Biggest polluter of our seas

Last edited:
capnsensible said:
You see I really want it to be wrong and the shipping industry seen to be doing some self inspection.
Click to expand...

The maritime sector is going through a massive period of environmental self-inspection at the moment. IMO has forced through the low-sulphur regs, which no one initially believed could be done. Its new aim is to reduce carbon emissions by half by 2050 c.f. 2008 figures.
The sector itself is looking to go even further than that, and is aiming to get to zero carbon by then. That means coming up with new fuels within the next 10 years so that any ships operating in 2050 will be using low/zero carbon fuel.
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/press/1561
Yes, there's a certain amount of greenwashing in it, but the industry can see which way the wind is blowing both from a regulatory perspective and customer demand (big cargo owners want to show that their tat is being transported environmentally). And I spoke to the chief operating officer at Maersk last year who pointed out that "we all have children too". CMA CGM just launched its first ultra-large LNG fuelled box ship, spending more than it could have got away with to use a low-sulphur/carbon fuel.
They won't get it right all of the time or immediately, but the idea that shipping is some evil empire trying to sneak out of its environmental responsibilities by using open-loop scrubbers is tosh. IMO only said they had to mitigate air emissions, the science regarding open-loops is still being debated (although regulators are closing in on them), and low-sulphur fuel costs are going to make many ships uneconomic to run. Scrubbers may be a less than ideal solution, but they are likely to be a transitional phase on a journey in the right direction.
 
newtothis said:
The maritime sector is going through a massive period of environmental self-inspection at the moment. IMO has forced through the low-sulphur regs, which no one initially believed could be done. Its new aim is to reduce carbon emissions by half by 2050 c.f. 2008 figures.
The sector itself is looking to go even further than that, and is aiming to get to zero carbon by then. That means coming up with new fuels within the next 10 years so that any ships operating in 2050 will be using low/zero carbon fuel.
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/press/1561
Yes, there's a certain amount of greenwashing in it, but the industry can see which way the wind is blowing both from a regulatory perspective and customer demand (big cargo owners want to show that their tat is being transported environmentally). And I spoke to the chief operating officer at Maersk last year who pointed out that "we all have children too". CMA CGM just launched its first ultra-large LNG fuelled box ship, spending more than it could have got away with to use a low-sulphur/carbon fuel.
They won't get it right all of the time or immediately, but the idea that shipping is some evil empire trying to sneak out of its environmental responsibilities by using open-loop scrubbers is tosh. IMO only said they had to mitigate air emissions, the science regarding open-loops is still being debated (although regulators are closing in on them), and low-sulphur fuel costs are going to make many ships uneconomic to run. Scrubbers may be a less than ideal solution, but they are likely to be a transitional phase on a journey in the right direction.
Click to expand...

We are on the same page but reading different paragraphs!

The 2008 figure used as the base line by the IMO is a fiddle factor; in 2008 we were still in the super boom until August and every ship afloat was making full speed. I run some ships which were burning 167 tons a day for 24.5knots in 2008 and which are now burning 57 tons a day for 13 knots. Am I an environmental hero?

I am deeply underwhelmed by LNG as a fuel. I have heard the by pass rate stated as 8% for a diesel and methane as we all know is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. From an economic perspective it is fairly useless stuff as it has a much lower energy density than heavy fuel, so you need twice as much of it.

I am completely un-worried by the higher costs of LSFO; it’s the old level playing field and once we are all burning it there is no issue, but those owners who have gone in for the so called eco ship types with smaller engines and better thermal efficiency will gain the most.

I can see nuclear for the big stuff and some versions of hydrogen ( possibly ammonia) and even batteries for the small ships but ultimately I think we will be back to wind and solar.
 
Last edited:
newtothis said:
The maritime sector is going through a massive period of environmental self-inspection at the moment. IMO has forced through the low-sulphur regs, which no one initially believed could be done. Its new aim is to reduce carbon emissions by half by 2050 c.f. 2008 figures.
The sector itself is looking to go even further than that, and is aiming to get to zero carbon by then. That means coming up with new fuels within the next 10 years so that any ships operating in 2050 will be using low/zero carbon fuel.
https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/press/1561
Yes, there's a certain amount of greenwashing in it, but the industry can see which way the wind is blowing both from a regulatory perspective and customer demand (big cargo owners want to show that their tat is being transported environmentally). And I spoke to the chief operating officer at Maersk last year who pointed out that "we all have children too". CMA CGM just launched its first ultra-large LNG fuelled box ship, spending more than it could have got away with to use a low-sulphur/carbon fuel.
They won't get it right all of the time or immediately, but the idea that shipping is some evil empire trying to sneak out of its environmental responsibilities by using open-loop scrubbers is tosh. IMO only said they had to mitigate air emissions, the science regarding open-loops is still being debated (although regulators are closing in on them), and low-sulphur fuel costs are going to make many ships uneconomic to run. Scrubbers may be a less than ideal solution, but they are likely to be a transitional phase on a journey in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that answer. Kinda what I was hoping for in the grand scheme and a nice quote from the Maersk guy.

Its also problematic that things take a progressive path to get right, isnt it? And things sometimes have unintended consequenses.

An example from Gib, that I know and mebbe happening elsewhere. A friend of mine owns a service launch company there. His services include hull bottom scrubbing with divers using powered scrubbers, not a very inviting job. But cleaning a supertanker improves fuel efficiency and as I understand it, removes invasive species of marine growth prohibited in other countries? My own limited experience of that was arriving by yacht in the Galapagos. :cool: However, they are doin a lot of work and only recently groups are starting to get agitated about what happens to the arisings? Clouds of crud and anti fouling paint. Is that damaging the marine environment in the Bay?

A slight drift, but another example of perhaps people not thinking things through.

Personally, any attempt to reduce pollution has got to be good and the whole of life is trial and error after all.
 
In fairness, the international airline sector also escaped due attention for a time, too, because GHG accounting was done on a national basis and both ‘fell into the cracks’. I believe that together their global GHG emissions are about on a par with Germany’s total emissions - but growing very fast. We inevitably tend - in all areas - to get to a point environmentally where the easy fixes get done and further reducing impacts produces others, unforeseen and unintended. I’m not convinced that technological changes will allow us (and our descendants, particularly) to avoid actually reversing to some extent the trends to ever-greater international tourism and trade, but perhaps I’m too pessimistic.
 
Antifouling paint particles are not going to do the local sea water creatures any good. When dry docking we collect the residue for reprocessing. If your friend’s customers include Inchcapes Gib office I’m probably a customer at one remove but not for scrubbing antifouling.
 
Last edited:
Minn said:
I can see nuclear for the big stuff and some versions of hydrogen ( possibly ammonia) and even batteries for the small ships but ultimately I think we will be back to wind and solar.
Click to expand...

May I ask for a quick view on a couple of points as and when you have time:

1. What contribution to you think the AP Moller Maersk bio boats make to this debate? (the so-called Triple-E ocean vessels)
https://twitter.com/Maersk/status/1108996735810961408/video/1

2. You mention nuclear, and the US Navy has long been looking for ways to extract CO2 from seawater and then connect the carbon into longer hydrocarbon chains to fuel its jets, fast patrol vessels, etc. The goal is autonomy, not cheap fuel.

At the moment the cost of such artificially created hydrocarbon chains is (I think) about 2x the cost of mineral oil based fuel, but it's falling slowly.

The potential for these industries seems vast, or maybe not?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/fuel-seawater-whats-catch-180953623/

Edit: and IF fusion power is ever commercialised, this type of activity opens the door to active carbon reversal?
 
Last edited:
Hydrozoan said:
In fairness, the international airline sector also escaped due attention for a time, too, because GHG accounting was done on a national basis and both ‘fell into the cracks’. I believe that together their global GHG emissions are about on a par with Germany’s total emissions - but growing very fast. We inevitably tend - in all areas - to get to a point environmentally where the easy fixes get done and further reducing impacts produces others, unforeseen and unintended. I’m not convinced that technological changes will allow us (and our descendants, particularly) to avoid actually reversing to some extent the trends to ever-greater international tourism and trade, but perhaps I’m too pessimistic.
Click to expand...

I agree and I don’t think you are pessimistic. We just have to move our whole civilisation off chemical fuels.
 
dom said:
May I ask for a quick view on a couple of points as and when you have time:

1. What contribution to you think the AP Moller Maersk bio boats make to this debate? (the so-called Triple-E ocean vessels)
https://twitter.com/Maersk/status/1108996735810961408/video/1

2. You mention nuclear, and the US Navy has long been looking for ways to extract CO2 from seawater and then connect the carbon into longer hydrocarbon chains to fuel its jets, fast patrol vessels, etc. The goal is autonomy, not cheap fuel.

At the moment the cost of such artificially created hydrocarbon chains is (I think) about 2x the cost of mineral oil based fuel, but it's falling slowly.

The potential for these industries seems vast, or maybe not?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/fuel-seawater-whats-catch-180953623/

Edit: and IF fusion power is ever commercialised, this type of activity opens the door to active carbon reversal?
Click to expand...

I am going to be miserable again! I hate «*biofuels*» because I have seen the devastation wrought by palm oil monoculture in SE Asia. How many orangutans died to fuel that triple E? So I say AP Moller-Maersk Line are just greenwashing again.

I like the Smithsonian article. But I fancy we will get there with wind and solar.

As a footnote, Greta Thunberg got from Southampton to New York under sail in 14 days. That’s pretty good going. Granted she was on an IMOCA 60 iirc but it shows a path that we could choose to go down.
 
Last edited:
Minn said:
I like the Smithsonian article. But I fancy we will get there with wind and solar.
Click to expand...

Wind and solar are fine if you have the deck space of a tanker or bulker, but there are few options on box ships. I talked to the guys at Windship and even they can't see how it would work. They also see it as wind assist, rather than wind power. And as much as I'd like to see it, I'm not sure how well wind/solar could work in today's just-in-time supply chains.
 
newtothis said:
Wind and solar are fine if you have the deck space of a tanker or bulker, but there are few options on box ships. I talked to the guys at Windship and even they can't see how it would work. They also see it as wind assist, rather than wind power. And as much as I'd like to see it, I'm not sure how well wind/solar could work in today's just-in-time supply chains.
Click to expand...

I agree.

We are not going to have the box ships of today.

We are not going to have just in time supply chains.

We may not have aeroplanes at all.

The World will be very different.

But that’s a small price to pay. Consider the alternatives.
 
Minn said:
... ultimately I think we will be back to wind and solar.
Click to expand...

I once suggested that East London’s sewage sludge might one day be shipped to East Anglia for utilisation in agriculture, as a ‘higher’ use than incineration with energy recovery. More fancifully, I even wondered about sail power, thinking not only of the barge trade but of London’s coal once being carried by sea - with IIRC urine for fulling being carried in the reverse direction. :)

But I imagine that you foresee wind for deep water rather than coastal shipping?
 
I recall chatting, years ago, with the late TK Boesen, founder of the chartering company of that name, and he mentioned that his first ever fixture as a young broker was a sailing galeass with eight tons of hay. I remember seeing the Cambria under sail and down to her gunwales with cargo. Coastal sail is not that far away in time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top