Carbon Dioxide From Ships at Sea To Be Regulated For First Time (theguardian.com) 136
Carbon dioxide from ships at sea will be regulated for the first time following a historic agreement reached after two weeks of detailed talks in London. From a report: Shipping companies will halve their greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 under the plan, brokered by the International Maritime Organization and binding across its 170 member states. The agreement will require a revolution among ships, which are overwhelmingly fuelled by heavy oils at present. In future, they will have to not only be more energy-efficient, but also make use of cleaner energy, in the form of batteries supplying electricity, solar and wind electricity generation, and perhaps even a return to sail in some cases, or more controversially to nuclear power, as some warships already use.
Environmental campaigners said the plan was not enough given the urgency of tackling climate change, though they welcomed the deal, which has taken decades of work. Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping and aviation were omitted from the 1997 Kyoto protocol and have been excluded from regulations on carbon ever since, even though shipping is used for 80% of global trade. Although shipping accounts for only about 2% of global carbon emissions, it has been a cause of particular concern, both because of the increased need for transport under the globalising economy and because many ships use dirty, carbon-rich fuels such as heavy diesel, which would be banned in many countries from onshore transport.
Environmental campaigners said the plan was not enough given the urgency of tackling climate change, though they welcomed the deal, which has taken decades of work. Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping and aviation were omitted from the 1997 Kyoto protocol and have been excluded from regulations on carbon ever since, even though shipping is used for 80% of global trade. Although shipping accounts for only about 2% of global carbon emissions, it has been a cause of particular concern, both because of the increased need for transport under the globalising economy and because many ships use dirty, carbon-rich fuels such as heavy diesel, which would be banned in many countries from onshore transport.
But now how will we bring back coal powered ships! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: But now how will we bring back coal powered sh (Score:1)
How are you suggesting to create new steel then?
Re: But now how will we bring back coal powered sh (Score:4, Informative)
Coking coal doesn't need to be mined from underground. Charcoal from wood or biomass can also be used to create new steel.
Also, it's possible to use electrolysis instead of coal to make steel, but the technology to do that on a large scale is still a few years away.
Re: (Score:2)
Using charcoal would deforest the planet. Besides, it is way dirtier than using coal to create coke.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you do it the same way it was done 2,000 years ago.
There are environmentally-friendly ways of making charcoal.
https://wiki.duke.edu/display/... [duke.edu]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're changing the question again. First you said, "But how will we make steel"? Then, you said, "OK, you can make steel without coal, but it's dirty" and now, "But how much steel can you make with clean charcoal"?
You keep moving the bar. Steel was made without coal for millennia, using charcoal. Steel can be made without coal using electrolysis. In our lifetime, we will see a time when coal is best left in the ground. We might already be there.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not moving the bar, they're asking you questions that you should have the answer to because you're the one who's made the claim. There's a reason why we don't use those other sources. There's a big reason why we don't use biomass for carbon content, it's expensive, it's worse for the environment. Not only that but while you can use say food biomass, we don't because it's better to use food scrap biomass to feed to livestock. Don't think any of this hasn't been tried before, it has.
But look at you
Re: (Score:2)
Good option, but it requires two things: Cheap hydrogen, and cheap electricity for it to be feasible in an industrial scale. On the flipside of that, I can see where it would be very useful in zero-g manufacturing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: But now how will we bring back coal powered s (Score:2, Informative)
Speed. The Mayflower took 66 days to reach the US. Modern cargo ships can take on average 14 days shipping from China to US.
Re: But now how will we bring back coal powered (Score:2)
Is England->US the same distance as China->US? Otherwise you went out of your way to specifically compare apples to oranges.
Re: (Score:2)
Is England->US the same distance as China->US? Otherwise you went out of your way to specifically compare apples to oranges.
Actually the OP was being very generous. The Mayflower traveled approximately 2750 miles from Plymouth, England to Cape Cod, USA. Shanghai to L.A. is about 6564 miles.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just wait for someone to point out that is you use the wind you will somehow alter the natural balance of something, taking energy where the earth was using it, and then affecting something or other.
Some have brought that up for wave and tide generation .
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'll bite.
Using wind will alter the natural balance of wind currents... but not in any sort of significant way, especially weighed against sticking with fossil fuels.
The fact that you were expecting someone to point out the negatives of using wind for shipping is worrying, especially given your signature. It's like you are just primed and ready to rage. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
Re: (Score:2)
They do need wind, which isn't always available.
Re: (Score:2)
They do need wind, which isn't always available.
They would still need engines for maneuvering in port, and they could also use them if becalmed. Lack of wind is only a problem in the subtropical ridge or "horse latitudes" around 30 degrees N & S. Most shipping takes great-circle routes further north into the "roaring forties" or "furious fifties" where there is no lack of wind.
SkySails [wikipedia.org] operate higher above sea level, where winds are stronger and more reliable. They can also be retrofitted onto existing ships.
Re: But now how will we bring back coal powered sh (Score:4, Informative)
Sailboats have actually advanced a long way in recent decades. A modern clipper ship would look quite different from the old ones.
The advantage to wind powered ships is that they don't need fuel! Think of the money the industry would save.
But they DO need fuel. They will need fuel to navigate though ports and shipping channels when the wind isn't favorable. They will also have power needs for the comfort of the crew and the operation of the ship. Maybe not as much fuel, but you are going to need some. The ships will be significantly more expensive to build, and only marginally less to operate.
The problem really the reliability of the wind and keeping up scheduled arrivals at ports where dock space is scheduled weeks in advance. You have to deliver cargo on time, or you are going to have a hard time staying in business. If you could operate in places where the wind is consistently blowing in favorable directions, it might work, but for large container ship operations, I seriously doubt it would pay (or they'd already be doing this).
Re: (Score:3)
Sailboats have actually advanced a long way in recent decades. A modern clipper ship would look quite different from the old ones.
The advantage to wind powered ships is that they don't need fuel! Think of the money the industry would save.
They don't use sails to replace the usual motors but to supplement them. If you do an image search for maps of trade winds you'll find that on some routes in some directions, the wind blows from behind for most of the trip. Some prototypes have reported a 15% or greater reduction in fuel consumption using sail.
The sails are all computer controlled and furled/unfurled by motors. The ships may use more conventional mast styles or some designs use large kite sails.
Here's an old article on a kite sail : https:/ [newatlas.com]
Just dump it in the US. (Score:1, Funny)
Just hold onto all your carbon. Then when you dock at the US, just release it all into the atmosphere.
Sure you poison major commerce areas, but Americans won't believe the science (so people dying will just be an act of God), and welcome these ships as an economic boom.
Win win.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Just dump it in the US. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, But the ones in power are, and are too interested in keeping their political position then to actually stand up for what is right.
Re: (Score:2)
And nothing about sulfur? (Score:5, Informative)
CO2 for planes would have been interesting.
Re:And nothing about sulfur? (Score:4, Funny)
CO2 for planes would have been interesting.
The California legislature already has plans to pass laws requiring all aircraft operating in California airspace to employ sails for propulsion, thereby using 100% renewable energy sources and eliminating their CO2 emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
The California legislature already has plans to pass laws requiring all aircraft operating in California airspace to employ sails for propulsion, thereby using 100% renewable energy sources and eliminating their CO2 emissions.
I cans ell you wind-powered airplanes (see that propeller at the front?) that should meet renewable energy mandates.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard there's a clever guy in California who has designed a plane that can fly downwind faster than the wind. He just needs a few million...
Re:And nothing about sulfur? (Score:4, Informative)
Hey, I'm a clever guy from California. Would you pay a few million be introduced to the concept of Dynamic Soaring? Never mind, you got it for free. https://www.wired.com/2009/06/... [wired.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And nothing about sulfur? (Score:5, Informative)
That's actually in the works. The Committee for Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) under the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is working on defining a standard. I'd heard the new standard wouldn't impact anything coming out over the next few years.
However the reality is that manufacturers continue to push for reduced fuel consumption as fuel is one of the most significant operating costs of an airline. No one is lining up to buy gas guzzling aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So don't stop the way ships run.
Re: And nothing about sulfur? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't read the detailed text of the agreement, but it seems like even if they concentrate on CO2 it will just force the ships to clean up their sulfur emissions too anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
A large ship emits as much SO2 as millions of cars. Yet they regulate CO2 for ships?
Firstly, SO2 is largely a local pollutant and not a global one like CO2.
Secondly, SO2 most definitely is regulated. It was many years ago when we stopped burning high SO2 bunker fuel in population centres for this very reason. The amount of SO2 emitted by ships has been actively driven down since the 1960s where it seems we can't go half a decade without a new standard putting more downward pressure in SOx and NOx emissions.
CO2 however is a tough one to crack since it has far less to do with the composition
Re:And nothing about sulfur? (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: I work in the shipping industry (on the bulk cargo ship owning and operating side) so I'm obviously biased but I couldn't keep reading this post and comments that contain so much false info and general horse-shit without weighing in with a few points.
1) SOX is regulated in the industry. Vessels are limited to burning heavy fuel oil with a max sulphur content of 3.5% at sea and distillate fuels (LSMGO) with a max content of 0.1% in any Emissions Control Area (ECA). Presently there are ECAs around Europe, North America and, some parts of China. They also exist around any island territory of the US. By 2020 the sulphur content at sea will be limited to 0.5% and 0.01% in any ECA.
2) Some AC close to 1st post stated that shipping by sea is the least efficient most expensive method of transporting anything. Really? Shipping is the most efficient method of moving X product by Y tonne of GHG emitted per mile / nautical mile / kilometre. A quick Google search can provide you with dozens of formulas to support this. However for your ease of reference, a modern bulk carrier can move 30,000MT of product from Rotterdam to New York in 10 days and will consume roughly 139MT of HFO and 134MT of LSMGO to do so. I'd like to see someone do that with a plane / train / truck and calculate how much fuel they would burn to do so.
3) For many, many reasons, most of them admittedly self serving, any modern 1st class shipping company is already light years ahead of any government regulations in regards to reducing their carbon footprint, exposure to environmental damage etc.
Whilst the article points to regulations coming into effect, it hardly covers all the steps the industry has taken until now and general public knowledge on this industry is really lacking.
Re: (Score:2)
Some time this year ships have to switch from bunker oil to #2 fuel oil (diesel).
Bad news if you drive a diesel car.
Makes me wonder what will happen to bunker oil from now on.
Bunker oil will begin to replace traditional "fracking" fluids. That would certainly cause blood to shoot from the eyes of more than a few environmentalists. :D
Strat
Most-efficient means of transport... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You failed basic math didn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
If I double my efficiency, that means I use half as much fuel for the same amount of work.
Right, which you subsequently make up for with twice as much work.
You failed basic math didn't you?
At the same time you were failing basic economics, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess you failed at basic reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's talking about demand. Demand hasn't directly driven supply for almost a century now; if it did, automakers would switch to a 10 year cycle, rather than building millions of brand new cars every year that don't get sold.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prop-driven aircraft aren't necessarily slow -- read about ducted fans.
In most "jet" aircraft today, the turbine doesn't provide much thrust itself, but drives a ducted turbofan. This ducted turbofan could be driven with a hydrogen-burning turbine, a methane-burning turbine, or even electrically.
Better yet, replace flights under 500-600 miles with higher-speed trains. Easy enough to power from an overhead wire with current technology, and at 150mph you're talking comparable travel times when you include b
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, replace flights under 500-600 miles with higher-speed trains. Easy enough to power from an overhead wire with current technology, and at 150mph you're talking comparable travel times when you include boarding, takeoff, landing, etc.
First you need to make it cost effective. Second you need cheap energy, which would likely mean nuclear. That's something environmentalists argue against. Third, you need to get around the various environmental regulations. Fourth, you now need to deal with the nimbysim. Fifth, you now need to go back to government to get approval for steps 3 through 4, and update step 4 to bring it into line with step 5.
Once you're done all of that, we'll see you in about 60 years and a cost over-run of $400B-1.8T.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
same with liquid fueled rockets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Don't know how feasible biofeuls would be as its highly refined, but maybe
Re:Most-efficient means of transport... (Score:5, Insightful)
You go after the largest achievable net reductions.
Globally 50 million tons of airfreight cargo are carried. Container ships alone carry 1.7 billion tons of cargo annually, and bulk container ships like ore carriers and tankers carry even more than that. You're going to have to achieve huge net increases in airplane efficiency to equal a marginal improvement in ship efficiency, and it's not like people have been ignoring aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
And increasing the efficiency of airplanes that are flying is going to be like pulling hen's teeth.
Consider this: Increasing the efficiency of an airliner's jet engine has reverberating positive effects on the airlines bottom line. A 5% increase in the engine's efficiency can mean:
-the plane has more range with the same fuel (often, the airliner would like to wait to fill up where the fuel would be cheaper)
-can carry less fuel, allowing for more paying passengers
-can carry less fuel, allowing for more pa
Maximize fuel efficiency (Score:2)
to maximize fuel use
Ahh thats why American airlines keep going broke. Try minimizing fuel use instead :)
Re: Most-efficient means of transport... (Score:2)
Ships contribute 2% of total greenhouse gases - cutting it in half leaves us with a 1% reduction in total greenhouse gases, unless shipping volume increases...
If each ship emits half as much greenhouse gasses in 2050 compared with 2018, but more ships are at sea, it's possible that greenhouse gases in 2050 will exceed current 2018 levels. That's a good thing, as it might otherwise increase more without this agreement, but don't pretend this is some grand fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Most-efficient doesn't mean optimally efficient or doesn't have more impact then less efficient methods.
So lets say a cargo ship can ship 1 ton of material 600 miles on 1 gallon gas. But a cargo ship may carry 150,000 tons of product, and travel for thousands of miles. That is a lot of fuel used. So it may be more efficient then other means, it is still a big polluter. And we shouldn't use the fact that is the most efficient as an excuse not to make it better.
nuclear power? Will they come with a full marine u (Score:2)
nuclear power? Will they come with a full marine unit or just rent a cops at low wages?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: nuclear power? Will they come with a full mari (Score:1)
Actually, most international ships carry no guns. Didn't you pay attention to "Captain Phillips"? Somehow most shipping companies have decided that even in the face of modern piracy, no guns is safer than trigger-happy sailors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but with nuclear you will need or Captain Phillips 2 will start with a dirty bomb
Nuclear propulsion (Score:1, Troll)
They could use thorium, which is safer than uranium.
Still dangerous since a notable percentage of ships can be counted on to sink. Doesn't really matter though since nuclear powered cargo ships [wikipedia.org] have been tried and they were not economically competitive. Thorium will not solve that problem. Plus insurance is a huge problem for civilian nuclear vessels.
You could design the ships in such a way that the last-ditch safety mechanism for the reactor would be to eject the core into the ocean, where it would have essentially infinite cooling.
And how do you plan to account for the now radioactive particles that will be conveniently spread throughout the ocean? Cooling is not the main problem with nuclear propulsion - pollution is.
Also don't most cargo ships employ their own private security anyway? Just arm them better against pirates.
Historically no,
Re: Nuclear propulsion (Score:2)
Crews on modern cargo ships are quite small, adding a security force would double salary and crew space required - and to what end? They'd ultimately be there serving the same function as a bank guard - to make the patrons feel safer, and to handover their gun if confronted by a bank robber.
Cargo is insured, crew has escape options, and it's hard to hide a container ship in open water.
Insurance is the big cost (Score:2)
Carbon taxes on traditional ships could make nuclear power competitive again?
Interesting thought though politically rather difficult since it involves getting a lot of countries to agree and cooperate. But the real cost to nuclear comes in the form of insurance and maintenance. The carbon offset is important but something of a minor player in the economics for the time being.
Realistically though I think the notion of nuclear fission based propulsion for civilian cargo ships is probably never going to become a widespread reality without some sort of technological breakthrough. Too
32 years out (Score:2, Troll)
And they won't make that date either.
Exempted from Kyoto... LOL. What a joke. Not ratifying these shake down scam agreements is among the best and most admirable thing the US has ever done and the citizens of the US deserve credit for not being suckers.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course the shipbuilding countries were OK with it - everybody has to retrofit their ships, or buy new ones, and the extra buried profit can be arbitrarily high, because they *have no choice, by fiat*.
Of course, this will also increase costs for basic good, like an extremely regressive tax, increasing the gap from rich too poor. Well done!
Re: (Score:2)
pfft, shipping costs are small percentage of cost of goods. get a grip
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A commercial vessel also typically only runs for 20 to 25 years before being sent to the breakers where it's cut up and recycled by 3rd world workers in horrendous conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
you're confused, that is all part of shipping costs. really.
bigger and more efficient ships are built all the time anyway, it's why there are shipbuilders with *growing* order lists
the builders and operators are EXTREMELY interested in fuel savings
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this will also increase costs for basic good, like an extremely regressive tax, increasing the gap from rich too poor. Well done!
Better to have more intense hurricanes and rising sea levels. That hits the rich in their oceanfront properties harder than the poor, so it's like a progressive tax!
Re: (Score:3)
I think you fail to consider that with climate change, definition of oceanfront property is not limited to houses currently build near the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is so economical, why do they need to switch bases on governmental fiat? One of the biggest cost centers in any shipping operation is fuel cost. If that can be eliminated...SCORE!!
Re: (Score:2)
If it is so economical, why do they need
They don't need. Need doesn't come into it. I earn close to $100 an hour, yet I will still stop to pickup a penny.
Aaand the EU goes in to the lead! (Score:2)
...With a fleet of wind-powered cargo ships made of sustainable forest materials, based on ancestral proven designs.
Sail and nuclear ? (Score:1)
Could someone knowledgeable (As opposed as someone with opinions) tell us more technical details here ?
The experiments i heard about were with classical oil guzzling cargoes which used wind as an additional source of propulsion to decrease fuel consumption. Long ago i heard about experiments with big kites. It seemed cute but i haven't heard about them since. More recently i read about other ships using vertical cylindrical sail using the Magnus effect.
Each time the advertised fuel saving were modest. Not m
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power on a big ship would make sense if the cheap oil they currently burn is outlawed; really there's no other viable alternative. Sails on a big ship won't do anything, nor will batteries or solar panels.
This new regulation is nothing more than feel-good public relations anyway, they set the date so far out in the future nothing is going to change until it's time to kick the can down the road again.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power on a big ship would make sense if the cheap oil they currently burn is outlawed; really there's no other viable alternative. Sails on a big ship won't do anything, nor will batteries or solar panels.
Depends on the size of the sail(s) and how they're operated. You're right, the traditional thought of a sailing ship with masts and fore/aft or square rigged sails near the surface is a non-starter when it comes to commercial shipping. Too labour intensive, and not enough power.
The proposed wind power techniques for large vessels is to fly (very) large kites/parachutes at a significant altitude. These would be computer controlled/winch operated, and wouldn't require a significant crew to deploy, stow, or op
Re: (Score:1)
Also rotor ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But as far as i know such systems are experimental and used as a complement only.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite having completed trouble-free crossings of the North Sea and Atlantic the power consumed by spinning 15m tall drums was vastly disproportionate to the propulsive effect when compared with conventional screws (propellers).
They don't complement conventional engines at all, they consume a lot of energy to provide a small amount of forward force.
Re: (Score:2)
The proposed wind power techniques for large vessels is to fly (very) large kites/parachutes at a significant altitude.
Whoever is proposing that has no engineering background. A big ship requires over 100,000 hp to move it through the water; a kite on a cable isn't going to do it.
Way ahead of you. (Score:2)
One of my first IPOs was a shipping company (Score:2)
Back in the 1990s, I invested in various IPOs, including firms that did shipping, but used more modern ship designs that were far more efficient than older style ships, and had a vastly reduced emissions profile as a result.
Made a killing on that - since fuel consumption was lower and they could meet all the new regulations in a number of foreign ports on emissions and get green shipping contracts, they did very very well.
Adapt. The world won't wait for your excuses.
(caveat: I sold out my shares from that
Re: (Score:1)
Citation
UW News 2017-09-07 [washington.edu]
It's science.
Re: (Score:2)
The data are interesting; however, to draw a conclusion on storm intensity (which isn't defined in the paper) from lightning strikes is a stretch. If you look world-wide [wwlln.net], the trend is a lot of lightning strikes along the equator, where the local strike concentration is higher. Especially in the region of that paper.
Remember, science is the continued review of the hypothesis with testing and observation, not an interesting data set.
Re: (Score:2)
You can always tell when the knowledgeable cliimate "skeptics" show up to the conversation, because they make the most carefully-reasoned arguments.
Re: This is great news (Score:2)
Granted, they burn oil that's considered waste, and I'm unsure what we'd do with that, but to me, it's what nations should have agreed upon before nearly anything else.
No, they shouldn't - the entirety of the global shipping fleet produces exactly 2% of all greenhouse gases, a small, small percentage of the greenhouse gases produced thru bovine flatulance (cow farts).
That's like saying "my doctor told me to cut down on my salt intake, so I plugged up a couple holes on top of my salt shaker so the salt comes out slower"...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bison don't emit greenhouse gasses.
Citation needed. Bison are bovines just like cows and they have a similar digestive system. The answers on this page [quora.com] seem to indicate bison put out a large amount of methane, just like cows. Of course, they also exhale CO2 just like all animals so that's at least two greehouse gasses they emit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kangaroos, good lean meat and no flatulence.
Re: Finally! (Score:2)
Cargo ships contribute 2% of all greenhouse gases. If we scuttled all oil-burning ships immediately we'd see a 2% decrease. Wow.
If you teach cows not to fart you've got a much bigger impact on reducing greenhouse gases.
Re: (Score:2)
Cargo ships contribute 2% of all greenhouse gases. If we scuttled all oil-burning ships immediately we'd see a 2% decrease. Wow.
If you teach cows not to fart you've got a much bigger impact on reducing greenhouse gases.
WRONG!
The 2% of carbon emissions that ships emit is 'ancient' carbon, coming from petroleum. Meanwhile, cows do not drink oil. The 7% of carbon that comes from cows was sucked out of the atmosphere by plants last year. The yearly cycling of some of the existing atmospheric carbon through grass and then through cows is meaningless in comparison to new emissions of ancient carbon into the air.