Interesting article, which I'm sure can be the source of much debate between blue and red, but positive news for our commonly held favorite transportation:
http://www.good.is/post/turns-out-sh...-worse-for-the-planet-than-flying/
NS
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
To be fair, ships transport a lot more than double the stuff that aircraft transport in a year. It has to be 100 times more. So let's be generous and say ships are 50 times more efficient by weight.
But still, a lot of shipping goes on. Some of it is pretty low value added. If there were a modest carbon tax then shipping would get impacted. What's important is how much value is being added per the emissions. For airlines and shipping that value should equalize, and cap-trade would ensure that in the end.
But still, a lot of shipping goes on. Some of it is pretty low value added. If there were a modest carbon tax then shipping would get impacted. What's important is how much value is being added per the emissions. For airlines and shipping that value should equalize, and cap-trade would ensure that in the end.
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
Wasn't able to get the page to load, but I would like to see them transport all the raw materials that get moved around the planet each year... by plane. There are benefits to both, the big difference is one can go faster (plane) and the other has few restrictions on cargo size (boat).
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
The title is pretty misleading. It's like saying that my car is more fuel efficient than a bus because the total emissions it puts out are less than what the bus puts out.
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
Honestly I don't find it surprising.
While the massive trans-oceanic container ships are likely very efficient and relatively "clean", one must never forget the cumulative environmental impact of all the old, decrepit and dirty "tramp freighters" and such moving cargo along much shorter distances.
While the massive trans-oceanic container ships are likely very efficient and relatively "clean", one must never forget the cumulative environmental impact of all the old, decrepit and dirty "tramp freighters" and such moving cargo along much shorter distances.
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): While the massive trans-oceanic container ships are likely very efficient and relatively "clean", |
They're actually pretty amazing...new build cargo ships are about as efficient as it's possible to get with a thermodynamic cycle. They're got these huge high-compression diesels with intercooling, reheat, turbocharging, etc., etc. It's the ideal situation...essentially no volume or weight limitations. As I once saw written, they're practically blowing snow flakes out the smoke stack.
Tom.
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
As efficient as airplanes have gotten, they will never be quite as efficient as a modern train locomotive or a cargo ship. They have an advantage of bringing people and cargo from point a to point b very quickly tho.
A tain could move 1 ton of goods 435 miles with 1 gallon of fuel(http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/can_a_freight_train_really_move_a.html), so im pretty sure a cargo ship can do even better.
A tain could move 1 ton of goods 435 miles with 1 gallon of fuel(http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/can_a_freight_train_really_move_a.html), so im pretty sure a cargo ship can do even better.
Powered by Maina
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
Reports say what they are told to say. I don't bother reading them.
In a few years time after being green and having lowered CO2 we'll hear about the dangers of having too much oxygen.
In a few years time after being green and having lowered CO2 we'll hear about the dangers of having too much oxygen.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
-
- DocLightning
- Posts: 22026
- Joined:
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
The article doesn't say that shipping is less efficient than flying. It says it generates more emissions than flying.
Well duh.
I don't have numbers, but I'd bet that at least 1,000 times the amount of mass travels by ship each year.
Now, ships aren't lilly-white, because they weigh a lot and have to drag themselves through water, which burns a lot of energy. But they don't have to hold themselves up in the air and they can carry a *LOT* of stuff.
I think we should revisit the idea of commercial nuclear ships.
Well duh.
I don't have numbers, but I'd bet that at least 1,000 times the amount of mass travels by ship each year.
Now, ships aren't lilly-white, because they weigh a lot and have to drag themselves through water, which burns a lot of energy. But they don't have to hold themselves up in the air and they can carry a *LOT* of stuff.
I think we should revisit the idea of commercial nuclear ships.
-Doc Lightning-
"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
This was no real news. Although the other members are right the comparison is somewhat misleading.
The thing is though that the airline industry is trying to lower carbon emissions while ship lines still don't bother at all.
Ship diesels filter nothing no catalytic converter or anything. Just pure diesel fumes blasted in our nature.
The problem with diesel fumes is not only carbon emissions btw.
So in my book the problem is only the awareness. The airlines are trying to be "green" as much as possible while the ship lines don't care ****.
Regds
jush
The thing is though that the airline industry is trying to lower carbon emissions while ship lines still don't bother at all.
Ship diesels filter nothing no catalytic converter or anything. Just pure diesel fumes blasted in our nature.
The problem with diesel fumes is not only carbon emissions btw.
So in my book the problem is only the awareness. The airlines are trying to be "green" as much as possible while the ship lines don't care ****.
Regds
jush
There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting Jush (Reply 9): The thing is though that the airline industry is trying to lower carbon emissions while ship lines still don't bother at all. |
You should check into the giant kites that they are trying to get installed on commercial ships to reduce their emissions, definately a different way of doing things.
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting Jbernie (Reply 10): You should check into the giant kites that they are trying to get installed on commercial ships to reduce their emissions, definately a different way of doing things. |
I read about this and even saw it on the telly. But frankly it's just a nice idea at the moment isn't it? Far from happening
Regds
jush
There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
-
- rheinwaldner
- Posts: 1865
- Joined:
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5): They're actually pretty amazing...new build cargo ships are about as efficient as it's possible to get with a thermodynamic cycle. They're got these huge high-compression diesels with intercooling, reheat, turbocharging, etc., etc. It's the ideal situation...essentially no volume or weight limitations. As I once saw written, they're practically blowing snow flakes out the smoke stack. |
By the enoumous density of the water (compared to air) the efficiency must suffer. Moving a body through water must generate multitudes of the drag caused by air resistance. It is difficult to postulate "if everything else is the equal the plane is more efficient by factor X" because everything else is not equal. Speeds, masses vary so strong that even when normalized the figures are difficult to be compared.
To compare it a fictional plane would have to be considered: An utopic huge cargo plane, slow, severall kilometers large if required, practically only a seaplane, payload comparable to ships, at best making use of the ground effect .... would the installed power be less than in a comparable ship?
Or the other way would be to consider a small ship that has a payload comparable to a 744F. How would the emissions balance turn out between the two?
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
-
- Francoflier
- Posts: 5641
- Joined:
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 12): To compare it a fictional plane would have to be considered: An utopic huge cargo plane, slow, severall kilometers large if required, practically only a seaplane, payload comparable to ships, at best making use of the ground effect .... would the installed power be less than in a comparable ship? |
Hmmm, nice try, but it's still a far cry. According to some figures I found on the net, an average size containership would burn something like 1,000,000 gallons of fuel to go across the Pacific (assuming a rather large 100,000 hp engine). A 747 freighter would burn approximately 50,000 gallons for the same trip, or 20 times less. A fully laden 747 would carry about 100 Tons of payload, so at equivalent efficiency, said containership would carry 20 times more, or 2000 Tons, but of course, they carry much, much more than that (closer to 140,000 Tons...).
Even if comparing a shipping boat that would carry only 100 Tons over the same distance, the aircraft would be at quite a disadvantage.
The blog emphasizes the 'worse than what people thought' cost of maritime shipping, but of course the catchy title comparing it to air travel is completely misleading and false. The only way to improve the overall cost of worldwide shipping is by producing and consuming more efficiently by favoring locally made products and resources. But this often has a cost too...
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
That's hilarious. Per ton mile, a ship uses a fraction of the fuel to trasport material.
Planes just aren't designed for carrying heavy weights efficiently. Quickly yes, efficiently no.
But it is silly that planes get such a bad rep. Their speed is essential for word trade. Just like a ship's ability to transport huge loads is.
Planes just aren't designed for carrying heavy weights efficiently. Quickly yes, efficiently no.
But it is silly that planes get such a bad rep. Their speed is essential for word trade. Just like a ship's ability to transport huge loads is.
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): Honestly I don't find it surprising. While the massive trans-oceanic container ships are likely very efficient and relatively "clean", one must never forget the cumulative environmental impact of all the old, decrepit and dirty "tramp freighters" and such moving cargo along much shorter distances. |
You can also factor in all of the DC-3s and very early generation planes out there too, theiir emissions controls I'm sure are not very great!
I think this article is a load of bunk considering ships transport the VAST majority of cargo...and the newer ones are indeed very fuel efficient, just like newer planes are in their own domain...
You occasionally see a sheen on the oceans surace where a ship phas passed though if that is seen by the authorities they'll look into it, try and figure out who generated it...no one bothers following contrails
"There weren't a ton of gnats there where a ton of gnats and their families as well!"
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
Surely the key sentence of the article in question is:
"The report suggests that shipping emissions - which are not taken into account by European targets for cutting global warming - will become one of the largest single sources of manmade CO₂after cars, housing, agriculture and industry."
In other words the EU and many EU governments are setting future carbon emission reduction targets which do not even recognize what the article claims will be the fifth largest source of such emissions, shipping.
As for the suggestion that shipping is doing something about the level of emissions it produces - large kites - the Romans had a word for them. They called them "sails". But instead of attaching them to their longships with long lengths of rope they used a long piece of wood that they called a "mast". The problem was that the wind did not always blow. So they used other lengths of wood and called them "oars".
"The report suggests that shipping emissions - which are not taken into account by European targets for cutting global warming - will become one of the largest single sources of manmade CO₂after cars, housing, agriculture and industry."
In other words the EU and many EU governments are setting future carbon emission reduction targets which do not even recognize what the article claims will be the fifth largest source of such emissions, shipping.
As for the suggestion that shipping is doing something about the level of emissions it produces - large kites - the Romans had a word for them. They called them "sails". But instead of attaching them to their longships with long lengths of rope they used a long piece of wood that they called a "mast". The problem was that the wind did not always blow. So they used other lengths of wood and called them "oars".
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
The following numbers I read a time ago are intersting in this context.
The liner "United States" needed 5000 tons of fuel to transport 1500 passengers from UK to NY. The 707 needed 50 tons for 150 pax, so was 10 times more efficient.
Ship consumption is very depending on speed. Only slow ships are as effcient as the Container ship in the above example. make it three times faster and it will take 10 times the fuel, starting to be as inefficient as the 747...
The liner "United States" needed 5000 tons of fuel to transport 1500 passengers from UK to NY. The 707 needed 50 tons for 150 pax, so was 10 times more efficient.
Ship consumption is very depending on speed. Only slow ships are as effcient as the Container ship in the above example. make it three times faster and it will take 10 times the fuel, starting to be as inefficient as the 747...
-
- Goldenshield
- Posts: 5026
- Joined:
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
It is said that with the QE II, one gallon of fuel will move the ship 50 feet, so I guess you could do the math there. I mean, heck, most cruise ships bunker 1,000,000 gallons for a 7 day cruise.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting Burkhard (Reply 17): The following numbers I read a time ago are intersting in this context. The liner "United States" needed 5000 tons of fuel to transport 1500 passengers from UK to NY. The 707 needed 50 tons for 150 pax, so was 10 times more efficient. Ship consumption is very depending on speed. Only slow ships are as effcient as the Container ship in the above example. make it three times faster and it will take 10 times the fuel, starting to be as inefficient as the 747... |
They both have their places,the vast majority of the time freight doesn't NEED to be at it's destination overnight. - And can you imagine how inefficient it would be to ship crude via plane? lol!
aybe it's just me and my love for being at sea, but I'd absdolutely love to tranist the Atlantic - US to EU - via ship at some point as a passenger not a scientist or crewmember, though considering the only way to do that nowadays is to pay a fortune for an ostentatious cabin, which I have no desire or need for
. Rats!"There weren't a ton of gnats there where a ton of gnats and their families as well!"
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8): I think we should revisit the idea of commercial nuclear ships. |
| Quoting Jbernie (Reply 10): You should check into the giant kites that they are trying to get installed on commercial ships to reduce their emissions, definately a different way of doing things. |
Maritime transport will eventually adopt different power sources, faster than air transport, (and even land transport), because In a sense both of the above mentioned in the quoted posts are proven technologies, wind and nuclear.Efficiencies will increase and ultimately the price for the shipper, will decrease.
These technologies can even increase the payload capacity and with lower operating costs compared to a similar sized diesel vessel. Environmentally, there are certain concerns in the use of nuclear reactors, and most definitely an international regulatory body for the designing and operating of such a vessel will be necessary.
Again, I feel quite sure in predicting that we will see the maritime transport industry getting rid of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions sooner than other means of transport.
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting Jush (Reply 9): Ship diesels filter nothing no catalytic converter or anything. Just pure diesel fumes blasted in our nature. |
If only!
Most large ships actually don't use diesel fuel for most of their journeys. Instead they usually use the lowest-grade heavy oils which are basically toxic waste left over after extracting all the valuable fractions like gasoline or diesel, sometimes even mixed with waste products from various industrial processes.
Because of the highly corrosive nature of their normal exhaust they are often forced to switch to the much more expensive diesel fuel near land but once they're far enough away, they switch back to burning toxic waste.
The energetic efficiency of current ship engines is remarkable, but given the kind of fuel they use their exhaust is a much greater problem than just the CO2.
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting MarSciGuy (Reply 19): aybe it's just me and my love for being at sea, but I'd absdolutely love to tranist the Atlantic - US to EU - via ship at some point as a passenger not a scientist or crewmember, though considering the only way to do that nowadays is to pay a fortune for an ostentatious cabin, which I have no desire or need for . Rats |
Not necessarily. Some cargo ships still accept passengers.
It's not especially cheap, either, but full board is included.
check http://www.freightertrips.com/guide/faq.html
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting JJJ (Reply 23): Quoting MarSciGuy (Reply 19): aybe it's just me and my love for being at sea, but I'd absdolutely love to tranist the Atlantic - US to EU - via ship at some point as a passenger not a scientist or crewmember, though considering the only way to do that nowadays is to pay a fortune for an ostentatious cabin, which I have no desire or need for . Rats Not necessarily. Some cargo ships still accept passengers. It's not especially cheap, either, but full board is included. |
Seeing this jogs my memory that I had heard of this before, and I myself would be interested however I'm not sure that that would fly with the fiance...either my going alone or her coming along (she likes traditional cruise ships and cruises, at least the Caribbean variety).
"There weren't a ton of gnats there where a ton of gnats and their families as well!"
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting VV701 (Reply 16): "The report suggests that shipping emissions - which are not taken into account by European targets for cutting global warming - will become one of the largest single sources of manmade CO₂after cars, housing, agriculture and industry." |
This was my real interest in the article. Aviation comes under significant fire, with significant new regulation pending, but little is said of ships.
NS
RE: Report: Shipping Worse For Planet Than Flying
| Quoting VV701 (Reply 16): "The report suggests that shipping emissions - which are not taken into account by European targets for cutting global warming - will become one of the largest single sources of manmade CO₂after cars, housing, agriculture and industry." In other words the EU and many EU governments are setting future carbon emission reduction targets which do not even recognize what the article claims will be the fifth largest source of such emissions, shipping. |
When the top 4 includes the very broad categories of "industry" and "cars" (does that include all land transportation?), I suspect shipping is not that big of a deal.
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.