Ships fitted with ‘cheat devices’ to divert poisonous pollution into sea • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by manfredo » Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 11:53 PM UTC

rndgermandude wrote: post #130

manfredo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably the same thing as what happens when an aircraft carrier blows up. Actually, probably less violent because aircraft carriers are also carrying jet fuel and ordnance. And we send those into warzones, nobody seems to mind.

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

#132

Post by dredmorbius » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 12:38 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #112

dredmorbius wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wind cannot power modern transoceanic shipping.

If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. Stein's law.

You seem to think that the present state of affairs is preordained or eternal. It is not.

Today's shipping regime is an accident of current technologies, fuels, and environmental externalities. Future regimes will be shaped by their circumstances, constraints, economies, and values or awareness. They will be quite different from what exists now.

What specifically those will be, I don't know. That they will differ, I am certain.

There are a limited number of ways to power long-range marine shipping. The total energy requirements are such that wind or fuel-based systems are about the only likely candidates. Economies are such that these will likely continue. Compromises such as slower speeds (vastly more efficient) and hybrid power are quite likely. Ship sizes, s schedules, crewing, operations, and total shipping volume, as well as costs, will all but certainly change. These will have significant systemic effects on other activities. Total scale and efficiencies are such that biofuels, as part of a mix may well be part of the solution.

I've been following and writing on this space and developments for some time. You might care to run some keywords through the subreddit previously linked before your next response. A few relevant articles follow.

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

#133

Post by manfredo » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 2:17 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #132

manfredo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wind cannot power modern transoceanic shipping. If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. Stein's law. You seem to think that the present state of affairs is preordained or eternal. It is not. Today's shipping regime is an accident of current technologies, fuels, and environmental externalities. Future regimes will be shaped by their circumstances, constraints, economies, and values or awareness. They will be…

Yes, eventually the Earth will be swallowed by the sun, nothing lasts forever. The point remains, wind cannot power modern transoceanic shipping and neither can trees, deep phrases about the ephemerality of the world notwithstanding.

Hopefully the future regime will be constrained by a means of locomotion that can sustain global commerce such that we don't have to roll back standards of living by the better part of a century. We know this is possible to do with nuclear energy - nuclear maritime propulsion is a mature technology. But the stubborn rejection of nuclear power means that hydrocarbons are here to stay. Fuel synthesis is only feasible with huge amounts of energy. Maybe possible if terrestrial nuclear energy becomes popular, but that too seems like a slim prospect.

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

#134

Post by jooize » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 2:18 AM UTC

ken wrote: post #85

gbrown wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So give it a several year phase-in period, and provide mechanisms to remove/permanently disable the systems.

I feel like I’ve seen this basic plot line before, once or twice. Ending 1: the deadline approaches and nothing has been done, so the deadline is extended, or additional clauses are written to grandfather in the non compliant offenders (who are of course too big to fail ). Ending 2: they find a port that is near the port they want to visit, in a jurisdiction that doesn’t care, and then ship the last mile to the actua…

So countries need to pressure each other’s neighbors into agreements where all of them refuse business with ships that do not follow such regulations?

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

#135

Post by lxmorj » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 2:24 AM UTC

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.…

More efficient than enormous, unmanned self-filling hydrogen dirigibles? They could operate in dedicated lanes away any from population centers...

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

#136

Post by tathougies » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 4:11 AM UTC

rini17 wrote: post #128

tathougies wrote: post #106

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…

'Being bad to the environment' is not actually against the law, especially not in those terms. Perhaps you are confusing morality with law and trying to hold people liable for the former rather than the latter.

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

#137

Post by pas » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:05 AM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #113

Gwypaas wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

12 nm is enough, as most inspections occur close to shore.

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

#138

Post by pas » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:07 AM UTC

jooize wrote: post #134

ken wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like I’ve seen this basic plot line before, once or twice. Ending 1: the deadline approaches and nothing has been done, so the deadline is extended, or additional clauses are written to grandfather in the non compliant offenders (who are of course too big to fail ). Ending 2: they find a port that is near the port they want to visit, in a jurisdiction that doesn’t care, and then ship the last mile to the actua…

So countries need to pressure each other’s neighbors into agreements where all of them refuse business with ships that do not follow such regulations?

This was a good strategy, but the US used it up with its idiotic War on Drugs.

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

#139

Post by rini17 » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #136

rini17 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

'Being bad to the environment' is not actually against the law, especially not in those terms. Perhaps you are confusing morality with law and trying to hold people liable for the former rather than the latter.

You on the other side, insinuate that asking companies to consider any moral obligations requires magic.

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

#140

Post by TaylorAlexander » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 7:52 AM UTC

willvarfar wrote: post #38

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forget the details but vertical axis wind turbines are always less efficient than horizontal axis turbines. Off the top of my head I can't recall if the reason is that vertical axis turbines always have half of the rotor turning against the wind, but there is a basic reason I believe can be found on wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_axis_wind_turbine says > research at Caltech has also shown that a carefully designed wind farm using VAWTs can have an output power ten times that of a HAWT wind farm of the same size etc The cups on the normal wind speed sensor have less drag into the wind. It would be easy to imagine a VAWT where a computer knew the wind direction and feathered the blades on the back sweep et…

Interesting. I think I was wrong that the disadvantages I had seen before were easily found on Wikipedia. But I do see this quora post with bad things to say about VAWTs: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-vertical...