Air pollution from shipping

Kat1170

I suppose its not something one would think about much. An out of sight, out of mind kind of thing.

From the guardian


Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated'


One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds.

Britain and other European governments have been accused of underestimating the health risks from shipping pollution following research which shows that one giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars.

Full story HERE

Atlantic Dawn

How good of them to start pointing the finger at shipping for dangerous pollutants when they themselves have encouraged the use of diesel cars through tax and motor tax incentives which are emitting these same dangerous emissions far more than petrol cars.

Tabnabs

Two points come to mind after reading that article.

Overall context?

Shipping is responsible for 3.5% to 4% of all climate change emissions

So pretty minimal in the greater scheme of things.

If you want ships to run on highly processed and "clean" fuels, be prepared for huge increases in all goods and commodities. Which is the easier path for governments to follow?

CJhaughey

How much of the worlds goods are carried by sea 90% or so? and only 3-4% of the possible pollution.
I wouldn't be able to afford to eat air freighted Banana's

batskat

Last time i looked some years ago this I saw these numbers from memory ( sorry no link )

Cargo 1 ton 100 kilos air cargo .................... 0.600 kg fuel input per mile per ton or 600 grams of fuel
Cargo 1 ton 100 kilos Large container cargo.. 0.003 kg fuel input per mile per ton or --3 grams of fuel

Planes will move light weight perishable valuable goods like out of season strawberries in less than 48 hour across the planet where very large container ships can takes 6 weeks to 2 months moving at speeds of 30MPH

Translation it takes 200 times as much fuel to move one ton of cargo by air than by modern very large container ships

Figures will not compare so good for small cargo ships or trains or RO RO ships

RO RO ships will often require fuel input per passenger of about 30miles per gallon per passenger seat
Modern aircraft will often exceed 50 miles per gallon per passenger seat

RO RO ships will often use more fuel per passenger than modern aircraft
However the RO RO ship will also carry the private cars of the passengers and save the fuel use of the same few hundred cars traveling that distance if they could drive by large bridge over the sea region ( example England France tunnel for english channel "le manche" )


The thousands of very large Container ships and large super tankers world wide often use tons per hour of bunker fuel or even unrefined oil direct
Most bunker fuel and unrefined oil often low class heavy sour oil and all the oil will often contain ultra high sulfur contents as high sulfur fuels are cheaper

The ships oil burnt often in super efficient engine getting 50% efficiency compared to small car engines of 25% efficiency will emmit tons per hour of nasty fumes and sulfur and acids of sulfurs and pollutions that are off the charts.

Often the decks of ships will be corroded from the toxic ships smoke stack emissions .
Crews of larger ships can often get respiratory problems cancers and other pollution related issues like their children can also get pollution disabilities from burning bunker and unrefined oils.

Large Ships pulling into cities ports can raise pollution locally considerably

Due to the size of the worlds shipping even though they are small overall users of fuels some 5% they are often causing close to 50% of world wide REAL pollution issues

yes carbon dioxide is low emissions per kilo cargo if that is your measure of pollution transported but REAL pollution per kilo cargo transported is orbital .

Smoke stacks scrubbers can remove these pollution problems for modern but ship owners with using flags of convenience can get around these controls .Also even to try to do retro fitting ships with smaoke stack scrubbers would probably take decades

So the best advise if you see a ship near to you use is suck it up and enjoy the made in China slave labour camps products delivered to you with more REAL pollution per kilo than you really want to know

Batskat

Victor

While I think this should be addressed, it should be noted that the pollution generally isn't being created in fixed, city-centre locations.

Cookie_Monster

Victor wrote: »

While I think this should be addressed, it should be noted that the pollution generally isn't being created in fixed, city-centre locations.

which is a pity because if it was it would be taken notice of and fixed rather than ignored.

Victor

Sure, but my point was that a limited number of people are exposed to the pollution.

batskat

Victor wrote: »

Sure, but my point was that a limited number of people are exposed to the pollution.

Yes mostly fish ,dolphins, whales , and low wage Philippine ships crew get to eat the sulfur pollution of large container ships or large oil container ships .

I am sure the fish dont mind the equivalent of some few million cars polluting the water they swim in after all they cant vote for a change

The Modern RO RO ships most of us in the western world travel for technical reasons now burn refined diesel fuels
Western worlds city dwellers getting exposed to the pollution of Large container ships is reduced as many of the big ships reduce power demands considerably when in ports and the ships tend to make the most pollution far out at sea .

So yes your very correct it is a limited number of people are exposed to the pollution.

However pollution can have unseen effects to fish food chains and other hidden risks that can takes decades to show up .

Wrap around planet often means we often shoot ourselfs in the foot when we pollute other regions

Time will tell

batskat