Clean air at sea?

[onesea]

"Consider this. A single large container ship, say the 1,300 ft Emma Maersk, emits from its monster diesel engine pollution equivalent to 50 million automobiles. Its 84.4 MW, 14-cylinder, two-stroke engine, weighing 2,300 tons, consumes the dirtiest of all oils, bunker fuel, at a rate of 16 tons an hour. And it's only one of some 90,000 cargo ships of various types plying the sea lanes of the world.

If you're looking for the dirtiest form of transportation on the planet, it's the world's fleet of cargo and, yes, passenger ships. Just 15 of the largest ships, most of them
owned by Maersk, generate as much sulphur oxides, as well as a long list of carcinogens and particulates, as all the world's 760 million cars and trucks."

Our friends on the MOBO forum cannot be far behind

 

[Kelpie]

Source?

 

[RAI]

Now work it out in pollution per tonne-kilometre of freight, or if you prefer, per container-kilometres. Suddenly, ships look good compared to trucks.
Ships make world trade feasible, so maybe the author's motivation is really anti-global trade rather than anti-pollution.

 

[onesea]

Source?

http://www.maasmondmaritime.com/en/
I would believe it to be correct...

Now work it out in pollution per tonne-kilometre of freight, or if you prefer, per container-kilometres. Suddenly, ships look good compared to trucks.
Ships make world trade feasible, so maybe the author's motivation is really anti-global trade rather than anti-pollution.

http://www.maasmondmaritime.com/en/about-me/

No I would just say he is a realist...

I am not knocking what you are saying carbon/ ton/ mile I understand shipping is a low offender. Still does not mean there is not room for improvement....

 

[[70521]]

We no longer make anything in the UK, it has to be transported from China somehow.

 

[JumbleDuck]

"Consider this. A single large container ship, say the 1,300 ft Emma Maersk, emits from its monster diesel engine pollution equivalent to 50 million automobiles. Its 84.4 MW, 14-cylinder, two-stroke engine, weighing 2,300 tons, consumes the dirtiest of all oils, bunker fuel, at a rate of 16 tons an hour. And it's only one of some 90,000 cargo ships of various types plying the sea lanes of the world.

I find that very hard to believe. I can certainly imagine that watt for watt car engines are less polluting (cleaner fuel and catalytic converters) but that an average 50kW car engine would have the same emissions as 1.7W of the Emma Maersk's engine is a little hard to swallow.

Or, to put it another way, 16 tons per hour would be 0.32g per car per hour for those 50 million cars.

 

[jerrytug]

The Emma putting out pollution like 50,000,000 cars is blatantly wrong, allowing for power output, by a few decimal points, it has a very fuel- efficient engine like all similar box boats. No disrespect to Onesea, but it's cock.

 

[onesea]

The Emma putting out pollution like 50,000,000 cars is blatantly wrong, allowing for power output, by a few decimal points, it has a very fuel- efficient engine like all similar box boats. No disrespect to Onesea, but it's cock.

I do think that the figures have been massaged, is that 50 million automobiles being used for your average 15,000 miles a year compared with a box boat running near 24/7 a year?

Either way in a day at 16 tonnes a day heavy fuel depending on the grade I make that around 380000 ltrs or 6000 large car fuel tanks a day. or assuming you fill your car every once a week around 16 years worth of fuel...

The fuel they burn I believe is not top spec stuff so higher in nastiness...

As I said before carbon/ ton/ mile its still probably more efficient.....

 

[Tomahawk]

One thing for certain..
On a clear dar you can see the haze of sulphur across the Dover Straights..

 

[westernman]

The fuel they burn I believe is not top spec stuff so higher in nastiness...

I believe they have a separate supply of low sulphur fuel they use closer in to shore to reduce the pollution.

 

[NorthUp]

If you want to get upset about airborne pollution, consider the tons of fuel burnt every day flying people around the planet- to go on holiday.

 

[ProDave]

I recall watching a documentary about one of the worlds largest ships.

Yes is burns a LOT of fuel. But it carries a LOT of stuff. I can't recall the precise figures, but it was something like 1000 miles per gallon per ton of cargo. Try getting 1000 miles per gallon transporting that ton of cargo by road.

 

[TradewindSailor]

It burns 5 tonnes an hour at it's most efficient setting, 14 tonnes at maximum power. The ship carries a maximum of 11,000 containers.

The engine details from : http://www.emma-maersk.com/engine/Wartsila_Sulzer_RTA96-C.htm

The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower. Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version.

Some facts on the 14 cylinder version:

Total engine weight 2300 tons (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.)
Length 89 feet
Height 44 feet
Maximum power 108,920 hp at 102 rpm
Maximum torque 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm

Video »

Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion.

For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.

Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.

 

[Blueboatman]

All this whilst delivering 1000s of imported, fossil fuel burning, motor cars with a service life of 10-20 years?
And then the scrapped cars taken back to the Far East too by ship...

 

[jerrytug]

It burns 5 tonnes an hour at it's most efficient setting, 14 tonnes at maximum power. The ship carries a maximum of 11,000 containers.

The engine details from : http://www.emma-maersk.com/engine/Wartsila_Sulzer_RTA96-C.htm

The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower. Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version.

Some facts on the 14 cylinder version:

Total engine weight 2300 tons (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.)
Length 89 feet
Height 44 feet
Maximum power 108,920 hp at 102 rpm
Maximum torque 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm

Video »

Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion.

For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.

Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.

Thanks for spelling it out Tradewindsailor, vessels like that are the LEAST polluting way of moving stuff under power, and the design of the propulsion system is cutting-edge stuff.
Not that one wouldn't like to see stuff being shifted on 100,000 square-riggers,but...

 

[Xcinquemila]

All well written, the issue is she is burning bunker fuel , the engine is designed to burn High Sulphur fuel up to 4%, there is where the true pollution is , not the particles or the thermo propulsion factors

 

[lustyd]

All well written, the issue is she is burning bunker fuel , the engine is designed to burn High Sulphur fuel up to 4%, there is where the true pollution is , not the particles or the thermo propulsion factors

If it ran on normal petrol or diesel there would be a fuel shortage. As a country we have voted for this type of thing with our shopping habits so it's unlikely to change. In the grand scheme of things these ships are not doing much harm compared to other human endeavours.

 

[TradewindSailor]

All well written, the issue is she is burning bunker fuel , the engine is designed to burn High Sulphur fuel up to 4%, there is where the true pollution is , not the particles or the thermo propulsion factors

Well that is a little inaccurate. The engine is a whole lot more sophisticated than you suggest.

From the company website at http://www.emma-maersk.com/specification/

The Emma Maersk is powered by a Wartsila 14RT-Flex96c engine, currently the world's largest single diesel unit, weighing 2,300 tons and capable of 110,000 horsepower (82 MW). The ship has several features to protect the environment. This includes recycling the exhaust, mixed with fresh air, back into the engine for reuse. This not only increases efficiency by as much as 12% but also reduces engine emissions. Instead of biocides, used by much of the industry to keep barnacles off of the hull, a special silicone-based paint is used. This increases the ship's efficiency by reducing drag while also protecting the ocean from biocides that may leak. The silicone paint covering the part of the hull below the waterline is credited for lowering the water drag enough to economize 1200 tonnes of fuel per year.

 

[SimonFa]

We no longer make anything in the UK, it has to be transported from China somehow.

Really?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/financ...98/the-insanity-of-subsidising-manufacturing/

As it happens, manufacturing is currently about 12% of the UK economy, around the same as it is in France. And that's only a point or two off what manufacturing is as a share of the global economy. Whatever's been happening isn't a result of domestic politics – not if it's happening everywhere.

What's really happening to manufacturing is what happened to agriculture over the past couple of centuries. Time was when we needed 80% of the people standing in fields to feed the 20% who did not. Now we only need 2% in the mud to feed the 98% who aren't. We used to need tens of millions of workers to make half the value of the manufactured product we now make with three million odd. This is the world getting better, not the world getting worse. It frees people up from flanging whippets to do other more interesting things.

And those other things are what really makes us wealthy: doctors, nurses, teachers, scientists, internet entrepreneurs ....

 

[SimonFa]

If you want to get upset about airborne pollution, consider the tons of fuel burnt every day flying people around the planet- to go on holiday.

Or to climate change conferences so they can pontificate why the rest of us can't fly anywhere for our holidays.