8 ms·

15 Biggest Ships Create More Pollution Than All Cars in the World (2013)

128 points by danboarder 11y ago

danboarder 11y ago
And that would be just 15 of the largest ships, with 100,000 other big commercial ships out there burning an especially polluting type of diesel fuel: "The world shipping fleet consists of over 100,000 vessels larger than 100 gross tonnes ... Oceangoing ships running large slow-speed diesel (SSD) engines generally burn low-quality residual fuels that tend to contain high amounts of sulfur and heavy metals. Smaller vessels, such as tugboats, fishing vessels and ferries operate medium-speed diesel (MSD) engines that use mostly distillate fuels within nonroad equipment fuel quality standards [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004]. International commercial shipping vessels operate across international waters with little or inconsistent regulation of fuel quality or pollution emissions".* * Particulate emissions from commercial shipping: Chemical, physical, and optical properties http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/black-carbon/lack-et-al-2009.pdf http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/black-carbon/lac...
SeanDav 11y ago
1 ship producing the same pollution as 50 million cars? I find this very, very difficult to believe. Let's look at some numbers: The biggest ship engine in the world has around 25,000 litres displacement, weighs 2,300,000 kg, produces 109,000 hp and has a fuel efficiency of 0.26 lbs/hp/hour. Using very conservative equivalent estimates for a car of 1 litre, 100 kg, 75 hp and 0.6 - 50 million cars would displace 50 million litres (2000 times more than ship engine), weigh around 2175 times as much, produce 34,000 times as much power and use 79,000 times as much fuel. Keeping in mind the ships engine is very fuel and thermal efficient, 1 ship producing equivalent pollution to 50 million cars just does not seem plausible, in the slightest.
- hmate9 11y ago
  It sounds a little hard to believe too, but I think it takes into consideration that most of the time cars are idle while big ships are utilized nearly 100%.
- willvarfar 11y ago
  They don't burn the 'clean' fuels that your car does. This is described in the article.
- cperciva 11y ago
  1. Ships have a much higher duty cycle than cars. 2. This measure of "pollution" is sulfur oxides, which are extremely low in automobiles since sulfur is almost completely removed from their fuel.
- ranman 11y ago
  ^ agreed. They should show the math.
- michaelwww 11y ago
  The article addresses this in the paragraph containing the line "...these powerplants are some of the most fuel efficient units in the world. The real issue lies with the heavy fuel oil...lack of regulations applied to the giant exhaust stacks" Have you ever been stuck behind a car with a broken exhaust system? The amount of pollution coming out of such a car is surprising, and that's with relatively clean gasoline. "But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use." [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-1...] I'm not saying you're wrong. 50 million does seem high, but there are other factors. A a former Navy nuke technician, I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered. I suppose it is the cost.
  - wolfgke 11y ago
    > A a former Navy nuke technician, I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered. I suppose it is the cost. I rather assume the risk of terrorism.
    - michaelwww 11y ago
      Yes, that's probably it. Cargo ships could be a good use case for thorium reactors. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-future-nuclear-energy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-fu...
    - XorNot 11y ago
      This is not a serious risk. You could easily armor the reactor module to resist any amount of pirate weaponry, and rig it so when damaged it just drops to the bottom of the ocean intact. Getting into it isn't a threat either: terrorists aren't going to be plasma torching into a reactor and surviving long enough to do anything.
      - scrumper 11y ago
- tim333 11y ago
  Reading the Guardian article the thing's based on, the 50 mil figure refers to 'sulphur oxide gases' which could be possible because modern car fuel is pretty low sulphur. The industrytap article is pretty misleading.
- arbuge 11y ago
  Perhaps you missed this part: "109,000-horsepower engines that endlessly spin away 24 hours a day, 280 days a year." Most cars, in comparison, are idle for over 95% of their lifetime. My car for example sits in a driveway or parking lot approximately 23 hours a day. Brings another factor of 20 into play. Now 1 ship only needs to produce pollution equivalent to 2.5m cars. (Claim in the article still seems dubious considering that an average car has a 100 - 200 hp engine these days).
- drvortex 11y ago
  They are probably comparing amount of pollution per km travelled, per tonne of vehicle. I agree, the article is so imprecise as to be completely worthless in terms of information content.
- rco8786 11y ago
  Also keep in mind that the ships are effectively in use and engines running 100% of the time. While car engines spend most of their lives turned off
- seanhunter 11y ago
  Ships' engines are amazing, but heavy fuel oil is really really gross stuff. It's basically all the bits of the barrel that are left after distillation. Ie what they've dug out of the ground but can't sell off for more money as aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel etc. Therefore it has really high sulphur content and very long/complex hydrocarbon chains that burn much less efficiently than gasoline or diesel.
tallanvor 11y ago
This blurb links to an article that says the same thing but was published in 2009. No clue how old the original Guardian article was.
Derpdiherp 11y ago
Honest question: Why don't they employ catalytic converters? Is the amount of exhaust just too much for them to be able to practically build them, or is it simply "We haven't been told we need one, so we're not going to bother."
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  they are registered in places like panama that have no regulation on such things
  - sumedh 11y ago
    Why cant the developed countries have regulations which stop the ship from coming in its waters?
    - cardinalfang 11y ago
      There are some regulations - some ships switch from burning heavy bunker oil to diesel when close to port.
      - bkor 11y ago
        The regulations have increased heavily in recent years. E.g. near the U.S. and Europe. It's not just close to port anymore. See e.g. http://www.joc.com/maritime-news/shippers-brace-low-sulfur-fuel-surcharge-january_20140925.html http://www.joc.com/maritime-news/shippers-brace-low-sulfur-f... for details. Small quote from the article: Maersk Line CEO Soren Skou said in a Copenhagen presentation yesterday that lower sulphur fuel was more expensive and would increase the carrier’s bunker cost by estimated $200 million a year. That additional 200 MUSD/year is just for the stricter rules in Europe. You can save a massive amount of money by "ignoring" these rules. Meaning: unless it is checked, there is a huge risk of unfair competition between companies which abide by the rules and companies which do not. Especially if a company is in difficult times it needs to be checked carefully. You'll notice that the bigger companies are ok with such rules, as long as it applies to everyone and is checked thoroughly.
willvarfar 11y ago
This is a 2013 summary of a 2009 summary of the actual article? Actual article: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-... I think the original article interesting and current and worthy of being on HN :)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
mkaufmann 11y ago
The article lacks a description of which specific form of pollution is compared. When talking about pollutants is important to keeps the following points in mind: - Is the pollutant effecting health? - Is the pollutant effecting climate change? - Is the amount of pollution locally concentrated or very distributed? Cargo ships typically have a very high emission of nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and sulphur dioxide. When emitted by cars / factories on the mainland these often strongly contribute to harmful smog especially in megacities or cities with poor ventilation. Also they can be generally bad to the ecosystem also on the water due to causing acid rain etc. The main pollutants on cargo ships have a very strong short term effect but are often out of the air in a few weeks. Because of that they don't rise to the atmosphere and don't directly contribute to long term climate changes. Thus I think the comparison in the article is very dangerous. When considering pollutants that effect climate change cars are more dominant. So depending on which effects are discussed reducing pollutions from cars can still be benefitial. As an additional thought, the polutions of the cargo ships are spread out over a very large geographich area while the exhausts of cars are much more concentrated around cities. So when considering ones own quality of living, cars have a much bigger impact. I think an article that better manages to discuss the subject is this one from the guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-... Excerpts: - Shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world's nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution. - Shipping is responsible for 3.5% to 4% of all climate change emissions
- anentropic 11y ago
  from the OP link "the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars"
  - bunnymancer 11y ago
    With 760 million cars in the world and 7 billion people, that's one car per 921 people.. So if you have a car and your family is smaller than 921 children, you're ahead of the game, globally.
enibundo 11y ago
MEAT CONSUMPTION is the main reason and where everyone should be focusing on first for reducing the negative impact we have on nature. Meat consumption and livestock in general creates more pollution than ALL transportation means in the world all together. http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/ http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/ I suggest everyone watch this documentary. It changed the way I eat.
- eru 11y ago
  Compare http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/23/vegetarianism-for-meat-eaters/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/23/vegetarianism-for-meat-...
  - ant6n 11y ago
    The environmental impact of chicken is less than beef.
    - eru 11y ago
      The author comments on these thoughts later. The article is not fully formed thought.
  - amalag 11y ago
    As the comment says, better to just eat whales then. This article is really dumb, just some guys weird logic.
- downtide 11y ago
  We have a negative impact on nature, we should all kill ourselves now ;)
  - enibundo 11y ago
    (before killing ourselves we should at least try to change ourselves no?) I dislike your "irony" or lack of seriousness, but at some point, when the resources will be over, we'd have to fight with each other. It's already happening for petrol, it will probably happen for water and air looking at the last news from Asia at the moment.
zoren 11y ago
Headline should've read: "World’s 15 Biggest Ships Create More SOx- and NOx-emissions Than All The Cars In The World, COx-emissions a Whole Other Story"
- leojg 11y ago
  Yeah but anyway those gases are far more powerful than CO2
  - zymhan 11y ago
    In terms of irritants, but not as greenhouse gases, which is what the title implies.
chetangole 11y ago
Credit should go to actual article : http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/02/report-pollution-from-15-of-worlds-biggest-ships-equal-that-o/ http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/02/report-pollution-from-15-... This is copied one.
inthewoods 11y ago
Given the lack of incentive or possible enforcement on these boats, one answer would be to simply approach the owners and either offer to pay for a new boat (assuming such a boat exists) or to retrofit the existing boat. If they are really that dangerous to the environment, it would seem like a no brainer for governments to band together to do this. The only question is if there are environmentally friendly alternatives.
- bkor 11y ago
  If you pay for a new vessel, the owner will resell the old one and it'll get reused. What has happened in recent years is that (mainly) Europe and U.S. has employed stricter regulations. If you enforce this strictly, then it'll become more economical to do a retrofit. Note that lower SOx is quite difficult, retrofits are mainly done to save on bunker costs.
  - inthewoods 11y ago
    You could buy the old vessel and scrap it, but I hear you.
leojg 11y ago
The solution to this would be embracing wind power again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Ship_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Ship_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship
Gravityloss 11y ago
This is partly outdated. Tight sulphur emission regulations happened in 2015. However they are limited to more populated areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emission_Control_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emission_Control_Area NOx limits are tightening. Didn't get a great link but this has something: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-%28NOx%29-%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPreventio...
nradov 11y ago
The shipping industry has been able to keep costs artificially low by treating air pollution as an externality. Eventually that loophole will be closed through a combination of emissions taxes and outright bans. I expect the long-term solution to be a combination of: larger (more efficient) ships, lower cruising speeds, biofuels, and auxiliary sail propulsion.
gozur88 11y ago
I'll bet the fifteen biggest ships also haul more cargo than all the cars in the world, too.
dodders 11y ago
The headline is (I suspect deliberately) misleading. The actual guardian article is here [1] and is more nuanced, claiming that "One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds". That's hardly "all the cars in the world", given that latest estimates put this figure at over 1 billion [2]. Ships produce more sulfur oxide pollutants than cars because they use different fuels, and thus produce different pollutants. A large container ship does produce more more carbon dioxide emission per mile and per gallon of fuel than a car, but ships in general have the lowest emission levels of any other method of cargo transport , producing fewer emissions per ton of freight per mile than barges, trains or trucks. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle

128 points by danboarder 11y ago

And that would be just 15 of the largest ships, with 100,000 other big commercial ships out there burning an especially polluting type of diesel fuel: "The world shipping fleet consists of over 100,000 vessels larger than 100 gross tonnes ... Oceangoing ships running large slow-speed diesel (SSD) engines generally burn low-quality residual fuels that tend to contain high amounts of sulfur and heavy metals. Smaller vessels, such as tugboats, fishing vessels and ferries operate medium-speed diesel (MSD) engines that use mostly distillate fuels within nonroad equipment fuel quality standards [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004]. International commercial shipping vessels operate across international waters with little or inconsistent regulation of fuel quality or pollution emissions".* * Particulate emissions from commercial shipping: Chemical, physical, and optical properties http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/black-carbon/lack-et-al-2009.pdf http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/black-carbon/lac...

SeanDav 11y ago

1 ship producing the same pollution as 50 million cars? I find this very, very difficult to believe. Let's look at some numbers: The biggest ship engine in the world has around 25,000 litres displacement, weighs 2,300,000 kg, produces 109,000 hp and has a fuel efficiency of 0.26 lbs/hp/hour. Using very conservative equivalent estimates for a car of 1 litre, 100 kg, 75 hp and 0.6 - 50 million cars would displace 50 million litres (2000 times more than ship engine), weigh around 2175 times as much, produce 34,000 times as much power and use 79,000 times as much fuel. Keeping in mind the ships engine is very fuel and thermal efficient, 1 ship producing equivalent pollution to 50 million cars just does not seem plausible, in the slightest.

hmate9 11y ago
It sounds a little hard to believe too, but I think it takes into consideration that most of the time cars are idle while big ships are utilized nearly 100%.
willvarfar 11y ago
They don't burn the 'clean' fuels that your car does. This is described in the article.
cperciva 11y ago
1. Ships have a much higher duty cycle than cars. 2. This measure of "pollution" is sulfur oxides, which are extremely low in automobiles since sulfur is almost completely removed from their fuel.
ranman 11y ago
^ agreed. They should show the math.
michaelwww 11y ago
The article addresses this in the paragraph containing the line "...these powerplants are some of the most fuel efficient units in the world. The real issue lies with the heavy fuel oil...lack of regulations applied to the giant exhaust stacks" Have you ever been stuck behind a car with a broken exhaust system? The amount of pollution coming out of such a car is surprising, and that's with relatively clean gasoline. "But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use." [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-1...] I'm not saying you're wrong. 50 million does seem high, but there are other factors. A a former Navy nuke technician, I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered. I suppose it is the cost.
- wolfgke 11y ago
  > A a former Navy nuke technician, I'm wondering why these ships aren't nuclear powered. I suppose it is the cost. I rather assume the risk of terrorism.
  - michaelwww 11y ago
    Yes, that's probably it. Cargo ships could be a good use case for thorium reactors. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-future-nuclear-energy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-fu...
  - XorNot 11y ago
    This is not a serious risk. You could easily armor the reactor module to resist any amount of pirate weaponry, and rig it so when damaged it just drops to the bottom of the ocean intact. Getting into it isn't a threat either: terrorists aren't going to be plasma torching into a reactor and surviving long enough to do anything.
    - scrumper 11y ago
tim333 11y ago
Reading the Guardian article the thing's based on, the 50 mil figure refers to 'sulphur oxide gases' which could be possible because modern car fuel is pretty low sulphur. The industrytap article is pretty misleading.
arbuge 11y ago
Perhaps you missed this part: "109,000-horsepower engines that endlessly spin away 24 hours a day, 280 days a year." Most cars, in comparison, are idle for over 95% of their lifetime. My car for example sits in a driveway or parking lot approximately 23 hours a day. Brings another factor of 20 into play. Now 1 ship only needs to produce pollution equivalent to 2.5m cars. (Claim in the article still seems dubious considering that an average car has a 100 - 200 hp engine these days).
drvortex 11y ago
They are probably comparing amount of pollution per km travelled, per tonne of vehicle. I agree, the article is so imprecise as to be completely worthless in terms of information content.
rco8786 11y ago
Also keep in mind that the ships are effectively in use and engines running 100% of the time. While car engines spend most of their lives turned off
seanhunter 11y ago
Ships' engines are amazing, but heavy fuel oil is really really gross stuff. It's basically all the bits of the barrel that are left after distillation. Ie what they've dug out of the ground but can't sell off for more money as aviation fuel, gasoline, diesel etc. Therefore it has really high sulphur content and very long/complex hydrocarbon chains that burn much less efficiently than gasoline or diesel.

tallanvor 11y ago

This blurb links to an article that says the same thing but was published in 2009. No clue how old the original Guardian article was.

Derpdiherp 11y ago

Honest question: Why don't they employ catalytic converters? Is the amount of exhaust just too much for them to be able to practically build them, or is it simply "We haven't been told we need one, so we're not going to bother."

throwaway2048 11y ago
they are registered in places like panama that have no regulation on such things
- sumedh 11y ago
  Why cant the developed countries have regulations which stop the ship from coming in its waters?
  - cardinalfang 11y ago
    There are some regulations - some ships switch from burning heavy bunker oil to diesel when close to port.
    - bkor 11y ago
      The regulations have increased heavily in recent years. E.g. near the U.S. and Europe. It's not just close to port anymore. See e.g. http://www.joc.com/maritime-news/shippers-brace-low-sulfur-fuel-surcharge-january_20140925.html http://www.joc.com/maritime-news/shippers-brace-low-sulfur-f... for details. Small quote from the article: Maersk Line CEO Soren Skou said in a Copenhagen presentation yesterday that lower sulphur fuel was more expensive and would increase the carrier’s bunker cost by estimated $200 million a year. That additional 200 MUSD/year is just for the stricter rules in Europe. You can save a massive amount of money by "ignoring" these rules. Meaning: unless it is checked, there is a huge risk of unfair competition between companies which abide by the rules and companies which do not. Especially if a company is in difficult times it needs to be checked carefully. You'll notice that the bigger companies are ok with such rules, as long as it applies to everyone and is checked thoroughly.

willvarfar 11y ago

This is a 2013 summary of a 2009 summary of the actual article? Actual article: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-... I think the original article interesting and current and worthy of being on HN :)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

mkaufmann 11y ago

The article lacks a description of which specific form of pollution is compared. When talking about pollutants is important to keeps the following points in mind: - Is the pollutant effecting health? - Is the pollutant effecting climate change? - Is the amount of pollution locally concentrated or very distributed? Cargo ships typically have a very high emission of nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and sulphur dioxide. When emitted by cars / factories on the mainland these often strongly contribute to harmful smog especially in megacities or cities with poor ventilation. Also they can be generally bad to the ecosystem also on the water due to causing acid rain etc. The main pollutants on cargo ships have a very strong short term effect but are often out of the air in a few weeks. Because of that they don't rise to the atmosphere and don't directly contribute to long term climate changes. Thus I think the comparison in the article is very dangerous. When considering pollutants that effect climate change cars are more dominant. So depending on which effects are discussed reducing pollutions from cars can still be benefitial. As an additional thought, the polutions of the cargo ships are spread out over a very large geographich area while the exhausts of cars are much more concentrated around cities. So when considering ones own quality of living, cars have a much bigger impact. I think an article that better manages to discuss the subject is this one from the guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-... Excerpts: - Shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world's nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution. - Shipping is responsible for 3.5% to 4% of all climate change emissions

anentropic 11y ago
from the OP link "the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars"
- bunnymancer 11y ago
  With 760 million cars in the world and 7 billion people, that's one car per 921 people.. So if you have a car and your family is smaller than 921 children, you're ahead of the game, globally.

enibundo 11y ago

MEAT CONSUMPTION is the main reason and where everyone should be focusing on first for reducing the negative impact we have on nature. Meat consumption and livestock in general creates more pollution than ALL transportation means in the world all together. http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/ http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/ I suggest everyone watch this documentary. It changed the way I eat.

eru 11y ago
Compare http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/23/vegetarianism-for-meat-eaters/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/23/vegetarianism-for-meat-...
- ant6n 11y ago
  The environmental impact of chicken is less than beef.
  - eru 11y ago
    The author comments on these thoughts later. The article is not fully formed thought.
- amalag 11y ago
  As the comment says, better to just eat whales then. This article is really dumb, just some guys weird logic.
downtide 11y ago
We have a negative impact on nature, we should all kill ourselves now ;)
- enibundo 11y ago
  (before killing ourselves we should at least try to change ourselves no?) I dislike your "irony" or lack of seriousness, but at some point, when the resources will be over, we'd have to fight with each other. It's already happening for petrol, it will probably happen for water and air looking at the last news from Asia at the moment.

zoren 11y ago

Headline should've read: "World’s 15 Biggest Ships Create More SOx- and NOx-emissions Than All The Cars In The World, COx-emissions a Whole Other Story"

leojg 11y ago
Yeah but anyway those gases are far more powerful than CO2
- zymhan 11y ago
  In terms of irritants, but not as greenhouse gases, which is what the title implies.

chetangole 11y ago

Credit should go to actual article : http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/02/report-pollution-from-15-of-worlds-biggest-ships-equal-that-o/ http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/02/report-pollution-from-15-... This is copied one.

inthewoods 11y ago

Given the lack of incentive or possible enforcement on these boats, one answer would be to simply approach the owners and either offer to pay for a new boat (assuming such a boat exists) or to retrofit the existing boat. If they are really that dangerous to the environment, it would seem like a no brainer for governments to band together to do this. The only question is if there are environmentally friendly alternatives.

bkor 11y ago
If you pay for a new vessel, the owner will resell the old one and it'll get reused. What has happened in recent years is that (mainly) Europe and U.S. has employed stricter regulations. If you enforce this strictly, then it'll become more economical to do a retrofit. Note that lower SOx is quite difficult, retrofits are mainly done to save on bunker costs.
- inthewoods 11y ago
  You could buy the old vessel and scrap it, but I hear you.

leojg 11y ago

The solution to this would be embracing wind power again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Ship_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Ship_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship

Gravityloss 11y ago

This is partly outdated. Tight sulphur emission regulations happened in 2015. However they are limited to more populated areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emission_Control_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emission_Control_Area NOx limits are tightening. Didn't get a great link but this has something: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Nitrogen-oxides-%28NOx%29-%E2%80%93-Regulation-13.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPreventio...

nradov 11y ago

The shipping industry has been able to keep costs artificially low by treating air pollution as an externality. Eventually that loophole will be closed through a combination of emissions taxes and outright bans. I expect the long-term solution to be a combination of: larger (more efficient) ships, lower cruising speeds, biofuels, and auxiliary sail propulsion.

gozur88 11y ago

I'll bet the fifteen biggest ships also haul more cargo than all the cars in the world, too.

dodders 11y ago

The headline is (I suspect deliberately) misleading. The actual guardian article is here [1] and is more nuanced, claiming that "One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds". That's hardly "all the cars in the world", given that latest estimates put this figure at over 1 billion [2]. Ships produce more sulfur oxide pollutants than cars because they use different fuels, and thus produce different pollutants. A large container ship does produce more more carbon dioxide emission per mile and per gallon of fuel than a car, but ships in general have the lowest emission levels of any other method of cargo transport , producing fewer emissions per ton of freight per mile than barges, trains or trucks. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle