corradoboy

It's now been revealed, after I have suspected it for some considerable time, that ocean going container ships are a massive source of pollution and greenhouse gasses. I wasn't however fully prepared for just how massive. It has been stated that the 15 largest vessels currently in use pump out more greenhouse gasses and pollution (particulate) than ALL of the worlds cars COMBINED. The fact that there are some 90,000 large container vessels continuously in motion around the globe highlights this as a significant oversight by policy-makers when they target taxes in an attempt to encourage any reduction in pollution.

I have said for a long time that there is no justification for us buying imported food products, except for some exotic products which would prove impossible or financially ridiculous to try and grow here. With the new-age greenhouse horticulture and sites 20x the size of football pitches able to grow pretty much anything all year 'round, even that is unnecessary. Even the cars we buy create more pollution in their manufacture and transportation to the first private owner than they will ever produce in their useful lifetime.

If, and there is the crux, any politicians take any notice whatsoever of these new facts, do further research and tailor policy to actually have an effect then we might see a return to localised manufacturing and production of many things. However, as we all know that the policy-makers tailor policy to simply accrue as much wealth as possible, that these statistics will be graced with fingers in their ears and chants of 'La-la-la' until tomorrows newspapers are wrapped around some fish'n'chips, and the apathetic public simply carry on paying excessive tax theft in the name of changing sweet FA !

Rant over, aaahhh !

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ping-pollution

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for the insight.

Where did you get the info from?

dpb

Sails the way forward , infact its been a tried on many a container ship

I last had fish 'n chips in newspaper back in 1985 btw

corradoboy

I read it earlier to day in 'ADI News', a driving instructors magazine. A quick Google reveals quite a few news articles on it, but I wouldn't expect the BBC to carry the story due to the unique way in which it is funded

Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

FlightMan

Link?

Posts must have crossed, cheers CB

Steve vRS

Source?

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

Strange how all these "scientists" overlook certian important facts when working for the Man!

Trout

iTrader: (1)

...but they are also the most fuel efficient form of transport in terms of pollution per tonne kilometre.

Janspeed

iTrader: (1)

So that means we are screwed? Good and bad, what to do now?

warrenm2

Unnecessary is a matter of opinion, its cheaper to import though otherwise we wouldnt still do it. So the food miles arguement is basically one of "buy the food we tell you to (because I dont get to chose) and pay the price we tell you to (because you say importing is wrong even if it is cheaper). Sorrry but I dont subscribe to your point of view. If someone can provide the food I want at a cheap price Im prepared to pay then thats my choice. Anything else is removing my freedom (which makes you a fascist if you think about it)

HTH

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Please don't think for one minute that I am someone who believes the drivel that is fed to us by the government about how bad cars are. But, really, 15 ships contributing more than the whole of the world's cars....sorry, but that is a statistic that even if it is true has been spun even more than Tony Blair managed.

Yes, ships do contribute a lot, but there is no way that just 15 ships contribute more than all the many millions of miles that cars travel during a year.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Odd that container ships are classed as the most polluting, yet some have the most efficient internal combustion engines on the planet (in excess of 50%, automotive engines are well below this).

And incase one doesn't know = efficient burning of fuel can actually create more nasty pollution in the form of NoX, make it less efficient and it would produce less (although at the expense of increased Co2).

Note with automotive engines I put "cleaner" in quotes, to emphasise that these run on high level refined fuels - where consideration needs to be accounted for on the pollution caused by refining said fuel to make them "clean", that includes shipping it ( ). Ships run on basically the dregs of whats left after refining the crude; we have to burn/dispose of it somewhere as so much is produced just to get all the other fuels.

David_Dickson

Whilst many ship engines are remarkably efficent, the sheer scale of them still means that fuel consumption, and therefor emissions are huge. These things generally use several tons of fuel oil every hour.

gpssti4

iTrader: (6)

I work for Wartsila - manufacturers of large diesel engines. Wartsila power 1/3 of the worlds shipping.

I can say that the above statistics are bo**ox. Unless it relates to MAK or MAN engines

Governments know the amount of pollution that's emmitted from a ships engine and there are tax's in place specificially for NOx and SOx.

Taken from the Wartsila website:
Environmentally friendly diesel engines with improved cost efficiency.

The introduction of environmental taxes tied to NOx emission levels for both ships and power plants means that if your power equipment is not meeting emission restrictions a low NOx conversion could be a profitable option.

Our Low NOx combustion process not only reduces the NOx level without affecting thermal efficiency, it also lowers the specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC), which saves costs during operation.

Prolonged engine lifetime and optimized performance

The Wärtsilä Low NOx diesel cycle upgrade combines various engine modifications designed to obtain low NOx values. The purpose of the modifications is to find the ideal combination of compression ratio, injection timing and injection rate.

The conversion prolongs the engine lifetime and optimizes the performance. At the same time emissions are reduced.

A low NOx conversion brings several benefits:

Increased lifetime of cylinder liners, pistons and piston rings
Low and stable lubricating oil consumption
Reduced specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC)
Easy to retrofit, assemble, and replace
Short payback time.
Primary and secondary methods for NOx reduction

A primary NOx reduction method means conversions or modifications that are made directly to the diesel engine. Our low NOx conversion packages range from engine modifications and tuning up to and including WETPAC solutions. WETPAC solutions aim to inject a certain quantity of water in the process (in air, in fuel or in the combustion chamber).

Secondary methods for reducing NOx level is basically the use of a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system that can be installed on any engine, boiler or turbine make. Wärtsilä has developed several SCR solutions for specific plant or marine installations. For instance the new combined silencer and SCR unit developed by Wärtsilä is an ideal package for retrofitting projects. We are also optimising the engine settings for the lowest fuel consumption. Contact us at NOx@wartsila.com to know more about what we can do for your NOx emissions.

The marine industry take pollution very seriously and there are plently of modifications to engines that reduce various emmissions.

Don't be taken in by some of the crap posted - if you're really interested go and look on the web, there's plenty of information posted.

bugeyeandy

In CO2 levels, anyone know how much the worlds cars produce per year in comparison?

I'd imagine some factories in China produce more "pollution" than the worlds cars if you skew the figures so they only include lead pollution or sulphur pollution.

We are a dirty species overall who aren't doing a great deal of good to the planet we live on but at least we're trying to change.

r32

Thanks Carradoboy, makes interesting reading. As for the UK if they cant tax it then its not of interest. Most engine manufacturers (and I worked for 36 years for one of the worlds largest engine producers ) can produce low emission engines.
Good to see the US have acted quickly and perhaps Canada too.
The Eu have our interests at heart and are looking at banning patio heaters ..............

Leslie

Interesting info Corradoboy. Shows how much we know about what is really going on. Years ago we used to produce most of what we needed and exported enough to run the economy very well. People were much better at doing things for themselves too.

Would not hurt to go backwards in that respect.

Les

Diesel

What's the conclusion then? BS or truth?

I would say that I took back some chicken breast slices from Tesco the other day. The small print said bits of it were sourced in Brazil. WTF Its cheaper to import bits of chicken from Brazil than grow the bloody things here??? Wasnt they two for a fiver for the rubber boned, 'sat down', never seen daylight, osteoporosis, economy chickens in Tesco recently? Bonkers!

This also in the week that they announce the electrification of the Swansea to London train line. Brilliant - faster and better for the environment (probably - as I do know it may be an oil or coal powered power station powering them). Ohh, but hang on! If you dont book the ticket 3 decades in advance and via the internet using a Netscape broswer on a Mac the cost is £178 for a Cardiff to London return Think I'll stick to burning £30 of Diesel in the car then...and chuck a fiver at the French over the Severn...

'Public' transport my @rze!!! They havent got a clue!

D

dpb

Sure it was chicken 'bits' imported from Brasil - could have been any other beast in there to make it look bigger

dpb

Frankly anyone who buys 2 chicken for a fiver deserves all they get


Its aother example of the chasm in society - poor people buy this ****e cos they have to and rich people buy sheres in Tesco

KiwiGTI

Who cares, it's just a price we have to pay for living in the modern society we do. We just have to be pragmatic about it and try to manage and improve it in the future.

r32

I copied the article and sent it to my MP, he's already replied and seems genuinely interested.

Wont make any difference, all though being a Labour MP he feels that the 'green thing' is used as a tax excuse.....

Daryl

There aren't 90,000 large container vessels and, even if there were, they wouldn't continually be in motion, they have to stop to load and discharge their cargoes you know!

Just pointing that out, because even if the rest of what you are saying is true, it shows how easy it is for the facts to get distorted...

Edited to add this:

Lead researcher Daniel Lack of Noaa's Earth System Research Laboratory at the University of Colorado determined that the 51,000-odd commercial vessels now plying the world's oceans spew almost as much air pollution as half the total number of automobiles on the planet.

That statement doesn't seem to tie in with what is quoted in the Guardian article, but I found it by following a link in that very article. Am I missing something?

decepticon

as long as we all turn our tv's off from standby at night then that will counteract all this enviromental pollution rubbish.

Diesel

Not risking another wet summmer - my telly stays on! D