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.
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.
Efficiency doesn't necessarily correlate with lower emissions.
The biggest container ships only need about 1 HP per container when they're underway. They beat rail by a considerable margin.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The only place coal should ever be used anymore is in the Christmas stockings of chronically misbehaving little children.
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?
I don't understand why we do not build giant undersea pneumatic tubes. :)
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.
No, But the ones in power are, and are too interested in keeping their political position then to actually stand up for what is right.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Speed. The Mayflower took 66 days to reach the US. Modern cargo ships can take on average 14 days shipping from China to US.
You go after the largest achievable net reductions.
Globally 50 million tons of airfreight cargo are carried. Container ships alone carry 1.7 billion tons of cargo annually, and bulk container ships like ore carriers and tankers carry even more than that. You're going to have to achieve huge net increases in airplane efficiency to equal a marginal improvement in ship efficiency, and it's not like people have been ignoring aircraft.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
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.
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! --
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...
to maximize fuel use
Ahh thats why American airlines keep going broke. Try minimizing fuel use instead :)