4 ms·

Wake me up when cargo ships are forced to cut emissions and can run on some kind of other, than fossil power (hint: probably the only thing that has enough capa

by pmlnr 6y ago

Wake me up when cargo ships are forced to cut emissions and can run on some kind of other, than fossil power (hint: probably the only thing that has enough capacity at the moment is nuclear) https://phys.org/news/2018-12-cargo-ships-emitting-boatloads-carbon.html https://phys.org/news/2018-12-cargo-ships-emitting-boatloads... Nothing is going to matter until this changes.

Kuinox 6y ago
Ah yes, we will stop cargo ships. Now we will ship everything by plane, happy ?
throwaway-8c93 6y ago
At the same time, cargo ships transport an unbelievable amount of cargo. They're an order of magnitude more efficient per tonne/km than trucks, and two orders of magnitude more efficient than air freight. Economic incentives from fuel savings alone were enough to reduce the emissions per tonne/km by a higher percentage than many devout green governments reduced theirs. Cargo ships are responsible for ~3% of global CO2 emissions. Not too bad for providing a backbone for the world's economy.
- pmlnr 6y ago
  > Cargo ships are responsible for ~3% of global CO2 emissions "One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds ": https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... Cargo ships are bad, much worse, than people think. And this has nothing to do with efficiency, or price, or anything else; pollution is pollution, and emissions != CO2.
  - freeflight 6y ago
    > Cargo ships are bad, much worse, than people think. And this has nothing to do with efficiency, or price, or anything else; pollution is pollution, and emissions != CO2. This is an extremely reductive and absolutist way of thinking. We have very real solutions to reduce emissions of cars with greener options, solutions that do not work with cargo ships. Nuclear civilian cargo ships have quite disastrous potential considering the scale at which that would need to be introduced: More than 50.000 merchant ships would then be swimming nuclear reactors, good luck finding anybody willing to insure that. Not to mention that it would require building a global nuclear fission centered infrastructure to support it; Expensive, and even more potential for catastrophic accidents, even more issues with where to store the waste.
titzer 6y ago
Pretty much the entire US navy runs on nuclear power, so it's not unthinkable to move to zero emissions propulsion.
HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
Cargo ships are a tiny part of the entire supply chain and provide an incredibly efficient service. It's environmentally friendlier to buy something that's in season in the other hemisphere and ship it to you than to grow it locally off season.
perfunctory 6y ago
Nothing is going to matter unless you wake up yourself and go do something about emissions. Nobody is going to do it for you while you are sleeping.

by pmlnr 6y ago

Kuinox 6y ago

Ah yes, we will stop cargo ships. Now we will ship everything by plane, happy ?

throwaway-8c93 6y ago

At the same time, cargo ships transport an unbelievable amount of cargo. They're an order of magnitude more efficient per tonne/km than trucks, and two orders of magnitude more efficient than air freight. Economic incentives from fuel savings alone were enough to reduce the emissions per tonne/km by a higher percentage than many devout green governments reduced theirs. Cargo ships are responsible for ~3% of global CO2 emissions. Not too bad for providing a backbone for the world's economy.

pmlnr 6y ago
> Cargo ships are responsible for ~3% of global CO2 emissions "One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds ": https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping... Cargo ships are bad, much worse, than people think. And this has nothing to do with efficiency, or price, or anything else; pollution is pollution, and emissions != CO2.
- freeflight 6y ago
  > Cargo ships are bad, much worse, than people think. And this has nothing to do with efficiency, or price, or anything else; pollution is pollution, and emissions != CO2. This is an extremely reductive and absolutist way of thinking. We have very real solutions to reduce emissions of cars with greener options, solutions that do not work with cargo ships. Nuclear civilian cargo ships have quite disastrous potential considering the scale at which that would need to be introduced: More than 50.000 merchant ships would then be swimming nuclear reactors, good luck finding anybody willing to insure that. Not to mention that it would require building a global nuclear fission centered infrastructure to support it; Expensive, and even more potential for catastrophic accidents, even more issues with where to store the waste.

titzer 6y ago

Pretty much the entire US navy runs on nuclear power, so it's not unthinkable to move to zero emissions propulsion.

HeadsUpHigh 6y ago

Cargo ships are a tiny part of the entire supply chain and provide an incredibly efficient service. It's environmentally friendlier to buy something that's in season in the other hemisphere and ship it to you than to grow it locally off season.

perfunctory 6y ago

Nothing is going to matter unless you wake up yourself and go do something about emissions. Nobody is going to do it for you while you are sleeping.