Live data from Hacker News

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

independent.co.uk

121–130 of 155 posts

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

#121

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.

Nine nuclear submarines have sunk so far. They did not release significant amounts of radiation. Sinking a reactor generally does not lead to compromise of the containment, singe pressures are higher in the reactor as compared to its surroundings. Sinking reduces the pressure gradient. One would probably have to puncture the reactor to experience a catastrophic event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submari...

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

#125
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of experiments and even production ships with sails these days. Google for "sails on container ships" for lots of nice pictures and articles. The sails don't look like historic sails - they are often rotors that look like cylinders. Maersk's Pelican, for example, is supposed to get 10% from its rotor sails. Tangent: why do wind turbines look so conventional, with their propellers? There is a lot online…

> Tangent: why do wind turbines look so conventional, with their propellers? There is a lot online about vertical axis wind turbines etc, but I've never seen one. Not sure if they still exist but east of SF on 580 (Altamonte pass?) I think there are still some.

I don't think there are any left that are visible from the freeway. I remember them being touted as a newer more efficient design, I wonder why they have been replaced by more traditional designs?

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

#126

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.…

Don't most laws work like this:

"As of Date X, Y will be illegal." So refiners basically stop making high Sulphur diesel, but date X is far enough in the future that there's time to use it all up before the law takes effect.

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

#127
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…

The waste water can be diluted till any standard is satisfied, but nevertheless same amount of acid and heavy metals ended up in the ocean and that is wrong.

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

#128

There are a number of problems with this accusation. (1) The requirement is that the sulphur is not released into the air. This is the rule adopted by a standards body. Why exactly is it cheating to dump it into the ocean instead? (2) It is unclear that this is a bad thing. The article only cited the danger of dumping the chemicals in a port, where concentrations could reach dangerous levels due to concentration. It…

No magic necessary here. Companies know very well that releasing sulphur and heavy metals into the environment, regardless if air or water, is harmful. It was scientifically proven that heavy metals tend to concentrate in the food chain. They could switch to refined (low sulfur) oil tomorrow, that is not a technical problem.

But, as others explain, the ownership of shipping companies is structured to avoid any direct responsibility, so voluntary decision that goes against the inertia is hard, and regulation is difficult in international waters.

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

#129
Bit of context on what they call IMO 2020 regulation.

TLDR: this is regulation that moves us towards a cleaner and more environmentally friendly industry, but it's a small step in a larger effort to make shipping environmentally friendly.

Couple of questions to answer: 1. What is IMO 2020, and what is the intent of the law? 2. How can shipping lines comply? And how is it enforced? 3. How disruptive is this for the industry? 4. Does this help us as a society?

1. IMO 2020 is regulation to reduce the amount of sulphur in the exhaust gasses of all vessels. It's a landmark achievement by an international organization (International Maritime Office) to ensure the world has signed up for this. 2. Shipping lines (and this includes all vessels) can comply in multiple ways (in order of use): 1. Use low sulphur diesel which is much more expensive than what they use now, 2. Install scrubbers (or what this article calls cheat devices) to scrub the sulphur out. There are 2 type of scrubbers: open and closed. The open one is called "cheating device" as it scrubs sulphur from the bunker, but dumps it via an open connector with sea water in sea. The closed one collects the sulphur so it can be safely disposed. It is questionable whether the open devices are net positive on the world, and different studies show different results. 3) use LNG. Most ports have indicated that they will only allow vessels that comply. Some countries, mostly developing nations, have already indicated that compliance is not needed, but all major ports on the East-West trades will comply and therefore it will impact most of cargo flows. 3. This will be very disruptive. There is now all of a sudden too much high sulphur bunker, and too little diesel. Price spread will increase rapidly when we approach January 1st 2020. Cargo will become more expensive. That said, refiners will benefit as well power generation in countries where they don't care about sulphur. Refiners will make more money on low sulphur diesel as diesel prices will go up (more demand), power generators in mostly developing nations will buy the sulphuric bunker to lower their fuel costs. 4. Yes, it does help. It’s a small step towards 2050, which is target for IMO to decarbonize the industry. This is an industry with long and large asset cycles, and change therefore is slow.

So: is the device cheating? No it’s perfectly allowed. Only a smaller share of all vessels will use, and most others will shift to low sulphur diesel. So it should be net positive for the world. This is how we look at it at Flexport.

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

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nine nuclear submarines have sunk so far. They did not release significant amounts of radiation. Sinking a reactor generally does not lead to compromise of the containment, singe pressures are higher in the reactor as compared to its surroundings. Sinking reduces the pressure gradient. One would probably have to puncture the reactor to experience a catastrophic event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nucl…

Like you said: The submarines sunk. The reactors did not blow up. Now think about what happens when one on a container ship actually blows up (e.g. because the ship was attacked to make it blow up), and also consider the different scale of a container ship to a nuclear sub, which of course means you need a different size reactor.
Post reply on HN