Towards zero emission shipping

the real problem will be the world will run low on Co2 in the atmosphere and nothing will grow

Why the negative attitude?? Decarbonisation is a long term goal, not something that is intended to happen tomorrow.
There are going to be many steps and probably some that is in the wrong direction, but we are talking 2050 (30 years from now)

No Singapore will NOT stop importing crude oil and natural gas tomorrow. But if better ways to produce energy is available, or the market for petroleum products disappear, Singapore wants to be prepared for it. Anything wrong with that??

Ships will NOT run on solar, or be built of wood, nor is that anything that is considered by the industry… Find something else to complain about. (Or better still; find a solution to the problems, not just the problems)

They would be too heavy unless labor gets cheap and plentiful enough and they scrap the radiation exposure regulations.

It might be more economical to use an airburst nuke to fell the whole forest at once à la Tunguska and then use horses to drag the logs out.

image

1 Like

all ships/trucking should be LNG easy to do today and black rain will go away in most cities.
Not to mention huge C02 drop
Just look at shipping, has been talk for years, some have done scrubbers just to get over the sulphur issue which they could remove from the fuel in the first place but basically NOTHING has been done for a very long time except to keep talking about the next best thing.
Its all just fake news for shareholder and voters
Look at emission cuts from cars in the same time span. USA started fixing that issue in the 70’s, rest of the world took a while to catch up

Ah, a sterling example of the Norwegian sense of humor - or lack thereof.

Maybe you meant this a a joke (very likely)
The argument has been brought up too many time and in too many different threads to be just a joke.
If it was a joke this time, it was an old and worn out one.

Remember Greta Thunberg sailing across the Atlantic?
Even then is was said that the sailboat had to be made out of wood to be “carbon neutral”.

BTW; The difference between “carbon neutral” operation and construction is not that difficult to understand.

As it happens a modern yacht has a giant carbon foot print to construct it and where do all the plastic sails go when you finish with them?

There are several ways old sails are recycled.
I like this one though:
https://www.exesails.com/products-and-services/bags-accessories/why-recycle-sails/?doing_wp_cron=1593775156.9569599628448486328125
Apparently there is a market for your old sails and for the products made from them.

most sails go in the bin as the material has delaminated or has no strength left.
it would be 0.000000000000000001% that can be made into something so make it a double use plastic.
There is also one Italian Company One Sails that is doing something environmentally better with one of their products, I should find out

Long list of companies and individuals that is looking for old sails and offer products made from them. Try Google “Recycling old sails”.

Rotterdam Port (not surprising) are aiming to be among the leaders in the march towards carbon neutral shipping in 2050.
But they are not alone among ports to see opportunities in the development of a carbon free future.


BTW; not only in shipping.

sure and 99% go in the bin thats hundreds of thousands of tons a year.
The freight costs are huge, unless that recycle place is next door who would bother, I can tell you, nobody.
In a huge sailing town they will put a bin for old sails and come and collect it, thats the best I have ever seen.

Since China stopped taking waste plastic I think a few greenies woke up that it was just a pyramid selling scam that plastic was recycled, it just kept getting moved till a dump was found.

1 Like

Future Proof Shipping is expanding it’s effort to develop an emission free shipping future:
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/future-proof-shipping-expands-its-team-in-rotterdam/
No they will not build wooden ships.

just another throw away headline with zero substance?

I think there must a be a compliance regulation that says every company must have as press release that they on their way to zero emissions.

1 Like

You’r either just an old cynic, or a naysayer who is trying to find something wrong with everything.

No matter what you think, say and do (if anything) the shipping world is moving towards their 2030 and 2050 targets:
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/a-roadmap-for-ship-decarbonisation/

so the only solution in that post is to go slower to reduce emissions so with that technology as a path to zero emissions means the ship wont leave the dock.

Low sulphur fuel and scrubbers have reduced pollution as for anything else its seems to be just headlines on reduced carbon but almost nothing on how that will be achieved.

I stand by my statement that the industry has done almost nothing compared with just about every other polluting industry in all the years and just likes talking about reduced emissions.

You (deliberately??) keep on confusing “Pollution” and *Greenhouse Gas Emission".

Scrubbers reduce sulphur and particle pollution, but do nothing about GHG emission. Slow steaming only reduce a bit of both.

LNG does much the same and thus NOT a long term solution to reach the 2050 target.(As has been stated repeatedly)

Zero Emission shipping means what then?
choke us to death, make acid rain and black rain but reduce CHG emissions only as thats that only thing shipping needs to do?
The rain is getting less black in Singapore during this lockdown, that’s a nice change.

Not to mention many of your post are referring to zero carbon emissions, so what it is then that the shipping industry has done since the 70’s when most other industries started to do something?
Do they have an mandated environmentally clean anti foul yet?

When a ship emit less GHG it also spew out less soot and less other pollutants.
If (or when) we get to Zero emission shipping that means no emission of any kind.

PS> Since when did Singapore have “Black rain”? There wasn’t any when I left in March this year. Air pollution statistics for Singapore is available on the internet, both past and present. Aside from during the worst haze periods, caused by burning forest in Indonesia and Sarawak, it is mostly in the “Good range”.

That is a bit convoluted and contradictory. The greenhouse gases are (from most to least discharged) carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and methane plus a small percentage of halocarbons.

A highly efficient diesel engine might exhaust slightly less CO2 than an old clunker because it burns less fuel to produce the same amount of power but more efficient combustion also increases NOx emissions due to operating at higher temperature.

Soot or black carbon emissions are reduced when operating at higher temperatures but that increases NOx. Reducing combustion chamber temperature reduces NOx but it meas burning more fuel to achieve the same power and thereby increases CO2 emissions while at the same time it may increase soot and particulate emissions.

Aftertreatment systems to reduce soot and nitrous oxides (NO2) increase NOx because it raises the temperature of the gases in the aftertreatment catalyst. Adding selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to the aftertreatment system to reduce NOx means ammonia emissions and greenhouse gas emissions increase in the production of the urea reductant. Using exhaust gas recirculation to reduce NOx and soot increases fuell burn which increases CO2 emissions.

Going to natural gas fueled diesels may lead to increased NOx emissions as well as increased methane emissions.

There is no free lunch and converting one pollutant to another is in many cases a shell game.

3 Likes