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

61–70 of 155 posts

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

#61

Post by spanktheuser »

When can we start imprisoning people for this sort of activity? It’s clear that fines are a non-functioning solution in a capitalist system as they are subject to cost-shifting to future leadership / shareholders / society.

Within our industry I’ve sat in entirely too many meetings where executives removed basic security investments from the roadmap over the objections of engineering. They understood the risks of doing so; they merely concluded that the personal consequences were both small and unlikely.

It seems to me that our current regulatory framework will remain untenable until enforcement has a very sobering deterrent effect.

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

#62

Post by xkcd-sucks »

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.…

Elemental sulfur isn't all that nasty, it would be fine in a pile somewhere. The issue is dispersing it into ecosystems quickly. Kind of like fixed nitrogen, which like sulfur is a nutrient

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

#63

Post by gbrown »

dogma1138 wrote: post #59
gruez wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

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

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

#65

Post by dogma1138 »

gbrown wrote: post #63
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?

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

That’s what has been done in this case which lead to cheating devices to be installed in the first place.

It’s very hard to near impossible to do or enforce all it takes is a country just by you that is willing to accept them.

People aren’t going to take a huge price hike and countries that are dependent on imports won’t ever enforce such requirements which would leave these vessels out there.

At the end of the day unless you are willing to fund a fleet of 1000’s of new vessels and or pay to upgrade existing ones the shipping companies won’t budge and you won’t ever be able to push them into a corner since the economic fallout would be catastrophic for you but not much for them.

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

#66

Post by Karunamon »

cannonedhamster wrote: post #48
markdown wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL does Snopes fact-check skits now?

Because people will take jokes as reality. See Storm Area 51.

In which case it should be labeled as a joke, not "false". And Snopes has a satire tag for this purpose.

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

#67

Post by stevespang »

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…

Then pass laws that immediately confiscate the entire ship upon verified environmental violations and sell them off at auction, the proceeds go to increase the size and scope of the environmental police agencies . . . .

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

#70

Post by rndgermandude »

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.
Post reply on HN