8 ms·

Another little known fact: Cargo ships also burn a lot of very nasty bunker fuel. The ships going through the panama canal have carbon emissions per year that

by kayoone 13y ago

Another little known fact: Cargo ships also burn a lot of very nasty bunker fuel. The ships going through the panama canal have carbon emissions per year that rival those of all motored vehicles in the US combined (800 metric tons vs 1100 metric tons). Each ship burns 200 to 400 tonnes of fuel per day (worth $40K-$80K)

dsl 13y ago
"Bunker" isn't a type of fuel, thats just what it is called when store aboard a ship (the "bunker" is where coal used to be stored). Large ships burn about a dozen different types of fuel oils. Cargo ships are also the most carbon efficient means of transporting goods. Better than trucks, trains, and planes.
- kayoone 13y ago
  I didnt make a judgement, just pointing out a fact. That they are the most carbon efficient doesnt mean it couldnt be improved/replaced in the future however. I just find it funny how politicians in my country try to save carbon emissions by enforcing a speed limit on highways or only let newer cars into the city areas...it just doesnt make no difference at all on a global scale.
  - GauntletWizard 13y ago
    You did make a judgement: You compared the entire output of global shipping's carbon costs to just one (admittedly car-loving and industrious) country's intracontinental transport costs. You thought that this was somehow relevant and interesting to the conversation. You phrased it in such a way to make it out as a travesty. Yes, you made judgement.
    - kayoone 13y ago
      those are just the vessels travelling through the panama canal, definitely not "the entire output of global shipping's carbon costs".
      - joosters 13y ago
        It's still widely open to misinterpretation. Does it refer to the carbon emissions while they pass through the canal, or is it the total carbon emissions of all ships that have passed through the canal? Is the statistic just showing that lots of ships go through the canal in a year?
      - TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago
        Specifically, the unqualified judgement you made was "nasty" in reference to "bunker fuel".
        wmoser 13y ago
        Well to be fair, regardless of its suitability as a long term viable fuel source, it is nasty stuff. It's basically tar. It has to be kept heated to about 70c less it become to viscous and can't be pumped anymore and heated even more before being used in the engine.
        kayoone 13y ago
        unqualified ? 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...
  - forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
    "That they are the most carbon efficient doesnt mean it couldnt be improved/replaced in the future however." The fact that transporting things by sea is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more efficient means that it is the last thing to improve-replace. "I just find it funny how politicians in my country try to save carbon emissions by enforcing a speed limit on highways or only let newer cars into the city areas...it just doesnt make no difference at all on a global scale." Politicians use to be ignorant of science. Having said that, cars and trucks are the biggest polluter in the world. I couldn't care less about "carbon emissions", but combustion particles, specially diesel from big truck, are really nasty for the environment.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago
      Also, large cargo ships are one of the easier things to run on nuclear power. Take the Nimitz class carriers, for example, basically unlimited range and a 20 year refuelling cycle. Political palaver aside. Which makes shipping a relatively easy thing to fix if we ever perceive the need. (Though I'm not convinced several thousand nuclear reactors at sea is a brilliant idea). Edit: spelling and grammar.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago
    Driving slower improves fuel efficiency (to a point). Newer engines designs, improved fuels, and engine emission control have had a huge impact on vehicle exhaust emissions and CO2 output per distance.
- _mulder_ 13y ago
  >Cargo ships are also the most carbon efficient means of transporting goods. Only due to their scale, there seem to be very little 'carbon reducing' technologies employed in the shipping trade. I don't know why some sort of modern Sail power hasn't been looked at. If you're sailing with the wind why would you not save "$40 - $80k" a day? Of wind turbines for that matter, as far as I know, most ships still derive electricity from diesel generators. Why not wind or solar?
  - kayoone 13y ago
    i guess the explanation is quite simply: not enough power.
  - aunty_helen 13y ago
    Ship engines produce a lot of power. Around 75MW. The size of the sails / solar / wind turbine to replace this would be...? You get the idea. As for carbon reduction, the engines already run at ~50% efficiency so there is little waste. The amount of carbon produced is the reality of pushing such a huge weight through the water.
    - _mulder_ 13y ago
      Not sure why I was down-voted on this. I should have made it clearer in my post but I wasn't suggesting replacing diesel engines with Sail power, just augmenting it in the same manner as the SkySails (see response from jk4930 and markdown). I also don't see why covering the deck in solar panels, or installing some form of wind turbine, wouldn't go some way to reducing the demand from diesel power generators.
      - wmoser 13y ago
        There are a lot of people looking at fuel efficiency as well as carbon/sox/nox emmissions. For the companies running ships, the more efficient the plant is, the more money they save on fuel. About ten years ago we did a rough back of the envelope calculation in one of my engineering classes when I asked a similar question. The extra weight of the solar panels would negate any small benefit they would provide plus the cost of maintaining extra equipment. A lot modern ships run a shaft generator which uses the power from the shaft turning the propellor to turn an alternator to make electricity. When the ship slows down at the end of the trip, they go back to running smaller 'port' generators.
- protomyth 13y ago
  > Cargo ships are also the most carbon efficient means of transporting goods. Better than trucks, trains, and planes. A lot of cargo companies have been running the ships at half speed to conserve fuel. With margins so slim and some cargos not on a tight schedule, it works fairly well. This also reduces emissions.
- kayoone 13y ago
  it IS definately very nasty stuff they burn: 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...
jotm 13y ago
Well what can you do, use jet grade fuel on them? Hell, even using "normal" diesel fuel would increase the prices for everyone else, plus the ships' engines don't handle it well anyway...
- Noughmad 13y ago
  Nuclear reactors. It's good enough for the military, and some icebreakers.
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    The military and icebreakers have requirements not shared by your average commercial ship that make nuclear reactors worthwhile.
  - niccl 13y ago
    Wouldn't be allowed in New Zealand (anywhere else?)
  - jotm 13y ago
    I believe everyone would go apeshit if cargo ships (with their admittedly bad security) started using nuclear reactors...
mapt 13y ago
"Little known" or "Made up on the spot"? The US motor vehicle fleet consumed 174,930 million gallons of fuel in 2006 according to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004727.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004727.html There are 308 gallons of fuel to the ton, in crude oil (somewhat different from gasoline, but not sufficiently different to care about) That's 567 million tons of fuel consumed by the US motor vehicle fleet per year. There are 370 million tons of bunker fuel consumed by the entire global shipping industry per year according to http://www.futuresmag.com/2012/10/15/cleartrade-exchange-to-list-bunker-fuel-swap-contr http://www.futuresmag.com/2012/10/15/cleartrade-exchange-to-... Only a tiny fraction of that industry is presently passing through the Panama Canal. Headlines: "Global Merchant Shipping Tonnage to Reach 12.4 Billion Metric Tons by 2015, According to New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc. " "...canal traffic in 2009 reached 299.1 million tons of shipping." The canal is much, much shorter than an average oceanic merchant shipping route, so an even lower fraction of ton-miles is spent on shipping through the canal. Transit times are on the order of 1 day (compare with a typical trip on a vessel slow steaming at 18 knots), so even if you assume they're running their engines full-blast inside the canal (they're not), this is still a tiny fraction of the above sum. Carbon emissions, in case you weren't paying attention in chemistry class, are normally about 85% of the mass of complex hydrocarbons (nC=12n, n2H=2n, +2H=2), so these quantities are almost directly comparable. Bunker fuel is indeed nasty stuff, but their carbon emissions are not particularly unique (nor are any hydrocarbon fuel's) - they do have more subtle sulfur and particulate air pollution.
- kayoone 13y ago
  Well i should have included some of my notes when posting this, as people were even arguing about the fact that the fuel is nasty, which it clearly is. Anyway: US carbon emissions from 2008 for Motor Gasoline: 1.135 BMT[1] Total worldwide shipping emissions: 1.12 BMT [2] And yes, its some nasty stuff they burn [3] [1] http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html#transportation http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html#transportatio... [2]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/feb/13/climatechange.pollution http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/feb/13/climatech... [3]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...

by kayoone 13y ago

dsl 13y ago

"Bunker" isn't a type of fuel, thats just what it is called when store aboard a ship (the "bunker" is where coal used to be stored). Large ships burn about a dozen different types of fuel oils. Cargo ships are also the most carbon efficient means of transporting goods. Better than trucks, trains, and planes.

kayoone 13y ago
I didnt make a judgement, just pointing out a fact. That they are the most carbon efficient doesnt mean it couldnt be improved/replaced in the future however. I just find it funny how politicians in my country try to save carbon emissions by enforcing a speed limit on highways or only let newer cars into the city areas...it just doesnt make no difference at all on a global scale.
- GauntletWizard 13y ago
  You did make a judgement: You compared the entire output of global shipping's carbon costs to just one (admittedly car-loving and industrious) country's intracontinental transport costs. You thought that this was somehow relevant and interesting to the conversation. You phrased it in such a way to make it out as a travesty. Yes, you made judgement.
  - kayoone 13y ago
    those are just the vessels travelling through the panama canal, definitely not "the entire output of global shipping's carbon costs".
    - joosters 13y ago
      It's still widely open to misinterpretation. Does it refer to the carbon emissions while they pass through the canal, or is it the total carbon emissions of all ships that have passed through the canal? Is the statistic just showing that lots of ships go through the canal in a year?
    - TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago
      Specifically, the unqualified judgement you made was "nasty" in reference to "bunker fuel".
      - wmoser 13y ago
        Well to be fair, regardless of its suitability as a long term viable fuel source, it is nasty stuff. It's basically tar. It has to be kept heated to about 70c less it become to viscous and can't be pumped anymore and heated even more before being used in the engine.
      - kayoone 13y ago
        unqualified ? 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...
- forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
  "That they are the most carbon efficient doesnt mean it couldnt be improved/replaced in the future however." The fact that transporting things by sea is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more efficient means that it is the last thing to improve-replace. "I just find it funny how politicians in my country try to save carbon emissions by enforcing a speed limit on highways or only let newer cars into the city areas...it just doesnt make no difference at all on a global scale." Politicians use to be ignorant of science. Having said that, cars and trucks are the biggest polluter in the world. I couldn't care less about "carbon emissions", but combustion particles, specially diesel from big truck, are really nasty for the environment.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago
    Also, large cargo ships are one of the easier things to run on nuclear power. Take the Nimitz class carriers, for example, basically unlimited range and a 20 year refuelling cycle. Political palaver aside. Which makes shipping a relatively easy thing to fix if we ever perceive the need. (Though I'm not convinced several thousand nuclear reactors at sea is a brilliant idea). Edit: spelling and grammar.
- TheSpiceIsLife 13y ago
  Driving slower improves fuel efficiency (to a point). Newer engines designs, improved fuels, and engine emission control have had a huge impact on vehicle exhaust emissions and CO2 output per distance.
_mulder_ 13y ago
>Cargo ships are also the most carbon efficient means of transporting goods. Only due to their scale, there seem to be very little 'carbon reducing' technologies employed in the shipping trade. I don't know why some sort of modern Sail power hasn't been looked at. If you're sailing with the wind why would you not save "$40 - $80k" a day? Of wind turbines for that matter, as far as I know, most ships still derive electricity from diesel generators. Why not wind or solar?
- kayoone 13y ago
  i guess the explanation is quite simply: not enough power.
- aunty_helen 13y ago
  Ship engines produce a lot of power. Around 75MW. The size of the sails / solar / wind turbine to replace this would be...? You get the idea. As for carbon reduction, the engines already run at ~50% efficiency so there is little waste. The amount of carbon produced is the reality of pushing such a huge weight through the water.
  - _mulder_ 13y ago
    Not sure why I was down-voted on this. I should have made it clearer in my post but I wasn't suggesting replacing diesel engines with Sail power, just augmenting it in the same manner as the SkySails (see response from jk4930 and markdown). I also don't see why covering the deck in solar panels, or installing some form of wind turbine, wouldn't go some way to reducing the demand from diesel power generators.
    - wmoser 13y ago
      There are a lot of people looking at fuel efficiency as well as carbon/sox/nox emmissions. For the companies running ships, the more efficient the plant is, the more money they save on fuel. About ten years ago we did a rough back of the envelope calculation in one of my engineering classes when I asked a similar question. The extra weight of the solar panels would negate any small benefit they would provide plus the cost of maintaining extra equipment. A lot modern ships run a shaft generator which uses the power from the shaft turning the propellor to turn an alternator to make electricity. When the ship slows down at the end of the trip, they go back to running smaller 'port' generators.
protomyth 13y ago
> Cargo ships are also the most carbon efficient means of transporting goods. Better than trucks, trains, and planes. A lot of cargo companies have been running the ships at half speed to conserve fuel. With margins so slim and some cargos not on a tight schedule, it works fairly well. This also reduces emissions.
kayoone 13y ago
it IS definately very nasty stuff they burn: 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...

jotm 13y ago

Well what can you do, use jet grade fuel on them? Hell, even using "normal" diesel fuel would increase the prices for everyone else, plus the ships' engines don't handle it well anyway...

Noughmad 13y ago
Nuclear reactors. It's good enough for the military, and some icebreakers.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  The military and icebreakers have requirements not shared by your average commercial ship that make nuclear reactors worthwhile.
- niccl 13y ago
  Wouldn't be allowed in New Zealand (anywhere else?)
- jotm 13y ago
  I believe everyone would go apeshit if cargo ships (with their admittedly bad security) started using nuclear reactors...

mapt 13y ago

"Little known" or "Made up on the spot"? The US motor vehicle fleet consumed 174,930 million gallons of fuel in 2006 according to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004727.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004727.html There are 308 gallons of fuel to the ton, in crude oil (somewhat different from gasoline, but not sufficiently different to care about) That's 567 million tons of fuel consumed by the US motor vehicle fleet per year. There are 370 million tons of bunker fuel consumed by the entire global shipping industry per year according to http://www.futuresmag.com/2012/10/15/cleartrade-exchange-to-list-bunker-fuel-swap-contr http://www.futuresmag.com/2012/10/15/cleartrade-exchange-to-... Only a tiny fraction of that industry is presently passing through the Panama Canal. Headlines: "Global Merchant Shipping Tonnage to Reach 12.4 Billion Metric Tons by 2015, According to New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc. " "...canal traffic in 2009 reached 299.1 million tons of shipping." The canal is much, much shorter than an average oceanic merchant shipping route, so an even lower fraction of ton-miles is spent on shipping through the canal. Transit times are on the order of 1 day (compare with a typical trip on a vessel slow steaming at 18 knots), so even if you assume they're running their engines full-blast inside the canal (they're not), this is still a tiny fraction of the above sum. Carbon emissions, in case you weren't paying attention in chemistry class, are normally about 85% of the mass of complex hydrocarbons (nC=12n, n2H=2n, +2H=2), so these quantities are almost directly comparable. Bunker fuel is indeed nasty stuff, but their carbon emissions are not particularly unique (nor are any hydrocarbon fuel's) - they do have more subtle sulfur and particulate air pollution.

kayoone 13y ago
Well i should have included some of my notes when posting this, as people were even arguing about the fact that the fuel is nasty, which it clearly is. Anyway: US carbon emissions from 2008 for Motor Gasoline: 1.135 BMT[1] Total worldwide shipping emissions: 1.12 BMT [2] And yes, its some nasty stuff they burn [3] [1] http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html#transportation http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html#transportatio... [2]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/feb/13/climatechange.pollution http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/feb/13/climatech... [3]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...