5 ms·

"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 do

by 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...

by dsl 13y ago

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...