3 ms·
I don't negate that this is the case but bunker and "gas turbines" seems a bit on the opposite for fossile energy regarding the environment. And this fuel does
by sllabres 10y ago
I don't negate that this is the case but bunker and "gas turbines" seems a bit on the opposite for fossile energy regarding the environment.
And this fuel does not seem to loose attraction due to its price.
"Worldwide bunker use in 2001 was estimated at 278 million tons, of which around 212 million tons were residual fuels. Between 2001 and 2020, total consumption grows at an average annual rate of 3.1% [...]" [1]
[1] https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1001TZU.PDF?Dockey=P1001TZU.PDF https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1001TZU.PDF?Dockey=P100...
- lb1lf 10y agoI (partially) agree; however, we have a saying in Norway that "The best is the worst enemy of the good." In a perfect world, shipping would be emissions-free; however, it is not; the vast majority of the world's commercial shipping runs off heavy fuel oil. Getting it to pollute less in the short term is IMHO better than holding out, waiting for zero emissions somewhere down the line.