Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Dioxide From Ships at Sea To Be Regulated For First Time (theguardian.com)
Carbon dioxide from ships at sea will be regulated for the first time following a historic agreement reached after two weeks of detailed talks in London. From a report: Shipping companies will halve their greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 under the plan, brokered by the International Maritime Organization and binding across its 170 member states. The agreement will require a revolution among ships, which are overwhelmingly fuelled by heavy oils at present. In future, they will have to not only be more energy-efficient, but also make use of cleaner energy, in the form of batteries supplying electricity, solar and wind electricity generation, and perhaps even a return to sail in some cases, or more controversially to nuclear power, as some warships already use.
Environmental campaigners said the plan was not enough given the urgency of tackling climate change, though they welcomed the deal, which has taken decades of work. Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping and aviation were omitted from the 1997 Kyoto protocol and have been excluded from regulations on carbon ever since, even though shipping is used for 80% of global trade. Although shipping accounts for only about 2% of global carbon emissions, it has been a cause of particular concern, both because of the increased need for transport under the globalising economy and because many ships use dirty, carbon-rich fuels such as heavy diesel, which would be banned in many countries from onshore transport.
Environmental campaigners said the plan was not enough given the urgency of tackling climate change, though they welcomed the deal, which has taken decades of work. Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping and aviation were omitted from the 1997 Kyoto protocol and have been excluded from regulations on carbon ever since, even though shipping is used for 80% of global trade. Although shipping accounts for only about 2% of global carbon emissions, it has been a cause of particular concern, both because of the increased need for transport under the globalising economy and because many ships use dirty, carbon-rich fuels such as heavy diesel, which would be banned in many countries from onshore transport.
We wont even be able to have a steerage class deck I bet...
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Just hold onto all your carbon. Then when you dock at the US, just release it all into the atmosphere.
Sure you poison major commerce areas, but Americans won't believe the science (so people dying will just be an act of God), and welcome these ships as an economic boom.
Win win.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
All the dirtiest oil from the refineries is burned in ships because their SO2 emissions are not regulated. A large ship emits as much SO2 as millions of cars. Yet they regulate CO2 for ships?
CO2 for planes would have been interesting.
Given the scientific fact that satellite observations have shown that shipping routes have higher levels of various greenhouse gas emissions (N04, S02, C02, etc) and that storms along these routes are increasing in strength (not frequency, climate change mostly just increases the energy involved, not the patterns), this is a wise thing to cut back on.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Isn't shipping already the most efficient means of transport as far as fuel burned per ton transported a given distance? Go after airlines first. Much less efficient and difficult to power with alternate fuels.
nuclear power? Will they come with a full marine unit or just rent a cops at low wages?
They will install a coin operated self destruct mechanism.
They could use thorium, which is safer than uranium. You could design the ships in such a way that the last-ditch safety mechanism for the reactor would be to eject the core into the ocean, where it would have essentially infinite cooling. Also don't most cargo ships employ their own private security anyway? Just arm them better against pirates.
Considering one trip of a cargo ship across the ocean burns more oil than a household ever will, in their entire existence.
from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=85&t=1 , a person in the usa uses about 300 million btu / year. Back of the envelope calculations on a single cargo vessel, 300 days at sea ( https://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/ ) = 2 x10^12 btu / year, or 666666 % of a single person's yearly energy use.
Granted, they burn oil that's considered waste, and I'm unsure what we'd do with that, but to me, it's what nations should have agreed upon before nearly anything else.
Hoist the main jib! I tell my female manager this. She still has not complied.
So a return to sail. Funny. Think of turning the clock back. All these time saving inventions. Motors. Shhhh what a joke.
Boat type shipping is the last economical type of long distance shipping there is. Add crazy regulations, and once again, poor countries and this poor people get screwed again. Just like the mandatory health insurance or pay a penalty come tax time (today).
The lack of basic consideration is astounding. Rich countries enforcing expensive standards on poor countries. Same as 2000 years ago.
Actually, most international ships carry no guns. Didn't you pay attention to "Captain Phillips"? Somehow most shipping companies have decided that even in the face of modern piracy, no guns is safer than trigger-happy sailors.
You retard. There are winds. It doesnâ(TM)t stay static. Open water has very powerful winds.
Thatâ(TM)s why it is obvious you are lying. But some other regards believe it. Without thought. Because they are without thought.
Even lazy liars post false statistics. You are a failure even to no standards.
The only place coal should ever be used anymore is in the Christmas stockings of chronically misbehaving little children.
Sailboats have actually advanced a long way in recent decades. A modern clipper ship would look quite different from the old ones.
The advantage to wind powered ships is that they don't need fuel! Think of the money the industry would save.
Nothing wrong with wind-powered ships; after all, don't you lose less energy by cutting out an energy-conversion step? Why convert wind to electricity to drive electric motors when you can drive the ship directly?
Yes, but if you're now carrying nuclear materials on every voyage, that would change.
but with nuclear you will need or Captain Phillips 2 will start with a dirty bomb
Unless you invent a Philosophers' Stone that magically converts nuclear material to something inert, there is no 'self destruct mechanism' for any kind of nuclear reactor, unless you have an eject mechanism that dumps it into the ocean -- and even then pirates could be equipped to retrieve it.
And they won't make that date either.
Exempted from Kyoto... LOL. What a joke. Not ratifying these shake down scam agreements is among the best and most admirable thing the US has ever done and the citizens of the US deserve credit for not being suckers.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
The original proposal was a lot stricter. They wanted to go all green. Three countries where against it, so a compromise was needed. Those countries where Saudi Arabia, Brazil an the USofA, because they said it would be too hard to do.
Countries that actually build ships ( yes, some are build in the US as well) had no problem with it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Speed. The Mayflower took 66 days to reach the US. Modern cargo ships can take on average 14 days shipping from China to US.
Read about the SL-1 accident -- pulling out one rod a bit too high blew the reactor sky-high. Literally. Unfortunately, the self-destruction was accompanied by release of nasty radioactives.
They do need wind, which isn't always available.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Just wait for someone to point out that is you use the wind you will somehow alter the natural balance of something, taking energy where the earth was using it, and then affecting something or other.
Some have brought that up for wave and tide generation .
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
They could use thorium, which is safer than uranium.
Still dangerous since a notable percentage of ships can be counted on to sink. Doesn't really matter though since nuclear powered cargo ships have been tried and they were not economically competitive. Thorium will not solve that problem. Plus insurance is a huge problem for civilian nuclear vessels.
You could design the ships in such a way that the last-ditch safety mechanism for the reactor would be to eject the core into the ocean, where it would have essentially infinite cooling.
And how do you plan to account for the now radioactive particles that will be conveniently spread throughout the ocean? Cooling is not the main problem with nuclear propulsion - pollution is.
Also don't most cargo ships employ their own private security anyway? Just arm them better against pirates.
Historically no, most cargo ships haven't been armed. More have been lately but not all are.
...With a fleet of wind-powered cargo ships made of sustainable forest materials, based on ancestral proven designs.
Citation
UW News 2017-09-07
It's science.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
How are you suggesting to create new steel then?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Could someone knowledgeable (As opposed as someone with opinions) tell us more technical details here ?
The experiments i heard about were with classical oil guzzling cargoes which used wind as an additional source of propulsion to decrease fuel consumption. Long ago i heard about experiments with big kites. It seemed cute but i haven't heard about them since. More recently i read about other ships using vertical cylindrical sail using the Magnus effect.
Each time the advertised fuel saving were modest. Not much above 5%.
There are a few commercial nuclear cargoes out there but they are severely boycotted. As far as i am aware they operate mostly along the Russian coast. I do not foresee the nucleophobes laying down their arms soon.
Does it means some are trying to switch to gas-powered turbines ? That would not be a very good news because gas extraction itself can be very polluting. For example when methane is released during extraction. But on paper that would reduce the CO2 emissions of the ships themselves. And displace the rest of the pollution !
I would welcome a more documented input ! :-)
I've been wondering how long those fossil-fuel burning smoke spewing cargo ships have been killing our environment, it's amazing that they get away with spraying all that exhaust right into the ocean where we don't see it.
What a shame. But finally we get some smarts. Good!
Thorium reactor would probably not even need the last-ditch mechanism, but the issue would be the fears of pirates hijacking the reactors for producing dangerous and poisonous materials for the terror networks. Suddenly certain perfectly "normal" (as in normal criminals) civilian villages and families become the targets on war on terror. So maybe a pre-nuclear piracy clean-up would be a good idea. Another thing would be the harbor security and safety with dealing with the materials and fuel.
Coking coal doesn't need to be mined from underground. Charcoal from wood or biomass can also be used to create new steel.
Also, it's possible to use electrolysis instead of coal to make steel, but the technology to do that on a large scale is still a few years away.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You can always tell when the knowledgeable cliimate "skeptics" show up to the conversation, because they make the most carefully-reasoned arguments.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Nuclear reactors whole purpose is to turn Uranium into something else.
Is England->US the same distance as China->US? Otherwise you went out of your way to specifically compare apples to oranges.
Ken
Sailboats have actually advanced a long way in recent decades. A modern clipper ship would look quite different from the old ones.
The advantage to wind powered ships is that they don't need fuel! Think of the money the industry would save.
But they DO need fuel. They will need fuel to navigate though ports and shipping channels when the wind isn't favorable. They will also have power needs for the comfort of the crew and the operation of the ship. Maybe not as much fuel, but you are going to need some. The ships will be significantly more expensive to build, and only marginally less to operate.
The problem really the reliability of the wind and keeping up scheduled arrivals at ports where dock space is scheduled weeks in advance. You have to deliver cargo on time, or you are going to have a hard time staying in business. If you could operate in places where the wind is consistently blowing in favorable directions, it might work, but for large container ship operations, I seriously doubt it would pay (or they'd already be doing this).
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I'll bite.
Using wind will alter the natural balance of wind currents... but not in any sort of significant way, especially weighed against sticking with fossil fuels.
The fact that you were expecting someone to point out the negatives of using wind for shipping is worrying, especially given your signature. It's like you are just primed and ready to rage. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Using charcoal would deforest the planet. Besides, it is way dirtier than using coal to create coke.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Pretty sure that new tariff will be cutting down on shipping emissions as well as China's emissions here in the near future.
Only if you do it the same way it was done 2,000 years ago.
There are environmentally-friendly ways of making charcoal.
https://wiki.duke.edu/display/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
They do need wind, which isn't always available.
They would still need engines for maneuvering in port, and they could also use them if becalmed. Lack of wind is only a problem in the subtropical ridge or "horse latitudes" around 30 degrees N & S. Most shipping takes great-circle routes further north into the "roaring forties" or "furious fifties" where there is no lack of wind.
SkySails operate higher above sea level, where winds are stronger and more reliable. They can also be retrofitted onto existing ships.
Nahhh, just give the guy a gun so he can't be raped. That'll help em bigly.
The data are interesting; however, to draw a conclusion on storm intensity (which isn't defined in the paper) from lightning strikes is a stretch. If you look world-wide, the trend is a lot of lightning strikes along the equator, where the local strike concentration is higher. Especially in the region of that paper.
Remember, science is the continued review of the hypothesis with testing and observation, not an interesting data set.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
"Although shipping accounts for only about 2% of global carbon emissions, it has been a cause of particular concern, [(paraphrase)because it creates emissions]."
Back in the 1990s, I invested in various IPOs, including firms that did shipping, but used more modern ship designs that were far more efficient than older style ships, and had a vastly reduced emissions profile as a result.
Made a killing on that - since fuel consumption was lower and they could meet all the new regulations in a number of foreign ports on emissions and get green shipping contracts, they did very very well.
Adapt. The world won't wait for your excuses.
(caveat: I sold out my shares from that IPO, at a massive profit, but they're still growing)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
And how many grams of steel can you make this way?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Is England->US the same distance as China->US? Otherwise you went out of your way to specifically compare apples to oranges.
Actually the OP was being very generous. The Mayflower traveled approximately 2750 miles from Plymouth, England to Cape Cod, USA. Shanghai to L.A. is about 6564 miles.
You're changing the question again. First you said, "But how will we make steel"? Then, you said, "OK, you can make steel without coal, but it's dirty" and now, "But how much steel can you make with clean charcoal"?
You keep moving the bar. Steel was made without coal for millennia, using charcoal. Steel can be made without coal using electrolysis. In our lifetime, we will see a time when coal is best left in the ground. We might already be there.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sailboats have actually advanced a long way in recent decades. A modern clipper ship would look quite different from the old ones.
The advantage to wind powered ships is that they don't need fuel! Think of the money the industry would save.
They don't use sails to replace the usual motors but to supplement them. If you do an image search for maps of trade winds you'll find that on some routes in some directions, the wind blows from behind for most of the trip. Some prototypes have reported a 15% or greater reduction in fuel consumption using sail.
The sails are all computer controlled and furled/unfurled by motors. The ships may use more conventional mast styles or some designs use large kite sails.
Here's an old article on a kite sail : https://newatlas.com/cargill-s...
Dirty bombs are a fiction, that rely on the ignorance and hysteria surrounding radiation to incite mass panic. They are weapons of fear, which can be disarmed using education. The heavy metal toxicity is more of a concern than the radiation, and non-radioactive dirty bombs are barely a thing. Most of the actual damage will be done by the explosion itself.
Successfully dispersing a high level source over a large area will dilute the radiation to a harmless level. Any larger fragments will remain localized, allowing detection and cleanup. The toxicity is still a problem, and you will want to clean it up as best you can, but the radiation actually makes this easier, providing a map.
They're not moving the bar, they're asking you questions that you should have the answer to because you're the one who's made the claim. There's a reason why we don't use those other sources. There's a big reason why we don't use biomass for carbon content, it's expensive, it's worse for the environment. Not only that but while you can use say food biomass, we don't because it's better to use food scrap biomass to feed to livestock. Don't think any of this hasn't been tried before, it has.
But look at your other point, in order to do that you need to get the energy from somewhere, and environmentalists are against cheap nuclear power. "Green" energy is cost prohibitive. So that would mean we use charcoal from secondary sources and so on. Peat is a shit solution, but high carbon(but now we're gutting wetlands). Milling dust from sawmills offers a secondary source, only problem is it's highly explosive just like flour. People don't like getting blown up. On top of that, coke is used as a primary fuel for the kiln itself when smelting iron before then adding the carbon from the coke to make steel aka full cycle use. That's why we use coke to make steel, it's cheap, and there's low primary and secondary waste products.
Om, nomnomnom...
to maximize fuel use
Ahh thats why American airlines keep going broke. Try minimizing fuel use instead :)
In swedish but workable with Google translate.
SSAB LKAB and Vattenfall is working an making steel with hydrogen driven direct reduction.
https://www.nyteknik.se/energi/nya-satsningen-stal-utan-kol-6537738
Good option, but it requires two things: Cheap hydrogen, and cheap electricity for it to be feasible in an industrial scale. On the flipside of that, I can see where it would be very useful in zero-g manufacturing.
Om, nomnomnom...
Carbon taxes on traditional ships could make nuclear power competitive again?
Interesting thought though politically rather difficult since it involves getting a lot of countries to agree and cooperate. But the real cost to nuclear comes in the form of insurance and maintenance. The carbon offset is important but something of a minor player in the economics for the time being.
Realistically though I think the notion of nuclear fission based propulsion for civilian cargo ships is probably never going to become a widespread reality without some sort of technological breakthrough. Too many risks and the proof of this is in the fact that insurance companies by and large won't touch nuclear due to the excessive financial risk. Nuclear accidents are (fortunately) rare but when they happen they tend to be colossally expensive to deal with both to mitigate as well as litigate. This makes them really hard to profitably underwrite at rates that the operators of ships can accept in a competitive marketplace.
If you hate drinking treated water that much then just drink from the river