheRedneck



reply posted on 23-11-2009 @ 04:58 AM by Thain Esh Kelch
Originally posted by xSMOKING_GUNx
As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.


Hmm; interesting..............

People seem to forget here, that there is a major difference between pollution and sulphur pollution.

The Association of British Drivers:
Exhausts can also contain Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) from impurities in the fuel, but only 3% of the total emissions of this substance come from transport, the rest mainly from industry and power generation.

So, it doesn't really seem that transportation in general is the major factor anyway, which really changes the point of this discussion.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Lake Vostok Antarctica: breakthrough imminent.
  Posted 11 days ago with 176 member flags
Sky Sounds 1/25/2012 Atlanta, GA Personal Video/Audio
  Posted 19 days ago with 146 member flags
Strange sounds warn us of incoming, and very soon...
  Posted 7 days ago with 136 member flags
Volcano in Iceland Erupting Alongside The Aurora Borealis (pics)
  Posted 8 days ago with 121 member flags
6 of the oldest trees from around the world.
  Posted 12 days ago with 108 member flags
West Coast USA: Pay Attention, Cascadia May Be Ready to Rupture
  Posted 9 days ago with 87 member flags
CONFIRMED: Global Warming \'Ended 15 Years Ago\'
  Posted 15 days ago with 75 member flags