"The top 15 cargo ships worldwide emit more pollution than Earth's 1 billion cars"

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
"The top 15 cargo ships worldwide emit more pollution than Earth's 1 billion cars"

Hello,

I was watching a video and heard this claim that the world's top 15 cargo ships emit more pollution than all the cars on the planet. This sounds like such a radical claim to me. Here is the video where the claim was made:

Skip to 2:25 for it.

I hope this sparks a good and informed discussion.
 

JSWTDI09

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
TDI
2009 JSW TDI (gone but not forgotten)
...or at least ban "bunker fuel" which is what these large ships burn when they are at sea. It is nasty stuff only slightly better than raw crude oil.

Have Fun!

Don
 

durundal

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Location
SF Bay area
TDI
2009 Jetta Sportwagen, Candy White/Pure Beige, DSG, panoramic roof, rear side airbags
...or at least ban "bunker fuel" which is what these large ships burn when they are at sea. It is nasty stuff only slightly better than raw crude oil.

Have Fun!

Don
It's actually worse than raw crude oil, it's basically the tar dregs of the refining process of the raw crude after you take out all the light oils used for gasoline and diesel. They have to use heaters to make it flow enough to get to where it's burnt:

"Bunker C, known in marine circles as simply bunker, or bunker fuel, is a waste byproduct of the crude oil refining process. It is not crude oil, but it is not very far from it. Forty to fifty years ago, the refining of a barrel of crude oil left quite a bit of Bunker C. This was considered a waste product and was sold to railroads for locomotive fuel and to marine operators as ship fuel, for just a couple of cents a gallon; at times it sold for only a fraction of a cent per gallon.

Bunker C is a thick, tarry substance with a high asphalt content; it also contains trace minerals that were in the original crude oil, but have been concentrated as a result of the refining process. It is so thick it has to be heated in order to flow reliably; if it isn't heated, when the ambient temperature is below freezing, Bunker C solidifies to the point that you can walk on top of it and not leave footprints. It's a good fuel for open- flame boilers such as locomotive boilers and ship boilers.

Most oil-fired steam locomotives used Bunker C, although in some parts of the country they actually burned raw crude oil. As noted before, Bunker C was readily available and dirt cheap. (Steve Lee, April 18, 2000, via email to The Streamliner discussion group)"

(from here: http://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php)
 

CHenry

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Location
Maryland
TDI
2010 Golf TDI DSG 4-door (sold)
Hello,

I was watching a video and heard this claim that the world's top 15 cargo ships emit more pollution than all the cars on the planet. This sounds like such a radical claim to me. Here is the video where the claim was made:

Skip to 2:25 for it.

I hope this sparks a good and informed discussion.
CARB regulates port emissions in California. Their rules have had the unintended consequence of diverting trans-Pacific ship traffic to longer routes in shipping lanes farther out to sea where the ships are able to burn more "dirty" bunker fuel than they otherwise might, instead of switching to cleaner and more refined fuel closer to land on a more direct course.

Bunker C is petroleum tar.
 
Last edited:

meerschm

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Fairfax county VA
TDI
2009 Jetta wagon DSG 08/08 205k buyback 1/8/18; replaced with 2017 Golf Wagon 4mo 1.8l CXBB
this linked to a video on the hyperloop.
 

nucklehead

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2014
Location
Ephrata Washington
TDI
2013 Golf TDI W/DSG
From Wikipedia:

NOx emissions also causes global cooling through the formation of OH groups that destroy methane molecules, countering the effect of greenhouse gases. The effect can be significant. For instance, according to the OECD "the large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. (Reductions in methane lifetimes due to shipping-based NOx emissions vary between 1.5% and 5% in different calculations)." "In summary, most studies so far indicate that ship emissions actually lead to a net global cooling. This net global cooling effect is not being experienced in other transport sectors. However, it should be stressed that the uncertainties with this conclusion are large, in particular for indirect effects, and global temperature is only a first measure of the extent of climate change in any event."[16]

------------------------------------------------

Looks like the antidote to CO2 emissions eh? Sail on big ships - we'll have another ice age before you know it if governments manage to take away our CO2 spewing vehicles. Methane gas (human & cow farts etc - and my dog!) is a far more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.
 

Little Joe

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Location
Ottawa Valley
TDI
2014 Jetta HL
Burning some good old Bunker C oil as we speak. (We are emptying our back up fuel tanks for the last time.... no more bunker C , Yaahhh!!)
Some off the top of my head numbers...
Bunker is about 20% higher BTU than #2 diesel
I must be above 85F to even pump it if you want seals to stay intact (normal practice is 120-140F)
It is then heated to 225-240F where it is mixed with steam as an atomizer in the boiler firing gun. Steam pressure about 30psi above oil pressure.

Only using about 800 imp gal per hour on light load.
 

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
Can anyone support or deny the claim with facts? That's what's so surprising to me. If this is true, why isn't it well known? If this is true, why are we chasing miniscule gains in automotive emissions at enormous cost, when there is so much low hanging fruit on an adjacent tree?
 

bubbagumpshrimp

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Location
Virginia
TDI
'13 Jetta TDI
Can anyone support or deny the claim with facts? That's what's so surprising to me. If this is true, why isn't it well known? If this is true, why are we chasing miniscule gains in automotive emissions at enormous cost, when there is so much low hanging fruit on an adjacent tree?
It is unlikely that there are any "facts" associated with this claim. What you likely have is a biased analysis...along the lines of the one that was done to claim that 'xx' number of deaths could be DIRECTLY:rolleyes: tied to '09+ VW TDI's.

Statistics...they can be used to paint whatever picture the artist desires.:)
 

gmcjetpilot

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Location
Memphis TN
TDI
2010 JSW TDI DSG Matalic Grey
Let's use a thought experiment like Einstein...err scratch that, lets Google:

The OP stated the source says: "15 cargo ships emit more pollution than all the cars on the planet"

"Big polluters: one massive container ship equals 50 million cars"
http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...reate-pollution-cars-world.html#ixzz3wh4zWG1u

World’s 15 Biggest Ships Create More Pollution Than All The Cars In The World
http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-1...pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182

Ok if we look at the first article, pollution of 1 tanker = 50 million cars.
If we multiply by 15 / tankers x 50 million cars = 750 million cars.
The current estimate of cars world wide is 1.2 billion.
OK so either one or both are exaggerating, but bunker oil burring ocean going mega ships pump out lots of pollution.

Of course they dump waste and trash, and pump out bilge water that was taken on one part of the world and dump in another with some serious environmental issue.

Why are we talking about this? :rolleyes: :D
 
Last edited:

dmarsingill

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Location
Dacula, GA
TDI
2011 Sportwagen Turned in , 2000 Z3 Coupe, 2003 Ford Expedition
Of course they dump waste and trash, and pump out bilge water that was taken on one part of the world and dump in another with some serious environmental issue.

:rolleyes: :D
Modern cruise ships don't dump anything, they burn it. They also turn all waste fluids into water used for things other than drinking. But, yes, lots of emissions!!

Donald
 

JSWTDI09

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
TDI
2009 JSW TDI (gone but not forgotten)
Modern cruise ships don't dump anything, they burn it. They also turn all waste fluids into water used for things other than drinking. But, yes, lots of emissions!!

Donald
They were talking about the mega cargo ships. All big ships have big emissions, but the enormous container ships dwarf any cruise ship. Also most cruise ships tend to stay closer to shore, so they are likely to burn D2 most of the time. It is in mid ocean where they can burn that nasty bunker fuel.

Have Fun!

Don
 

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
Let's use a thought experiment like Einstein...err scratch that, lets Google:

The OP stated the source says: "15 cargo ships emit more pollution than all the cars on the planet"

"Big polluters: one massive container ship equals 50 million cars"
http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...reate-pollution-cars-world.html#ixzz3wh4zWG1u

World’s 15 Biggest Ships Create More Pollution Than All The Cars In The World
http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-1...pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182

Ok if we look at the first article, pollution of 1 tanker = 50 million cars.
If we multiply by 15 / tankers x 50 million cars = 750 million cars.
The current estimate of cars world wide is 1.2 billion.
OK so either one or both are exaggerating, but bunker oil burring ocean going mega ships pump out lots of pollution.

Of course they dump waste and trash, and pump out bilge water that was taken on one part of the world and dump in another with some serious environmental issue.

Why are we talking about this? :rolleyes: :D
Okay, according to your sources, the original claim is an exaggeration, but not by a huge stretch. By your sources, it's the world's top 24 cargo ships (assume equivalent emissions) emit more pollution than all the world's cars.

So why in the heck is the EPA and European, Japanese, and Korean pollution agencies going nuts over miniscule emissions improvements in cars?

I don't think it's a stretch to say a concerted effort amongst shipbuilding nations could reduce worldwide pollution by 10% or more in 15 years by focusing where the biggest gains are to be had.
 

JSWTDI09

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
TDI
2009 JSW TDI (gone but not forgotten)
So why in the heck is the EPA and European, Japanese, and Korean pollution agencies going nuts over miniscule emissions improvements in cars?
Maybe because because it is within their power to regulate and enforce?
The EPA (or any individual country) does not have authority to create or enforce regulations in international waters. I am sure that there is a maritime organization somewhere in the world that does regulate these big ships, but I have no idea who or where they might be or how they could (or would) be influenced to regulate emissions on the high seas. Without any regulations (and enforcement), they will burn the cheapest fuel they can get away with. Its a business.

Have Fun!

Don
 

FlyTDI Guy

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 3, 2001
Location
PNW
TDI
'01 Jetta GLS
Nick, you do realize you're pointing the finger at just one of the bits of a huge machine called commerce... right? ;)
 

durundal

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Location
SF Bay area
TDI
2009 Jetta Sportwagen, Candy White/Pure Beige, DSG, panoramic roof, rear side airbags
Okay, according to your sources, the original claim is an exaggeration, but not by a huge stretch. By your sources, it's the world's top 24 cargo ships (assume equivalent emissions) emit more pollution than all the world's cars.
So why in the heck is the EPA and European, Japanese, and Korean pollution agencies going nuts over miniscule emissions improvements in cars?
I don't think it's a stretch to say a concerted effort amongst shipbuilding nations could reduce worldwide pollution by 10% or more in 15 years by focusing where the biggest gains are to be had.
Because people don't live out in the middle of the ocean.
 

oilhammer

Certified Volkswagen Nut & Vendor
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Location
outside St Louis, MO
TDI
There are just too many to list....
Well with China's economy in the crash and burn phase there may not be as many of those ships in use in the years to come.
 

holysirsalad

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Location
Central Frontenac, ON
TDI
2014 Jetta, 2001 Golf in pieces
...when there is so much low hanging fruit on an adjacent tree?
Low hanging fruit?! Haha, hardly! What sea-going vessels do in international waters is basically a free-for-all. Pirates still exist. If you wanna police it you need a few militaries. And never mind the commercial implications - North America has essentially no manufacturing capacity. These ships are our lives.

Okay, back to technical land - these engines are actually EXTREMELY efficient. The sheer scope of them, and the fuel, of course, is what's making them such gross polluters. But in terms of work done you absolutely cannot beat them without building rail across the Pacific.


Thank You!!!!
Bingo. As far as the regulators are concerned, automotive emissions pose an immediate threat to human health. That's it. If you look at the legal framework pretty much everywhere, environmental stuff is focused around "we're hurting ourselves directly, right now", and not "nobody is going to be able to breathe in a hundred years" or "some fish outside our jurisdiction are going to die".


Burning some good old Bunker C oil as we speak. (We are emptying our back up fuel tanks for the last time.... no more bunker C , Yaahhh!!)
Some off the top of my head numbers...
Bunker is about 20% higher BTU than #2 diesel
I must be above 85F to even pump it if you want seals to stay intact (normal practice is 120-140F)
It is then heated to 225-240F where it is mixed with steam as an atomizer in the boiler firing gun. Steam pressure about 30psi above oil pressure.

Only using about 800 imp gal per hour on light load.

Hmmmmmmmm, something tells me your current location is not the Ottawa Valley, lol

I've heard of bunker oil being used this way in boilers before (steam injection). I believe the power plant upwind of my home town uses #4 fuel oil
 

roflwaffle

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Location
BFE, CA
TDI
Maybe a TDI in the future. For now... D - 82 Rabbit, 63 190d; H - 00 Insight, 05 Prius ; G - 82 RN30
Okay, according to your sources, the original claim is an exaggeration, but not by a huge stretch. By your sources, it's the world's top 24 cargo ships (assume equivalent emissions) emit more pollution than all the world's cars.
So why in the heck is the EPA and European, Japanese, and Korean pollution agencies going nuts over miniscule emissions improvements in cars?
I don't think it's a stretch to say a concerted effort amongst shipbuilding nations could reduce worldwide pollution by 10% or more in 15 years by focusing where the biggest gains are to be had.
For the same reason people don't have a cow about nuclear weapons testing. Or the world's biggest clump of trash.

Location, location, location...

Now, if you were to fire up one of those engines in the middle of a large city, or dump that much garbage in front of town hall, all bets are off. :D
 

pkhoury

That guy with the goats
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Location
Medina, TX
TDI
2013 JSW, 2003 Jetta Ute, 2 x 2002 Golf, 2000 Golf
Ban ships.
Or convert them to electric. Install some wind turbines and solar on the top of the boat. Problem solved, although it might take a few extra months to ship stuff back
It's actually worse than raw crude oil, it's basically the tar dregs of the refining process of the raw crude after you take out all the light oils used for gasoline and diesel. They have to use heaters to make it flow enough to get to where it's burnt:

"Bunker C, known in marine circles as simply bunker, or bunker fuel, is a waste byproduct of the crude oil refining process. It is not crude oil, but it is not very far from it. Forty to fifty years ago, the refining of a barrel of crude oil left quite a bit of Bunker C. This was considered a waste product and was sold to railroads for locomotive fuel and to marine operators as ship fuel, for just a couple of cents a gallon; at times it sold for only a fraction of a cent per gallon.

Bunker C is a thick, tarry substance with a high asphalt content; it also contains trace minerals that were in the original crude oil, but have been concentrated as a result of the refining process. It is so thick it has to be heated in order to flow reliably; if it isn't heated, when the ambient temperature is below freezing, Bunker C solidifies to the point that you can walk on top of it and not leave footprints. It's a good fuel for open- flame boilers such as locomotive boilers and ship boilers.

Most oil-fired steam locomotives used Bunker C, although in some parts of the country they actually burned raw crude oil. As noted before, Bunker C was readily available and dirt cheap. (Steve Lee, April 18, 2000, via email to The Streamliner discussion group)"

(from here: http://utahrails.net/up/bunker-c.php)
Although just to clarify, only oil-fired steam locomotives used Bunker C. You couldn't use it in diesel-electrics, although an organization I'm affiliated with used to use jet fuel mixed with some other additives to replicate diesel (apparently, the source it came from gave it to us for free or cheap).

and forth between continents.
 
Last edited:

gatz

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Location
Windsor, CT
TDI
2005 Mk4 Golf TDI PD, 2006 MkV Golf GTI
Or convert them to electric. Install some wind turbines and solar on the top of the boat.
LOL!



Just a quick google says the largest ship in the world is the MSC Oscar with engines: MAN B&W 11S90ME-C two-stroke diesel engine; output: 62.5 MW (83,800 hp). High end solar panels are somewhere in the range of 300 watts per panel.. so maybe if you can fit 417,000 panels on the ship...
 

pkhoury

That guy with the goats
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Location
Medina, TX
TDI
2013 JSW, 2003 Jetta Ute, 2 x 2002 Golf, 2000 Golf
LOL!



Just a quick google says the largest ship in the world is the MSC Oscar with engines: MAN B&W 11S90ME-C two-stroke diesel engine; output: 62.5 MW (83,800 hp). High end solar panels are somewhere in the range of 300 watts per panel.. so maybe if you can fit 417,000 panels on the ship...
I'm sure some of the usual trolls, who also have vehicles like the Tesla and e-golf, can argue it can be done.

Or the other easy solution - we can just build a 16 lane highway across the Pacific and another across the Atlantic. Conveniently put some EV charging stations and a giant 200 acre parking lot every 25 miles for the electric big rigs that travel on it. I'm sure the reduced emissions would make the expense worth it. And since it would originate on the west coast in California, just bump up taxes of Californians (they won't mind).
 

roflwaffle

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Location
BFE, CA
TDI
Maybe a TDI in the future. For now... D - 82 Rabbit, 63 190d; H - 00 Insight, 05 Prius ; G - 82 RN30
I doubt diesels in HD apps are going to be replaced by anything else anytime soon, but, they'll probably be upgraded in terms of emissions/efficiency and augmented by other sources of power/propulsion.

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/28/maersk-sets-60-emission-intensity-reduction-target-2020/

I wouldn't be surprised to see unmanned semi-automated container ships that use mostly wind power in the future. They wouldn't be everywhere, but for loads that aren't time sensitive, having no crew and using a quarter of the fuel a container ship uses today would be pretty strong incentives.
 

nwdiver

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Location
Texas
TDI
2003 Jetta TDI (sold); 2012 Tesla Model S
The pollution referred to is NO2 and SO2... NO2 is harmless if released away from populated areas it's half-life is so short that most of it will decompose before reaching land.

SO2 is also less of a concern away from agriculture. The main concern with SO2 is 'acid rain'.
 

pkhoury

That guy with the goats
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Location
Medina, TX
TDI
2013 JSW, 2003 Jetta Ute, 2 x 2002 Golf, 2000 Golf
I doubt diesels in HD apps are going to be replaced by anything else anytime soon, but, they'll probably be upgraded in terms of emissions/efficiency and augmented by other sources of power/propulsion.

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/28/maersk-sets-60-emission-intensity-reduction-target-2020/

I wouldn't be surprised to see unmanned semi-automated container ships that use mostly wind power in the future. They wouldn't be everywhere, but for loads that aren't time sensitive, having no crew and using a quarter of the fuel a container ship uses today would be pretty strong incentives.
Of course, to make that practical, we might need to start going back to making electronics in the US, Canada and Mexico. So shipments from China and etc that used to take a few weeks from customs to sea to customs might now take several months.
 
Top