Pollution from 15 of world's biggest ships equal that of world's 760 million cars

page: 2
28
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Malaccamax is a naval architecture term for the largest size of ship capable of fitting through the 25 metres (82 ft)-deep Strait of Malacca. Because the Sunda Strait is even shallower at 20 metres (66 ft) minimum depth, a post-Malaccamax ship would need to use even longer alternate routes such as
reply to post by steppenwolf86
 



Economies of scale have dictated an upward trend in sizes of container ships in order to reduce expense. However, there are certain limitations to the size of container ships. Primarily, these are the availability of sufficiently large main engines and the availability of a sufficient number of ports and terminals prepared and equipped to handle ultra-large container ships. Furthermore, the permissible maximum ship dimensions in some of the world's main waterways could present an upper limit in terms of vessel growth. This primarily concerns the Suez Canal and the Singapore Strait.



To answer your question directly, I think they should still be able to sail into port with some towing assistance, but I am not sure to be honest...


SS




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I know it's alot more dangerous than just a gas powered ship but I honestly think that they should be pushing more for the nuclear powered ships. Overall yes it will reduce polution but we all know the catasrophe that they can cause if they sink.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
You guys are still not seeing the real problem: Baltic Dry Index



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
This is the efficiency of capitalism. Companies have to cut corners where they can to maximize profits for the shareholders and to stay competitive. The companies most willing to pollute are the ones which survive the competition, so over time the only companies left are all polluters - or become polluters to survive.

We may think we're saving a bit of money in the short-term, but in the long term are we really? Considering the cost to our health and to the planet.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
on the nuclear ships issue i dont think there is any special legislation that denies them entry to any port they can dock in(size wise) other then nuclear free zones around new Zealand for example

www.cbo.gov... here is a link on the cost effectiveness of such vessles

www.nonplused.org... here is a pdf on the savannah the first nuclear powered merchant ship ever built in 1961 and www.wired.com... and article on her first voyage so they have allready built them so they are possible and it didnt seem to cause problems back then

en.wikipedia.org...

paper from 1995 www.atomicengines.com...

id say in another 10-15 years the issues that the op brought up (pollution from smoke stacks) will be rendered a thing of the past as more and more ships become nuclear powered

www.ft.com... talks about plans for nuclear powered oil tankers to possibly be built in greece of all places

The study is being led by London-based Lloyd’s Register, one of the world’s largest ship classification societies – organisations that vet ships’ design standards and safety. Enterprises Shipping and Trading, one of Greece’s largest oil-tanker owners, is funding the study, underlining the serious renewed interest in the technology. Vince Jenkins, Lloyd’s Register’s global marine risk adviser, said its clients started registering their interest in alternative propulsion technologies that would reduce or completely remove a ship’s carbon dioxide emissions. Other technologies, other than nuclear propulsion under consideration, include the use of liquefied natural gas as fuel.
edit on 4-12-2012 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
cargo ships?

you mean secret aircraft carriers ^^



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ~widowmaker~
 


Not sure if you are aware of this project, an experimental cargo ship. It was layer out in an odd way which caused it to be inefficient and unable to Carrie certain loads, but other than that it was a success. If ships are to keep getting bigger then using the power of the atom is the only form of propulsion that makes sense. Does anyone have any knowledge as to why we do not see this already? I mean, the Nautillus was setting records 60 years ago, and when was the last accident at sea involving an American reactor? Anyways here is the link to the NS Savannah. en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ~widowmaker~
 


no i ment nuclear powered cargo ships/oil tankers like the savannah(buit in the 60's) or the proposed nuclear powered oil tanker fleet that Loyds of London is looking into building to offset carbon emmissions and lower costs over all



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


no i meant , they built these huge ships as "cargo ships" cough cough, so that incase of a major war they can just retro fit them with some gear fill them up with tanks/planes/soldiers and go invade.


a trojan horse if you will. 8o)
edit on 6-12-2012 by ~widowmaker~ because: ferrets



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by steppenwolf86
 


hrm thats cool, but i was kinda going off an old story i heard of in ww2 they used passenger liners as secret war ships.


was thinking they could hold a good amount of military EQ inside them ^^



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
This is one reason why I am amazed that liberals and conservatives can't come together to agree on something like this. When some says we should bring jobs back to the US and "buy American" they are deemed conservative idiots...and when people want to cut pollution and the carbon footprint they are deemed dirt worshiping liberals...

If we build in the USA we make our economy better, provide more jobs (and in essence better health care/nutrition/whatever) to Americans, and ultimately due to our already established infrastructure we decrease the carbon footprint of shipping items all the way from China! We also cut down on building cheap crappy items overseas using what is essentially slave/child labor.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
reply to post by steppenwolf86
 


hrm thats cool, but i was kinda going off an old story i heard of in ww2 they used passenger liners as secret war ships.


was thinking they could hold a good amount of military EQ inside them ^^

I have only ever heard of them using liners as troop ships. The Brits loaded and flew choppers off of cargo ships in the Falklands and wanted to try to do it with harriers as well. Other than as a helicopter platform I honestly do not see much use in the idea, though it is interesting.
edit on 6-12-2012 by steppenwolf86 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1   >>

log in

join