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

111–120 of 155 posts

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

#111

Post by sanxiyn »

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.

The linked article makes the following claim: "the buffering capacity of the world’s oceans can absorb the sulphates without causing harm". This is a factual claim and seems plausible to me. Why do you think it is false?

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

#112

Post by manfredo »

dredmorbius wrote: post #98
manfredo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind doesn't move nearly as much cargo as compared to self-propelled craft. It's true that throughout the 18th and 19th century industrialized nations used wind power to move cargo, but I doubt people are going to be willing to revert to 18th and 19th century standards of living. Global commerce is built on cheap long distance transport, and any climate solution that involves eliminating or drastically reducing globa…

I'm aware of that too. Point remains: direct solar, or battery storage, won't work, at all. Power and energy to load are simply insufficient. Wind can. Synfuels can. Wood pellets can. Scales and tech are manageable. For canal traffic, electric mule traction can. Likewise electrified cable ferries, on limited routes. Nuclear almost certainly won't. Yes, it's technically proven, but the risks, costs, social, and politi…

Wind cannot power modern transoceanic shipping. Modern container ships are 10-100 times the size of sail powered transports. The throughput of wind powered shipping would be tiny.

Biofuels and synthetic fuels are still hydrocarbons - just carbon-neutral ways of producing hydrocarbons. But the amount of forest needed to power ocean going vessels with wood would be immense. I couldn't find global bunker fuel usage, but apparently the port of Singapore sells 50 million tons of bunker fuel each year [1]. Wood has about half the energy density as bunker fuel, so that translates to 100 million tons of wood fuel. Clearcut tree plantations yield 80-90 tons of wood per acre, let's call it 100 for simplicity [2]. So we would need one million acres of tree plantations clear-cut each year just to provide enough fuel for Singapore's fuel consumption. Trees grown for timber take between 25 to 60 years to grow until they are ready for cultivation [3]. So 25 to 60 million acres of tree plantations to provide enough fuel for Singapore. By comparison, Portugal is 23 million acres.

And this isn't even accounting for the fact that the lower energy density of wood fuels means ships will have to dedicate more space for fuel instead of cargo, thus lowering net efficiency.

1. https://blogs.platts.com/2019/07/29/imo-2020-an-opportunity-...

2. https://www.forest2market.com/blog/how-many-tons-of-wood-are...

3. https://www.arborday.org/programs/graphics/conservation-tree...

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

#113

Post by dogma1138 »

Gwypaas wrote: post #105
dogma1138 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

You are making it harder than it is. You can't pump any oil overboard anywhere, well above about 1 ppm if I remember correctly. In the industry you hear all the time about magic pipes being found during port state control and other inspections leading to extremely high fines and prison time. For reference, a magic pipe bypasses the oil separator making you able to discharge anything. Simply add another annex to MARPO…

MARPOL is utterly toothless and not enforced, and also only really covers 12 nautical miles from land.

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

#114

Post by api_or_ipa »

rr-geil-j wrote: post #20
poooogles wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a big forgotten one. The sound of container ships as they go past on shipping lanes is colossal; if you're downwind you can hear them from 3/4 miles away quite well.

I can only imagine how much disruption this have on whales which rely on "singing" to communicate. Probably similar to living near an airport.

I've dived ~1 mile away from anchored cruise ships and it's jarring, and frankly, pretty scary how loud they are. I can only imagine how the whales feel.

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

#116

Post by aeternum »

kardos wrote: post #107
aeternum wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is weather becomes a common-mode failure that affects your entire fleet regardless of size. A week or two of no/light wind, or winds that are too strong mean that everything is delayed. Slower shipping may not be a problem, but unpredictability often is. Few businesses can handle completely unpredictable shipping timelines.

It wouldn't be "completely unpredictable".... pulling some numbers from a hat, let's say powered-ship takes 6 days, wind-ship takes 8-11 days. Depending on the severity of being late you would plan for perhaps 10 days. Or 12 days if missing your port slot is severe. You would be able to track the wind ship, so your window of arrival will narrow as the journey progresses. There must be a portion of the industry that w…

The numbers I've delt with are much higher, powered-ship taking 30-40 days. In which case as slower ship increasing that by the same factor becomes 60-80 days.

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

#117

Post by anticensor »

api_or_ipa wrote: post #114
rr-geil-j wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only imagine how much disruption this have on whales which rely on "singing" to communicate. Probably similar to living near an airport.

I've dived ~1 mile away from anchored cruise ships and it's jarring, and frankly, pretty scary how loud they are. I can only imagine how the whales feel.

They would like to plug their ears.

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

#118

Post by aledalgrande »

rndgermandude wrote: post #70
throwaway391503 wrote: post #64

The solution is nuclear-powered ships.

It's hard enough to secure nuclear power plants. Now imagine a swimming one blew up (by accident, or deliberately) in some water highway, like the street of hormuz, and cause a traffic stop for weeks or even months.

If Thorium reactors ever get completed... this won't be a problem.

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

#119

Post by flyingfences »

dogma1138 wrote: post #26
sdfmmkmsdfmk wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

> In shipping the cost is transferred easily down the line;

Would there not be a competitive advantage in being able to offer a lower price than your competitors to these customers "down the line" or is there some facet of the pricing practices that I'm missing?

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

#120

Post by flyingfences »

linuxftw wrote: post #97
erdgdsgbdfsg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 efficient in the sense that if you compare kgs of goods per km, but it's not efficient when you consider the great distances ships travel versus producing goods domestically, just to put those same goods on rail and trucks anyway.

If you consider the efficiency of shipping finished goods versus shipping the raw material (and, possibly, labor) necessary to produce the goods domestically, how does that affect the comparison?
Post reply on HN