Posted on 05/23/2018 11:45:07 AM PDT by rey
Last week it was revealed that 54 oil tankers are anchored off the coast of Britain, refusing to unload their fuel until prices have risen. But that is not the only scandal in the shipping world. Today award-winning science writer Fred Pearce – environmental consultant to New Scientist and author of Confessions Of An Eco Sinner – reveals that the super-ships that keep the West in everything from Christmas gifts to computers pump out killer chemicals linked to thousands of deaths because of the filthy fuel they use. We've all noticed it. The filthy black smoke kicked out by funnels on cross-Channel ferries, cruise liners, container ships, oil tankers and even tugboats. It looks foul, and leaves a brown haze across ports and shipping lanes. But what hasn’t been clear until now is that it is also a major killer, probably causing thousands of deaths in Britain alone. As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars. Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations. But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use. Thanks to decisions taken in London by the body that polices world shipping, this pollution could kill as many as a million more people in the coming decade – even though a simple change in the rules could stop it.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
“The cost of nuclear maintenance would be far too much for any shipping company.”
Possibly not so. The primary nuclear costs are one time, and yes with SOME higher operational costs, but with long periods before any “refueling”. If those costs are amortized over all the years oil would have had to be purchased - with the generally over time increasing cost of oil - the total costs may not be that much greater in the long run.
As far as pirates and terrorists, try as they might it is most likely they would not get what they were after.
Maybe one day, we’ll see thousands of these beauties all across the globe!.....................ONLY BIGGER!...................
More fuel for the “build local, buy local” crowd.
/pun not intended, but funny, anyway.
“some” higher operation costs? Most heavy labor on freighters is by 3rd world workers who make less than our minimum wage. They are treated like dogs because consequences outside the ship with diesel engines are minimal.
Reactors need far more qualified, far more expensive and far more rested personnel to be on duty at all times. The ancillary systems needed for a reactor have similar breakdown rates as diesel except the consequences of a breakdown are catastrophic That is why they must be constantly cleaned and worked on like white-glove boutique items. AND every system is multiplied for redundancy so it further multiplies the already expensive labor. You can’t get away with faulty work or temporary measures in a reactor like you can with diesel.
Just because you can’t build a fission device with the nuclear fuel, doesn’t mean you cant make a dirty bomb or force the reactor to meltdown once it is near a target. Not only do you need security for outside pirates but also intense watch for inside sobatuers. Plenty of medicated suicidal wackos out there are willing to kill as many people as they can. We dont even leave pilots alone in the cockpit these days and meltdown in a major port city would be many magnitudes worse.
“The ancillary systems needed for a reactor have similar breakdown rates as diesel except the consequences of a breakdown are catastrophic.”
Those are ancillary systems as you admit - ancillary, and thus their breakdown rate it not likely to be higher. And our military navies have already years of experience on how such ancillary system breakdowns are handled, safely, on our nuclear powered fleets - for which quite obviously there is not a history of “catastrophic” disasters.
I have agreed there is more one time costs for the nuclear unit, as well as higher paid human resources, but without doing any math that still includes the possibility that those costs, over the long term, may be collectively higher than the ever and ongoing constant refueling costs of the diesel powered ship.
As far as the pirates, I know what our military thinks (and has plans for) in such an instance, and how adaptable those plans are in a commercial case, but on the knowledge that loose lips sink ships, I’ll let you do your own research to find there are solutions to your concern.
Total fantasy article
Bunker C is basically asphalt liquified and burned
It does release a lot of sulfur
These engines can be convert to diesel number three
Costs wil go up
Ban volcanos
“You cannot turn off Windows 10 updates completely or permanently. “
Yes you can. Just read what I said. I have been denying Win 10 to run any updates for nearly a year now. Yes, it is not “disabling” anything. It just forces windows to ask if it is OK to run the update (because you have your Internet connection set to metered). No it does not stop Win 10 from asking, again and again (as often as i explained it will), but each time you just decline the update. It does work, no matter what Micrsosoft says, and my un-updated Win 10 machines has no problems getting to and using the Internet. That’s a fairy tale that Microsoft can monitor who is reaching the Internet with a Win 10 machine that has not been updated, and stop it’s Internet access.
The systems are basic mechanics and break down all the time. Motors, pumps, valves, pipes, etc. They are present and similar in every type of ship engine. Piston, turbine, nuclear.
The difference with nuclear is you can’t have any of the components fail for even a few minutes without absolutely having a redundant backup in place to go online immediately. Redundancy and mission-critical systems multiply the cost of everything in a plant.
There may be a point where is becomes profitable if fuel is extremely expensive but the safety concerns are such that it will likely never be allowed. The government allows private stationary plants but with extreme oversight and multiple extensive security perimeters in reasonably remote areas. Such a thing is not possible on a freighter that travels to major ports around the globe. Only on military vessels with capability to fight back against a military attack is it safe.
There are some inherently safe reactor designs that I am hopeful for but they are still prohibitively expensive and inneficient for private industry.
My lungs aren't clogged. Are your lungs clogged?
I've lived by the ocean all my life by some of the busiest seaports in the world.
This article is such hysterical tripe.
“You cannot turn off Windows 10 updates completely or permanently. “
Yes you can. Just read what I said. I have been denying Win 10 to run any updates for nearly a year now. Yes, it is not “disabling” anything. It just forces windows to ask if it is OK to run the update (because you have your Internet connection set to metered). No it does not stop Win 10 from asking, again and again (as often as i explained it will), but each time you just decline the update. It does work, no matter what Micrsosoft says, and my un-updated Win 10 machines has no problems getting to and using the Internet. That’s a fairy tale that Microsoft can monitor who is reaching the Internet with a Win 10 machine that has not been updated, and stop it’s Internet access.
All “problems” are opportunities waiting solutions and usually when humans put our will to solving them we can. I have confidence that one day we will end debates over carbon, because most of the world will be powered by nuclear in one fashion or another, directly or indirectly.
Liberals hate math.
I agree with most of your post, but when it comes to military ships, I think that it's more of a calculated risk, given that such ships' ultimate intent is to, if necessary, go into harms' way. Of course, the idea is also that "harms' way" not be right on the US coastline!
The industry is going to low sulfur fuel oil.
We had a ship run aground, some years back. Feds burned it in place. It split into two pieces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.