6 ms·

Then just imagine if shipping tankers became electrified. The world's 6 largest shipping tankers produce more CO2 than all the world's personal vehicles combin

Then just imagine if shipping tankers became electrified. The world's 6 largest shipping tankers produce more CO2 than all the world's personal vehicles combined.

burlesona 8y ago
That’s surprising to me. Do you have any references for that? Why are the ships so emissive?
- a-wu 8y ago
  I think it’s because once they are in international waters, they use extremely dirty burning bunker fuel.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  I think it's because they use cheap oil that tends to be really, really dirty when burned.
  - Simon_says 8y ago
    I don't think that could be a full explanation. Perfectly clean burning turns all of the carbon atoms in the fuel into carbon dioxide. [hydrocarbons] + O2 -> CO2 + H2O "Dirtier" burning would result in less CO2 emission.
    - manicdee 8y ago
      The problem is that you are assuming that what these ships are burning is [hydrocarbons] when it’s much more than just that. There are various impurities including sulphur, which lead to extremely dirty emissions such as SO2. The OP is misinformed with regards to the “6 largest ships” claim and the “CO2” claim — as covered elsewhere in comments on this article.
    - imtringued 8y ago
      There are worse things in cigarettes than nicotine. In a similar way there are worse things in bunker fuel than hydrocarbons.
- desdiv 8y ago
  It's simply not true. It started out as a factoid, but got jumbled into nonsense by a game of telephone: 1. True: 16 of the world’s largest ships produce as much _sulfur_ pollution as all the world’s cars.[1] 2. False: "How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world", headline from Daily Mail.[2] 3. False: "world's 6 largest shipping tankers produce more CO2 than all the world's personal vehicles combined", from OP. While SOx and NOx pollution is extremely bad, they're not as culpable in causing respiratory diseases and climate change, and that's why legislative action has been slow coming. [1] https://www.lngtransfer.com/news/the-16-biggest-ships-produce-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/ https://www.lngtransfer.com/news/the-16-biggest-ships-produc... [2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-...
  - dzhiurgis 8y ago
    I am visiting Tauranga for couple of days - a big port here in NZ. I can smell sulphur quite often around city. Reminds me my childhood when playing with chemicals. Similarly I can smell NOx out of some modern diesels. Reminds me a jar of nitric acid I used to keep under my desk, until the lid rusted thru...
  - austincheney 8y ago
    > Separate studies suggest that maritime carbon dioxide emissions are not only higher than previously thought, but could rise by as much as 75% in the next 15 to 20 years if world trade continues to grow and no action is taken. The figures from the oil giant BP, which owns 50 tankers, and researchers at the Institute for Physics and Atmosphere in Wessling, Germany reveal that annual emissions from shipping range between 600 and 800m tonnes of carbon dioxide, or up to 5% of the global total. This is nearly double Britain's total emissions and more than all African countries combined.[1] > Passenger Cars: 749.4[2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/mar/03/travelsenvironmentalimpact.transportintheuk https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/mar/03/travelse... [2] https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100USI5.pdf https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100USI5.pdf According to the data it appears I am not completely wrong. The maritime transportation sector is of roughly equal CO2 contribution to the US passenger vehicle fleet in 2007. According to the trend indicated by The Guardian in the next 15-20 years (from a 12 year old article, which would be a few years from now) maritime transportation emissions could rise by 75% while the US passenger auto fleet emissions remain flat thereby indicating a slice of tankers contribute more CO2 emissions than passenger vehicles. These sources weren't hard to find or read, so I am not sure why you think my statement is false.
saagarjha 8y ago
Could you say put solar panels on large tankers?
- hyeonwho4 8y ago
  Not really. A TI-class supertanker has a length of 380m, breadth of 68m, for a surface area of less than 7 acres, and run on a 37,450 kW engine. (Wikipedia). Meanwhile, a 50 MW solar installation in Ohio takes 500 acres of space.(https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/anatomy-of-a-50-mw-solar-project-agile-energy-and-turning-point-solar#gs.1p1q0o https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/anatomy-of-a-50...). You would need to find a way to increase the surface area by a factor of 10 without ruining the aerodynamics, or use wind power instead.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    That is actually way closer to possible than I thought it would be. Of course, that stil only lets you run under power during the day!
    - nneonneo 8y ago
      Assuming OP’s numbers are right, it’s actually a factor of 50, not 10. Somewhat less close to possible.
      - est31 8y ago
        If you cover your ship in solar panels and can save 2% of energy costs, it would mean a huge win nevertheless, as oil is expensive.
        ryacko 8y ago
        A fair amount of waste comes from idling in port. There are still issues with loading and unloading containers if you cover the ship with panels.
mikeash 8y ago
That’s not true. They produce more sulphur dioxide, a pollutant that cars don’t emit much of in general, and which the heavy fuel used by ships generates in abundance. Somehow the story morphed from “a few ships emit more of this specific pollutant than all cars” to “more pollution” to “more CO2.” The entire worldwide shipping industry accounts for about 3% of humanity’s CO2 emissions.
- cstejerean 8y ago
  And how does that 3% compare to the total CO2 from personal vehicles?
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    "Road transport" was 16.5% of global emissions in 2008: https://www.who.int/sustainable-development/transport/health-risks/climate-impacts/en/ https://www.who.int/sustainable-development/transport/health...
    - austincheney 8y ago
      Road transport includes all transportation on roads, which isn't passenger vehicles. Passenger vehicles are less than half of that and growth of the CO2 emissions from passenger vehicles is nearly flat year over year. The maritime shipping sector, on the other hand, is growing emissions output as much as 75% every 15 years.
- austincheney 8y ago
  > The entire worldwide shipping industry accounts for about 3% of humanity’s CO2 emissions. To my knowledge personally owned vehicles account for a similar percentage of total CO2 output, so that number while small is a red herring. People tend to generate more CO2 per capita as a result of air conditioning than from the vehicles they drive.
  - nanokilo 8y ago
    Do you have sources for all of these claims?
hjk05 8y ago
With the amount of optimization that goes around the bunker industry and fueling shipping tankers, I’d would be extremely interesting to see how electrification plays into this. Right now you have such fun cases as a Bunker company selling fuel cheaper than it bought it yet still making money through discrepencies in volume/weight measures, and by pumping gas or loading gravel into the fuel, and of cause you have such things like false headings on fuel tankers to drive down local prices prior to fueling, with headings then reverting. A lot of thise optimizations are a sort of cool hyperoptimization that only make sense because of the scale of things. I wonder if electrification, likely through subsidies, would suddenly mean we’d see the tanker industry “weaponizing” weather models to predict which ports can provide cheap wind or solar energy. Or aggressively pushing the battery stacks because even a 0.01% margin is suddenly very attractive.
stevenjohns 8y ago
Forgive my ignorance, but couldn't nuclear power be used to generate electricity on these tankers in the same way its used to power submarines?
- bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
  Yes it can. Check out the Russian Sevmorput.[1] It is the only active nuclear powered merchant ship in the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Nobody sane would give civilians in a poorly regulated sector nuclear fuel and expect them to operate a generator safely. It is even debatable if the US using nuclear power on their subs/warships is wise. It is great for natural disasters relief (mobile power plant) but terrifying if the US ever loses one.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    The US has lost several, as have the Soviets and Russians.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      92 lost nuclear warheads including one near Seattle/Vancouver, one near New York and one near Miami (https://genecurtis.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/lost-nuclear-bombs/ https://genecurtis.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/lost-nuclear-bom...)
      - austincheney 8y ago
        Just for clarification its not anywhere near Miami (that is a small map graphic). It is right off the coast of Savannah, GA. There have been numerous books written about it and there is a wikipedia page about it.
devoply 8y ago
Wonder why they are not nuclear already.
dustcoin 8y ago
This is false information that is commonly repeated. The ships produce more of a particular pollutant, sulfur dioxide (SO2), not CO2. Personal vehicles produce barely any SO2 (gasoline contains no sulfur, diesel contains a small amount) so it isn't surprising a few container ships, which burn sulfur-heavy bunker fuel, produce more.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  I always want to think of sulfur in HFO are contributing to the total heating value because the stuff used to be 3% sulfur. Realistically it's probably 1%. Sulfur only has about 1/3 the energy content as HFO. But they are phasing out high sulfur HFO in 2020 I think ships are restricted to 0.5% sulfur.
arcticbull 8y ago
Afaik shipping tankers are very efficient; among the lowest CO2 per mile travelled per ton of cargo moved. Trains are 185km/L per ton, and ships get about double that. The only more efficient method is bicycling. Electrification won’t do much to help because batteries are so big and heavy you’re basically shipping batteries instead of cargo back and forth. There’s been recent advancement in adding sails though, that actually make non-trivial differences. [1] [1] https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/31/maersk-tankers-installs-two-huge-rotor-sails-on-one-of-its-vessels.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/31/maersk-tankers-installs-...

Then just imagine if shipping tankers became electrified. The world's 6 largest shipping tankers produce more CO2 than all the world's personal vehicles combined.

burlesona 8y ago

That’s surprising to me. Do you have any references for that? Why are the ships so emissive?

a-wu 8y ago
I think it’s because once they are in international waters, they use extremely dirty burning bunker fuel.
saagarjha 8y ago
I think it's because they use cheap oil that tends to be really, really dirty when burned.
- Simon_says 8y ago
  I don't think that could be a full explanation. Perfectly clean burning turns all of the carbon atoms in the fuel into carbon dioxide. [hydrocarbons] + O2 -> CO2 + H2O "Dirtier" burning would result in less CO2 emission.
  - manicdee 8y ago
    The problem is that you are assuming that what these ships are burning is [hydrocarbons] when it’s much more than just that. There are various impurities including sulphur, which lead to extremely dirty emissions such as SO2. The OP is misinformed with regards to the “6 largest ships” claim and the “CO2” claim — as covered elsewhere in comments on this article.
  - imtringued 8y ago
    There are worse things in cigarettes than nicotine. In a similar way there are worse things in bunker fuel than hydrocarbons.
desdiv 8y ago
It's simply not true. It started out as a factoid, but got jumbled into nonsense by a game of telephone: 1. True: 16 of the world’s largest ships produce as much _sulfur_ pollution as all the world’s cars.[1] 2. False: "How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world", headline from Daily Mail.[2] 3. False: "world's 6 largest shipping tankers produce more CO2 than all the world's personal vehicles combined", from OP. While SOx and NOx pollution is extremely bad, they're not as culpable in causing respiratory diseases and climate change, and that's why legislative action has been slow coming. [1] https://www.lngtransfer.com/news/the-16-biggest-ships-produce-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/ https://www.lngtransfer.com/news/the-16-biggest-ships-produc... [2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-...
- dzhiurgis 8y ago
  I am visiting Tauranga for couple of days - a big port here in NZ. I can smell sulphur quite often around city. Reminds me my childhood when playing with chemicals. Similarly I can smell NOx out of some modern diesels. Reminds me a jar of nitric acid I used to keep under my desk, until the lid rusted thru...
- austincheney 8y ago
  > Separate studies suggest that maritime carbon dioxide emissions are not only higher than previously thought, but could rise by as much as 75% in the next 15 to 20 years if world trade continues to grow and no action is taken. The figures from the oil giant BP, which owns 50 tankers, and researchers at the Institute for Physics and Atmosphere in Wessling, Germany reveal that annual emissions from shipping range between 600 and 800m tonnes of carbon dioxide, or up to 5% of the global total. This is nearly double Britain's total emissions and more than all African countries combined.[1] > Passenger Cars: 749.4[2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/mar/03/travelsenvironmentalimpact.transportintheuk https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/mar/03/travelse... [2] https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100USI5.pdf https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100USI5.pdf According to the data it appears I am not completely wrong. The maritime transportation sector is of roughly equal CO2 contribution to the US passenger vehicle fleet in 2007. According to the trend indicated by The Guardian in the next 15-20 years (from a 12 year old article, which would be a few years from now) maritime transportation emissions could rise by 75% while the US passenger auto fleet emissions remain flat thereby indicating a slice of tankers contribute more CO2 emissions than passenger vehicles. These sources weren't hard to find or read, so I am not sure why you think my statement is false.

saagarjha 8y ago

Could you say put solar panels on large tankers?

hyeonwho4 8y ago
Not really. A TI-class supertanker has a length of 380m, breadth of 68m, for a surface area of less than 7 acres, and run on a 37,450 kW engine. (Wikipedia). Meanwhile, a 50 MW solar installation in Ohio takes 500 acres of space.(https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/anatomy-of-a-50-mw-solar-project-agile-energy-and-turning-point-solar#gs.1p1q0o https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/anatomy-of-a-50...). You would need to find a way to increase the surface area by a factor of 10 without ruining the aerodynamics, or use wind power instead.
- zaroth 8y ago
  That is actually way closer to possible than I thought it would be. Of course, that stil only lets you run under power during the day!
  - nneonneo 8y ago
    Assuming OP’s numbers are right, it’s actually a factor of 50, not 10. Somewhat less close to possible.
    - est31 8y ago
      If you cover your ship in solar panels and can save 2% of energy costs, it would mean a huge win nevertheless, as oil is expensive.
      - ryacko 8y ago
        A fair amount of waste comes from idling in port. There are still issues with loading and unloading containers if you cover the ship with panels.

mikeash 8y ago

That’s not true. They produce more sulphur dioxide, a pollutant that cars don’t emit much of in general, and which the heavy fuel used by ships generates in abundance. Somehow the story morphed from “a few ships emit more of this specific pollutant than all cars” to “more pollution” to “more CO2.” The entire worldwide shipping industry accounts for about 3% of humanity’s CO2 emissions.

cstejerean 8y ago
And how does that 3% compare to the total CO2 from personal vehicles?
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  "Road transport" was 16.5% of global emissions in 2008: https://www.who.int/sustainable-development/transport/health-risks/climate-impacts/en/ https://www.who.int/sustainable-development/transport/health...
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Road transport includes all transportation on roads, which isn't passenger vehicles. Passenger vehicles are less than half of that and growth of the CO2 emissions from passenger vehicles is nearly flat year over year. The maritime shipping sector, on the other hand, is growing emissions output as much as 75% every 15 years.
austincheney 8y ago
> The entire worldwide shipping industry accounts for about 3% of humanity’s CO2 emissions. To my knowledge personally owned vehicles account for a similar percentage of total CO2 output, so that number while small is a red herring. People tend to generate more CO2 per capita as a result of air conditioning than from the vehicles they drive.
- nanokilo 8y ago
  Do you have sources for all of these claims?

hjk05 8y ago

With the amount of optimization that goes around the bunker industry and fueling shipping tankers, I’d would be extremely interesting to see how electrification plays into this. Right now you have such fun cases as a Bunker company selling fuel cheaper than it bought it yet still making money through discrepencies in volume/weight measures, and by pumping gas or loading gravel into the fuel, and of cause you have such things like false headings on fuel tankers to drive down local prices prior to fueling, with headings then reverting. A lot of thise optimizations are a sort of cool hyperoptimization that only make sense because of the scale of things. I wonder if electrification, likely through subsidies, would suddenly mean we’d see the tanker industry “weaponizing” weather models to predict which ports can provide cheap wind or solar energy. Or aggressively pushing the battery stacks because even a 0.01% margin is suddenly very attractive.

stevenjohns 8y ago

Forgive my ignorance, but couldn't nuclear power be used to generate electricity on these tankers in the same way its used to power submarines?

bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
Yes it can. Check out the Russian Sevmorput.[1] It is the only active nuclear powered merchant ship in the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
Someone1234 8y ago
Nobody sane would give civilians in a poorly regulated sector nuclear fuel and expect them to operate a generator safely. It is even debatable if the US using nuclear power on their subs/warships is wise. It is great for natural disasters relief (mobile power plant) but terrifying if the US ever loses one.
- mikeash 8y ago
  The US has lost several, as have the Soviets and Russians.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    92 lost nuclear warheads including one near Seattle/Vancouver, one near New York and one near Miami (https://genecurtis.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/lost-nuclear-bombs/ https://genecurtis.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/lost-nuclear-bom...)
    - austincheney 8y ago
      Just for clarification its not anywhere near Miami (that is a small map graphic). It is right off the coast of Savannah, GA. There have been numerous books written about it and there is a wikipedia page about it.

devoply 8y ago

Wonder why they are not nuclear already.

dustcoin 8y ago

This is false information that is commonly repeated. The ships produce more of a particular pollutant, sulfur dioxide (SO2), not CO2. Personal vehicles produce barely any SO2 (gasoline contains no sulfur, diesel contains a small amount) so it isn't surprising a few container ships, which burn sulfur-heavy bunker fuel, produce more.

Gibbon1 8y ago
I always want to think of sulfur in HFO are contributing to the total heating value because the stuff used to be 3% sulfur. Realistically it's probably 1%. Sulfur only has about 1/3 the energy content as HFO. But they are phasing out high sulfur HFO in 2020 I think ships are restricted to 0.5% sulfur.

arcticbull 8y ago

Afaik shipping tankers are very efficient; among the lowest CO2 per mile travelled per ton of cargo moved. Trains are 185km/L per ton, and ships get about double that. The only more efficient method is bicycling. Electrification won’t do much to help because batteries are so big and heavy you’re basically shipping batteries instead of cargo back and forth. There’s been recent advancement in adding sails though, that actually make non-trivial differences. [1] [1] https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/31/maersk-tankers-installs-two-huge-rotor-sails-on-one-of-its-vessels.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/31/maersk-tankers-installs-...