Tamar
Well-Known Member
I did. Don't believe everything people tell you. Especially newspapers.
Biggest polluter of our seas
- Thread starter zoidberg
- Start date
I did. Don't believe everything people tell you. Especially newspapers.
Hydrozoan
Well-Known Member
On the subject of scrubbing specifically, here’s a review (in full, not paywalled) by a group of independent researchers in scientific and other organisations in Germany, Belgium, the UK and Sweden. It resulted from a workshop of the International Surface Ocean - Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS) project, in October 2016, but appears to have been updated with references through 2017.
‘A New Perspective at the Ship-Air-Sea-Interface: The Environmental Impacts of Exhaust Gas Scrubber Discharge’, Endres et al.; Front. Mar. Sci., 24 April 2018. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00139/full
Its conclusions included these, inter alia:
‘The use of new emission reduction technologies, such as scrubbers, in the shipping industry has benefited the environment by significantly reducing the release of pollutants to the atmosphere. However, there is incomplete understanding of the impact of scrubber wash water discharge on marine chemistry, biodiversity, and biogeochemical processes. In particular, there is limited information on the amount and composition of wash water discharge and the associated marine biological impacts. …
We conclude that despite the existing guidelines for levels of monitoring and compliance of scrubber wash water, there is still the risk for acidification, eutrophication, and accumulation of pollutants in the marine environment, especially in the coastal regions, with often already higher background concentrations of contaminants and less dilution compared to the open sea. …
Whether scrubbers are currently the most environmental-friendly technology is still unclear.’
I don’t know to what extent those conclusions might have been amended by subsequent developments, but if they have been I guess somebody may be able to explain how, and with suitable references.
‘A New Perspective at the Ship-Air-Sea-Interface: The Environmental Impacts of Exhaust Gas Scrubber Discharge’, Endres et al.; Front. Mar. Sci., 24 April 2018. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00139/full
Its conclusions included these, inter alia:
‘The use of new emission reduction technologies, such as scrubbers, in the shipping industry has benefited the environment by significantly reducing the release of pollutants to the atmosphere. However, there is incomplete understanding of the impact of scrubber wash water discharge on marine chemistry, biodiversity, and biogeochemical processes. In particular, there is limited information on the amount and composition of wash water discharge and the associated marine biological impacts. …
We conclude that despite the existing guidelines for levels of monitoring and compliance of scrubber wash water, there is still the risk for acidification, eutrophication, and accumulation of pollutants in the marine environment, especially in the coastal regions, with often already higher background concentrations of contaminants and less dilution compared to the open sea. …
Whether scrubbers are currently the most environmental-friendly technology is still unclear.’
I don’t know to what extent those conclusions might have been amended by subsequent developments, but if they have been I guess somebody may be able to explain how, and with suitable references.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Not at all. Looking for a simple answer. You appear to be well informed. The article makes a statement. What conclusion should I draw from you getting a bit short tempered and refusing to answer?
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Tamar
Well-Known Member
Journalists?
Yes. I'm off to work now, so good luck.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Thanks.
But what bothers me is that they print this:
A total of 3,756 ships, both in operation and under order, have already had scrubbers installed according to DNV GL, the world’s largest ship classification company.
Only 23 of these vessels have had closed-loop scrubbers installed, a version of the device that does not discharge into the sea and stores the extracted sulphur in tanks before discharging it at a safe disposal facility in a port.
And you guys 'in the know' get a bit squirmy and wont address it on a teensy little forum like this.
You see I really want it to be wrong and the shipping industry seen to be doing some self inspection.
I would like to see local shops not selling plastic wrapped junk from China that has expended zillions of gallons of fossil fuel to get a single use hammer into a warehouse sized emporium.
Id like to see cars built in the countries where they are gonna be sold under licence so they dont have to be shipped around the world.
Ad nauseum.
But Id settle for a simple answer........
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Oh and Minn, Ive bookmarked the link to your articles to read at leisure thank you.
Was that picture taken a long time ago?
Was that picture taken a long time ago?
pvb
Well-Known Member
Was that picture taken a long time ago?
Ouch!
Kukri
Well-Known Member
You could perhaps consider that :
A. I had already shown, had you read the links I posted, that the question is very much more complicated than that
B. I have opposed open loop scrubbers for several years now; I have been cyber stalked and threatened because of my position which is now becoming more widely shared
C I had had a long day at work and was looking forward (not) to a two hour drive home in vile weather.
Oh, yes, the picture was taken in 2013:
Anything else you need to know?
Last edited:
dom
Well-Known Member
Read a couple of your links Minn, references to Ludwig Wittgenstein brought me back!
Top notch analysis, truly good, cleared more than a little up, tks.
Top notch analysis, truly good, cleared more than a little up, tks.
Kukri
Well-Known Member
Thank you; comments like that make it seem worth while.
Zing
Well-Known Member
M
That would only be fair. China sends us junk, we should send our junk back, yet now they won’t take it. More unbalanced trade with China. We need to follow Trump into the trade war and sort this out.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Whenever I think back to the times ive seen that pollution layer in the Straits of Gibraltar I musst find myself agreeing with that.
Zing
Well-Known Member
You could perhaps consider that :
A. I had already shown, had you read the links I posted, that the question is very much more complicated than that
B. I have opposed open loop scrubbers for several years now; I have been cyber stalked and threatened because of my position which is now becoming more widely shared
C I had had a long day at work and was looking forward (not) to a two hour drive home in vile weather.
Oh, yes, the picture was taken in 2013:
Anything else you need to know?
What a beautiful girl! Lucky fella.
Kukri
Well-Known Member
She says her mother already told her that...
Zing
Well-Known Member
Told her what? Never mind, she is right.
zoidberg
Well-Known Member
How's the boat refurb going?
Billyo
Well-Known Member
I was once told by the CEO of a large multinational waste management company who I was interviewing for a large contract that the solution to pollution is dilution.
Needless to say they got the job because they offered 'value for money', shortly after I lost hope and went sailing.
Needless to say they got the job because they offered 'value for money', shortly after I lost hope and went sailing.
Tomahawk
Well-Known Member
The predicable result of a badly thought out EU Directive.
It promoted waste separation instead of waste reduction.
The chattering classes object to every form of wsate treatment and convince themselves of their superiority by separating waste without asking how many waste re-processing plants are in the UK.
Kukri
Well-Known Member
However, the same applies to the United States, which is not subject to EU Directives.
Certainly we all have a problem.