I came across this in an article I was reading and my immediate thought was that it’s bullshit. Does anyone know if these figures are legitimate?
“Scientists have estimated that the biggest 15 container ships in the world create as much pollution as all the cars on the planet.”
The last sentence of the second to last paragraph:
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;179223]I came across this in an article I was reading and my immediate thought was that it’s bullshit. Does anyone know if these figures are legitimate?
“Scientists have estimated that the biggest 15 container ships in the world create as much pollution as all the cars on the planet.”
The last sentence of the second to last paragraph:
It would appear to be related to the study noted here:
The article specifies ‘sulphur’ pollution and appears to rely on use of old fuel specs for sulphur, not reflective of the current MARPOL limits.
[QUOTE=Jamesbrown;179225]It would appear to be related to the study noted here:
The article specifies ‘sulphur’ pollution and appears to rely on use of old fuel specs for sulphur, not reflective of the current MARPOL limits.[/QUOTE]
Cool. Thanks.
Utter bullshit.
Common sense provides an answer. Look at the sky over the freeway in LA. Lots of smog. Now look at a container ship. Nothing. Most air pollution comes from cars.
Where does most oil in the sea come from? Around 90 percent comes from cars. The amount of pollution generated by modern ships is very modest.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;179333]The amount of pollution generated by modern ships is very modest.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention the fact that the pollution per ton-mile of cargo is very likely less than that of any other mode of transportation (with the exception of electrical trains, assuming electricity comes from renewables).
[QUOTE=tugsailor;179333]Utter bullshit.
Common sense provides an answer. Look at the sky over the freeway in LA. Lots of smog. Now look at a container ship. Nothing. Most air pollution comes from cars.
Where does most oil in the sea come from? Around 90 percent comes from cars. The amount of pollution generated by modern ships is very modest.[/QUOTE]
roughly half of the oil meandering about the oceans comes from seeps. Naturally occurring seeps. No ship or car involved there.
[QUOTE=Tups;179337]Not to mention the fact that the pollution per ton-mile of cargo is very likely less than that of any other mode of transportation (with the exception of electrical trains, assuming electricity comes from renewables).[/QUOTE]
Big assumption. I believe that MOST (at least 60%) of electricity generated in the US is from coal fired plants. I hope that those that purchase their Teslas for environmental reasons understand that they are really buying a coal powered car. . . .
Check out this fancy exhaust umbrella…
http://www.tri-mer.com/ccs-7-ships-at-port-diesel-exhaust-emissions.html
[QUOTE=cmakin;179343]Big assumption. I believe that MOST (at least 60%) of electricity generated in the US is from coal fired plants. I hope that those that purchase their Teslas for environmental reasons understand that they are really buying a coal powered car. . . .[/QUOTE]
EV make more sense in some areas then others. Different areas of the country rely on a different mix of power, 60% may be country wide average.
This article is intresting: If you thought solar was going to hurt utilities, get a load of solar+storage.
Another factor is shifing the load in time, solar and the so-called “duck curve” - good article here.
[QUOTE=cmakin;179343]Big assumption. I believe that MOST (at least 60%) of electricity generated in the US is from coal fired plants.[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, in some countries the trains run on 100% renewable energy such as hydropower.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;179354]EV make more sense in some areas then others. Different areas of the country rely on a different mix of power, 60% may be country wide average.
This article is intresting: If you thought solar was going to hurt utilities, get a load of solar+storage.
Another factor is shifing the load in time, solar and the so-called “duck curve” - good article here.[/QUOTE]
Yes, 60% is the nationwide average. . .
[QUOTE=Tups;179356]On the other hand, in some countries the trains run on 100% renewable energy such as hydropower.[/QUOTE]
How? Are they not powered off of a national grid? Or is there a specific system in place that just generates power for the trains. I am all for hydroelectric power. Some of the very first power plants built were hydroelectric. What I recall growing up in California was the outcry from the environmentalists every time a dam was proposed and built. . . oh, and the hippie river rafters, too.
[QUOTE=cmakin;179414]Yes, 60% is the nationwide average. . .
How? Are they not powered off of a national grid? Or is there a specific system in place that just generates power for the trains. I am all for hydroelectric power. Some of the very first power plants built were hydroelectric. What I recall growing up in California was the outcry from the environmentalists every time a dam was proposed and built. . . oh, and the hippie river rafters, too.[/QUOTE]
The Norwegian mainland grid is 100% hydroelectric. The only Coal fired power station is in Longyearbyen on Svalbard. Gas fired power plants are only used on Offshore Platforms, but future ones will be powered from shore.
If there for any reason are power shortage in Norway, there may be imported power generated by Gas, Coal or Nuclear, but it is usually the other way around, with Norway exporting hydro power to Denmark and Germany.
Plans are on foot to connect to the UK grid as well: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/26/uk-and-norway-to-build-worlds-longest-undersea-energy-interconnector
Railways are 62% electric at this time, with plans to expand to near 100%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification_in_Norway
It is not only Container ships that pollute the air. Here is QEII in the Geiranger Fjord in Norway on a calm day:
Some days there can be 5-6 cruise ship in this narrow fjord:
[QUOTE=cmakin;179414]How? Are they not powered off of a national grid?[/QUOTE]
While in reality there’s just one national grid, in many markets (such as Finland) you can choose the company that produces the electricity and thus have some control over what method (hydropower, wind, nuclear, burning seals or “whatever is the cheapest”) is used. Of course, the actual electricity you use right now is probably produced in the nearest power plant, but it’s the big picture that counts. There’s only that much that one consumer can do, but when everyone gets to choose, it can and will affect the decisions made by the electricity companies when it comes to building new capacity. Unfortunately lately it’s been wind power built with state support, and as a result there have been cold winter days when we have almost run out of electricity in the country because some fossil fuel power plants have been taken permanently off the grid…
Anyway, the state-owned railway company buys only electricity produced by hydropower. Of course, whenever they pass a nuclear power plant, the electricity that makes the train move probably comes from there…
[QUOTE=Tups;179457]While in reality there’s just one national grid, in many markets (such as Finland) you can choose the company that produces the electricity and thus have some control over what method (hydropower, wind, nuclear, burning seals or “whatever is the cheapest”) is used. Of course, the actual electricity you use right now is probably produced in the nearest power plant, but it’s the big picture that counts. There’s only that much that one consumer can do, but when everyone gets to choose, it can and will affect the decisions made by the electricity companies when it comes to building new capacity. Unfortunately lately it’s been wind power built with state support, and as a result there have been cold winter days when we have almost run out of electricity in the country because some fossil fuel power plants have been taken permanently off the grid…
Anyway, the state-owned railway company buys only electricity produced by hydropower. Of course, whenever they pass a nuclear power plant, the electricity that makes the train move probably comes from there…[/QUOTE]
Which means, in reality, that there is no 100% hydroelectric rail system. . . you are exchanging with an engineer here. . .
[QUOTE=cmakin;179503]Which means, in reality, that there is no 100% hydroelectric rail system. . . you are exchanging with an engineer here. . .[/QUOTE]
Well, there is always Norway… :>
