4 ms·

On heavy oil from other article of that blog: Cargo ships are significant sources of air pollution globally, and their fuel oil is largely responsible. Pitch bl

by hbossy 4y ago

On heavy oil from other article of that blog: Cargo ships are significant sources of air pollution globally, and their fuel oil is largely responsible. Pitch black and thick as molasses, “bunker” fuel is made from the dregs of the refining process. It’s also loaded with sulfur — the chemical that, when burned, produces noxious gases and fine particles that can harm human health and the environment, especially along highly trafficked areas. wasn't there an effort to release sulfur burning products to reduce global temperature?

WJW 4y ago
There are more ways to contribute to human health and the environment than just global warming. But in this particular case, where exactly the sulfur oxides are released makes a lot of difference. Burning it in the middle of a bustling port city has radically different effects than releasing it at 30 km altitude.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Yes, one of the paridoxical aspects of climate change is that due to different aspects of coal pollution side effects, coal use is a short term decline and then a long term rise in heat. So phasing out coal can give opposite signals to what you expect. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031210074720.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031210074720.h... > More aerosols emitted into the atmosphere may lead to cooling," Allen continued. "But if these aerosols are able to combine with other compounds and ultimately form clouds, it could have a warming effect. There's a complex balance between warming and cooling."
nradov 4y ago
The IMO has required merchant ships to use either low-sulphur fuel or exhaust scrubbers since 2020 in order to reduce certain emissions.
jacquesm 4y ago
Within the coastal zone they'll burn relatively clean fuel but as soon as they are out of national waters that junk gets burned. It's so thick that it needs to be pre-heated to be able to be injected.

by hbossy 4y ago

WJW 4y ago

There are more ways to contribute to human health and the environment than just global warming. But in this particular case, where exactly the sulfur oxides are released makes a lot of difference. Burning it in the middle of a bustling port city has radically different effects than releasing it at 30 km altitude.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Yes, one of the paridoxical aspects of climate change is that due to different aspects of coal pollution side effects, coal use is a short term decline and then a long term rise in heat. So phasing out coal can give opposite signals to what you expect. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031210074720.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031210074720.h... > More aerosols emitted into the atmosphere may lead to cooling," Allen continued. "But if these aerosols are able to combine with other compounds and ultimately form clouds, it could have a warming effect. There's a complex balance between warming and cooling."

nradov 4y ago

The IMO has required merchant ships to use either low-sulphur fuel or exhaust scrubbers since 2020 in order to reduce certain emissions.

jacquesm 4y ago

Within the coastal zone they'll burn relatively clean fuel but as soon as they are out of national waters that junk gets burned. It's so thick that it needs to be pre-heated to be able to be injected.