Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ships fitted with ‘cheat devices’ to divert poisonous pollution into sea

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 155 posts

Re: Ships fitted with ‘cheat devices’ to divert poisonous pollution into sea

#51

Post by dogma1138 »

esyir wrote: post #39
dogma1138 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In shipping the cost is transferred easily down the line; capital investment in new vessels and new technologies is pretty slim because of that. Also the time spent in dry dock might as well cost you more than what you’ll gain through the service time of the vessel since many of these vessels change hands frequently sometimes even several times a year. Also because how risk is managed in the shipping industry none of…

Hm, really stupid naive question here. What happens if violating ships were basically seized

Well they don’t have a strong basis to seize the vessels, right of passage is tricky and the vessels don’t turn those on while in territorial waters.

Open systems have a sufficiently large capacity to store the contaminated water so they essentially only open the loop in international waters where no one can do anything about it.

But in general it depends on who does it, for the most part if it’s a western country the country would loose in court since it will he sued by multiple parties with interest in the cargo but no actual liability.

If it’s not then it’s either going to be a political waltz or just another act of piracy.

The ship and cargo are insured some parties might make more money on losing the ship than if it had completed its transit including quite possibly its operator.

Re: Ships fitted with ‘cheat devices’ to divert poisonous pollution into sea

#52

Post by erdgdsgbdfsg »

mogadsheu wrote: post #5

Shipping is a pretty dirty industry, because of fuel quality they use and the general lack of oversight in the middle of the ocean. I was on the board of Corvus Energy ( http://corvusenergy.com ) while working in Norway, whose technology reduces CO2, SOx, NOx, and fuel consumption by up to 30%. One installation was the equivalent of taking 10,000 cars off of the road. Thankfully, there are developments in this space.…

High sulfur diesel is super nasty, and the shipping industry has to clean up, but it's not obvious how.

I mean, let's say we forbid them from using high S diesel. What happens to this diesel then? Do we dump it in tailing ponds? pump it back into the ground? It's not obvious what to do with this. At least at sea S emissions are spread out minimizing impact (as opposed to localized)

I'm not saying not to do anything. I'm asking, what are we to do? (I have some ideas in mind, so it's not impossible)

Re: Ships fitted with ‘cheat devices’ to divert poisonous pollution into sea

#53

Post by i_am_proteus »

erdgdsgbdfsg wrote: post #50
throw0101a wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shipping is a pretty dirty industry, because of fuel quality ... You're not wrong, but no one else is/was using bunker fuel, so might as well burn it, as what else can it be used for? Can it be processed into anything more useful? (The IMO 2020 mandate may help clean things up.) > Bear in mind that shipping is also the most energy efficient form of bulk transportation (vs land or air). I was under the impression th…

No, shipping is the most efficient. Not only are drag loses comparatively small, those two stroke diesels are crazy efficient from a thermodynamic point of view (massive, slow, and high compression ratio -> crazy efficiency).

It's so efficient that barge transport is still preferred to rail where a navigable river is available.

Re: Ships fitted with ‘cheat devices’ to divert poisonous pollution into sea

#54

Post by Tuna-Fish »

erdgdsgbdfsg wrote: post #52
mogadsheu wrote: post #5

Shipping is a pretty dirty industry, because of fuel quality they use and the general lack of oversight in the middle of the ocean. I was on the board of Corvus Energy ( http://corvusenergy.com ) while working in Norway, whose technology reduces CO2, SOx, NOx, and fuel consumption by up to 30%. One installation was the equivalent of taking 10,000 cars off of the road. Thankfully, there are developments in this space.…

High sulfur diesel is super nasty, and the shipping industry has to clean up, but it's not obvious how. I mean, let's say we forbid them from using high S diesel. What happens to this diesel then? Do we dump it in tailing ponds? pump it back into the ground? It's not obvious what to do with this. At least at sea S emissions are spread out minimizing impact (as opposed to localized) I'm not saying not to do anything.…

> I mean, let's say we forbid them from using high S diesel. What happens to this diesel then?

It gets the sulfur refined out of it. It's not hard to do, just not quite as cheap as just burning it somewhere where no environmental regulations exists (or where they are not enforceable).

Re: Ships fitted with ‘cheat devices’ to divert poisonous pollution into sea

#55

Post by dspillett »

sdfmmkmsdfmk wrote: post #10
mogadsheu wrote: post #5

Shipping is a pretty dirty industry, because of fuel quality they use and the general lack of oversight in the middle of the ocean. I was on the board of Corvus Energy ( http://corvusenergy.com ) while working in Norway, whose technology reduces CO2, SOx, NOx, and fuel consumption by up to 30%. One installation was the equivalent of taking 10,000 cars off of the road. Thankfully, there are developments in this space.…

If it reduces fuel consumption by 30%, wouldn't all ships want to have it? Is it too expensive, or what is the problem?

It might be worth finding more detail, preferably externally verified, than a vague "up to 30%" claim before judging it as a no-brainer.

Also from what I know of the shipping industry I would only expect it to be seen on new ships as the cost of retro-fitting would be high even without considering the opportunity cost of the ship needing to be in dry-dock for the operation (and needing to get to and from the dock, if there is not one where the work can be done along its owner's normal routes).

And given ships change hands surprisingly often, how long it takes to hit break even (i.e when the cost of the fuel saved, less any extra maintenance costs the tech may be subject to in that time, equals extra initial outlay) will have a massive effect on whether it is worth it to the initial owner of a new ship.

And a new ship is a huge capital expenditure, with a long lead time from plan to implementation. If the tech is relatively new it may not have existed at all when ships currently rolling into service were conceived, and with that level of capital involved designers are going to be pretty conservative about the risk of trying relatively new tech, so maybe it will become common but at a much later time.

Re: Ships fitted with ‘cheat devices’ to divert poisonous pollution into sea

#56

Post by erdgdsgbdfsg »

azinman2 wrote: post #43
sanxiyn wrote: post #28

If you want to read the other side's argument, here it is, from International Bunker Industry Association: https://ibia.net/facts-and-fears-in-the-open-loop-scrubber-d... The main point is that there is regulation for washwater based on science. The article describes "warm, acidic, contaminated washwater containing carcinogens including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals", but regulation in fact…

I’d argue it should be zero. Ruining our oceans is something that cannot be undone, and there is far too much damage that has and is already occurring in acidifying our oceans and the amount of existing toxic materials. This industry is one of the dirtiest, and least responsible to the world.

"I’d argue it should be zero."

So would I, but that's impossible in meat space for any industry or technology spawned in the last 200 years. I wouldn't mind technologically winding the clock back 200 years, using sail boats and letting my computer wither away (and livelihood, btw). Would you?

"This industry is one of the dirtiest, and least responsible to the world."

True. It's also, by weight and value of goods transported, one of the cleanest. It's a massive industry

Ships have the advantage of being able to dump waste in the middle of the ocean where there is little to no life (too deep, no light, no plants. There is some life). Compared to what other, land based, industries do this is comparatively benign. Here the waste gets diluted by an essentially infinite sink.

Infinite sink you scoff? Yes, depending on where and what you dump.

If you dump brine water off the coast near the Mississippi river, you're doing a lot of damage by significantly changing the salinity locally. Slowly dump the same brine in the middle of the ocean, and nothing will happen.

Similar for heavy metals. These dissolve into salt water, and were already present in solution since the dawn of time. We won't change those numbers significantly. (again, assuming you're not dumping it just off of land like the Japanese did in the 50s)

Plastic is a different ball game. Plastic doesn't dissolve and is carried, and concentrated by ocean currents. That's nasty.

Chemicals and isotopes that don't naturally exist are also nasty. Particularly if they have long half-lives.

Re: Ships fitted with ‘cheat devices’ to divert poisonous pollution into sea

#57

Post by dspillett »

throw0101a wrote: post #34
mogadsheu wrote: post #5

Shipping is a pretty dirty industry, because of fuel quality they use and the general lack of oversight in the middle of the ocean. I was on the board of Corvus Energy ( http://corvusenergy.com ) while working in Norway, whose technology reduces CO2, SOx, NOx, and fuel consumption by up to 30%. One installation was the equivalent of taking 10,000 cars off of the road. Thankfully, there are developments in this space.…

> Shipping is a pretty dirty industry, because of fuel quality ... You're not wrong, but no one else is/was using bunker fuel, so might as well burn it, as what else can it be used for? Can it be processed into anything more useful? (The IMO 2020 mandate may help clean things up.) > Bear in mind that shipping is also the most energy efficient form of bulk transportation (vs land or air). I was under the impression th…

> > Bear in mind that shipping is also the most energy efficient form of bulk transportation (vs land or air).

> I was under the impression that rail transport was. Is that not correct?

It may depend a lot on distance and modernity of rail tech, and also the availability of direct land routes.

Re: Ships fitted with ‘cheat devices’ to divert poisonous pollution into sea

#58

Post by gruez »

dogma1138 wrote: post #51
esyir wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, really stupid naive question here. What happens if violating ships were basically seized

Well they don’t have a strong basis to seize the vessels, right of passage is tricky and the vessels don’t turn those on while in territorial waters. Open systems have a sufficiently large capacity to store the contaminated water so they essentially only open the loop in international waters where no one can do anything about it. But in general it depends on who does it, for the most part if it’s a western country th…

>Open systems have a sufficiently large capacity to store the contaminated water so they essentially only open the loop in international waters where no one can do anything about it.

What about enacting a law that says "if you use cheating devices at all, you can't dock in our ports"?

Re: Ships fitted with ‘cheat devices’ to divert poisonous pollution into sea

#59

Post by dogma1138 »

gruez wrote: post #58
dogma1138 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they don’t have a strong basis to seize the vessels, right of passage is tricky and the vessels don’t turn those on while in territorial waters. Open systems have a sufficiently large capacity to store the contaminated water so they essentially only open the loop in international waters where no one can do anything about it. But in general it depends on who does it, for the most part if it’s a western country th…

>Open systems have a sufficiently large capacity to store the contaminated water so they essentially only open the loop in international waters where no one can do anything about it. What about enacting a law that says "if you use cheating devices at all, you can't dock in our ports"?

>What about enacting a law that says "if you use cheating devices at all, you can't dock in our ports"?

When 99.9% of vessels are doing the cheating, the shipping companies would say you would really like your people to go on a diet don’t you?

Post reply on HN