AuthorTopic: Official Shipping Collapse Thread  (Read 12888 times)

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32341
    • View Profile
Is our atmospheric pollution problem only because of the Carz?
« Reply #60 on: March 13, 2017, 06:32:02 AM »
Steve often cites carz as the #1 polluter and cause of our economic problems, but they are really only a part of the problem.  A big part for sure, but there's tons of shit we depend on economically besides carz coughing up puke into the atmosphere.

By burning heavy fuel oil, just 15 of the biggest ships emit more oxides of nitrogen and sulphur—gases much worse for global warming than carbon dioxide—than all the world’s cars put together.


Light at the end of the funnelGreen finance for dirty ships

New ways to foot the hefty bill for making old ships less polluting
From the print edition | Finance and economics
Mar 9th 2017

SHIPPING may seem like a clean form of transport. Carrying more than 90% of the world’s trade, ocean-going vessels produce just 3% of its greenhouse-gas emissions. But the industry is dirtier than that makes it sound. By burning heavy fuel oil, just 15 of the biggest ships emit more oxides of nitrogen and sulphur—gases much worse for global warming than carbon dioxide—than all the world’s cars put together. So it is no surprise that shipowners are being forced to clean up their act. But in an industry awash in overcapacity and debt, few have access to the finance they need to improve their vessels. Innovative thinking is trying to change that.

A new report from the Carbon War Room (CWR), an international NGO, and UMAS, a consultancy, highlights the threat that new environmental regulations pose to the industry. The International Maritime Organisation, the UN’s regulatory agency for shipping, has agreed to cap emissions of sulphur from 2020. Last month the European Parliament voted to include shipping in the EU’s emissions-trading scheme from 2021. Without any retrofitting of ships to meet the new rules, many firms may be forced out of business. That also imperils banks across the world, which have lent $400bn secured on smoke-spewing ships.

Tens of billions of dollars are needed to pay for upgrades to meet the new rules, according to James Mitchell at CWR. But the industry can hardly pay even its existing debts. Freight rates have collapsed owing to a slowdown in world trade since the financial crisis and to enormous overcapacity. An earnings index compiled by Clarksons, a research firm, covering the main vessel types (bulk carriers, container ships, tankers and gas transporters), touched a 25-year low in 2016. Banks do not want to throw good money after bad.

Even those that are expanding their ship-lending have seen less demand than they expected for retrofit loans. ABN AMRO, a Dutch bank, and a market leader in this business, has made less than $500m in green loans over the past five years, says Gust Biesbroeck, its head of transportation finance. The problem, he adds, is one of incentives. Ship owners, who would normally borrow for such upgrades, do not benefit from lower fuel bills. It is the firms chartering the vessels that enjoy the savings. But their contracts are not long enough to make it worthwhile to invest in green upgrades. The average retrofit has a payback time of three years, whereas 80% of ship charters are for two years or less.

Hence the interest in new green-lending structures. One, called “Save as you Sail”, comes from the Sustainable Shipping Initiative, another NGO. The idea is to share the fuel savings between the shipowner and the charterer over a longer contract, giving both an incentive to make the upgrades. Such schemes used to be thwarted by the difficulty of measuring exact fuel consumption on ships. New technologies allow more accurate readings.

Finance providers are keen to get involved. Last June the European Investment Bank announced €250m ($282m) in funding for such retrofits; it hopes other banks will follow suit with billions more. In future, the idea might be extended to greening aircraft and trains. For now these businesses do not suffer a shortage of finance. But a downturn is a matter of “when not if”, says Michel Dembinski at MUFG, a bank. Green finance could rescue many other industries sailing into a storm.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32341
    • View Profile
Yo Ho Ho and a Bottle of Rum...The Somali Pirates are BACK!
« Reply #61 on: March 14, 2017, 06:11:15 AM »
<a href="" target="_blank" class="new_win"></a>


Somali pirates suspected of first ship hijacking since 2012

    1 hour ago
    From the section Africa

The Sri Lankan-flagged tanker was sailing to Mogadishu
Image copyright Mohamed Deeq - SBC

An oil tanker has been hijacked by suspected pirates off the coast of Somalia, reports say, the first such hijacking in the region in five years.

The ship sent a distress signal on Monday evening, saying it was being approached by high-speed boats.

The gunmen have told a local official they are fishermen whose equipment was destroyed by illegal fishing vessels.

Piracy was rampant off the Somali coast until increased patrols by European naval forces contained the problem.

The vessel was en route from Djibouti to the Somali capital, Mogadishu, and was then diverted towards the port of Alula in the semi-autonomous region of Puntland.

Its tracking system has reportedly been switched off.

The Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry has confirmed that eight of its nationals were on board.

    More on this and other African stories
    Somalia warns of return to piracy
    Somali piracy: A broken business model?

Ali Shire Mohamud Osman, the district commissioner in the town of Alula, near where the ship has been taken, told the BBC he was trying to find out if the gunmen really were fishermen or were organised pirates.

"The men who are holding it claim that they are fishermen who suffered from the illegal fishing in the area. However, if we confirm that they are pirates, I will ask them to leave the area immediately. Otherwise, we will see how we can save the vessel," he said.

The vessel was carrying oil and was owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), despite conflicting reports over the flag it was sailing under, he added.

The chairman for Puntland's anti-piracy agency, Abdirizak Mohamed Dirir told the BBC the attack could be linked to illegal fishing along Somalia's coast.

"Incidents of piracy have reduced. However, we cannot ignore the problems caused illegal fishing on our shores; regardless who is involved and where they are from, it's something we have been complaining about for so long," he said.
Image copyright European Union Naval Force
Image caption The European Union Naval Force has been running operations off Somalia since 2008 to combat piracy

The European Union Naval Force, which runs anti-piracy operations in the area, said it was too early to confirm pirate involvement.

It has sent a plane to the area to investigate.

Eight people are believed to have been on board the ship, which can carry almost 12,000 tonnes of cargo.

John Steed of the aid group Oceans Beyond Piracy, speaking to Reuters news agency, said, "The ship reported it was being followed by two skiffs yesterday afternoon. Then it disappeared."

Piracy off the coast of Somalia, usually for ransom, has reduced significantly in recent years, in part because of extensive international military patrols as well as support for local fishing communities.

At the height of the crisis in 2011, the annual cost of piracy was estimated to be up to $8bn (£7bn).

However, some smaller fishing vessels have recently been seized in the area.

In 2015, Somali officials warned that piracy could return unless the international community helped create jobs and security ashore, as well as combating illegal fishing at sea.

Some Somali fishermen turned to piracy after their livelihoods were destroyed by illegal fishing from foreign trawlers, who benefited from the lack of a functioning coastguard in the country following years of conflict.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32341
    • View Profile
Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated'
« Reply #62 on: December 08, 2017, 04:41:56 AM »

 Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated'
One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds

• Climate change threatens 50 years of progress in global health, study says

90,000 cargo ships travel the world's oceans. Photograph: Peter Maenhoudt/AP

John Vidal, environment editor

Thursday 9 April 2009 10.50 EDT
First published on Thursday 9 April 2009 10.50 EDT

Britain and other European governments have been accused of underestimating the health risks from shipping pollution following research which shows that one giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars.

Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars. Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles.

Pressure is mounting on the UN's International Maritime Organisation and the EU to tighten laws governing ship emissions following the decision by the US government last week to impose a strict 230-mile buffer zone along the entire US coast, a move that is expected to be followed by Canada.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

The setting up of a low emission shipping zone follows US academic research which showed that pollution from the world's 90,000 cargo ships leads to 60,000 deaths a year and costs up to $330bn per year in health costs from lung and heart diseases. The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates the buffer zone, which could be in place by next year, will save more than 8,000 lives a year with new air quality standards cutting sulphur in fuel by 98%, particulate matter by 85% and nitrogen oxide emissions by 80%.

The new study by the Danish government's environmental agency adds to this picture. It suggests that shipping emissions cost the Danish health service almost £5bn a year, mainly treating cancers and heart problems. A previous study estimated that 1,000 Danish people die prematurely each year because of shipping pollution. No comprehensive research has been carried out on the effects on UK coastal communities, but the number of deaths is expected to be much higher.

Europe, which has some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, has dramatically cleaned up sulphur and nitrogen emissions from land-based transport in the past 20 years but has resisted imposing tight laws on the shipping industry, even though the technology exists to remove emissions. Cars driving 15,000km a year emit approximately 101 grammes of sulphur oxide gases (or SOx) in that time. The world's largest ships' diesel engines which typically operate for about 280 days a year generate roughly 5,200 tonnes of SOx.

The EU plans only two low-emission marine zones which should come into force in the English channel and Baltic sea after 2015. However, both are less stringent than the proposed US zone, and neither seeks to limit deadly particulate emissions.

Shipping emissions have escalated in the past 15 years as China has emerged as the world's manufacturing capital. A new breed of intercontinental container ship has been developed which is extremely cost-efficient. However, it uses diesel engines as powerful as land-based power stations but with the lowest quality fuel.

"Ship pollution affects the health of communities in coastal and inland regions around the world, yet pollution from ships remains one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system," said James Corbett, professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware, one of the authors of the report which helped persuade the US government to act.

Today a spokesman for the UK government's Maritime and Coastguard Agency accepted there were major gaps in the legislation. "Issues of particulate matter remain a concern. They need to be addressed and we look forward to working with the international community," said environment policy director Jonathan Simpson.

"Europe needs a low emission zone right around its coasts, similar to the US, if we are to meet health and environmental objectives," said Crister Agrena of the Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat in Gothenburg, one of Europe's leading air quality organisations.

"It is unacceptable that shipping remains one of the most polluting industries in the world. The UK must take a lead in cleaning up emissions," said Simon Birkett, spokesman for the Campaign for Clean Air in London. "Other countries are planning radical action to achieve massive health and other savings but the UK is strangely inactive."

The calculations of ship and car pollution are based on the world's largest 85,790KW ships' diesel engines which operate about 280 days a year generating roughly 5,200 tonnes of SOx a year, compared with diesel and petrol cars which drive 15,000km a year and emit approximately 101gm of SO2/SoX a year.
Shipping by numbers

The world's biggest container ships have 109,000 horsepower engines which weigh 2,300 tons.

Each ship expects to operate 24hrs a day for about 280 days a year

There are 90,000 ocean-going cargo ships

Shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world's nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution.

One large ship can generate about 5,000 tonnes of sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution in a year

70% of all ship emissions are within 400km of land.

85% of all ship pollution is in the northern hemisphere.

Shipping is responsible for 3.5% to 4% of all climate change emissions

• This article was amended on 25 August 2015 to correct the number of deaths per year attributed to pollution from the world's 90,000 cargo ships.

    Travel and transport

    Greenhouse gas emissions
    Water transport


Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 32341
    • View Profile
🚢 “Bunker,” the Fuel for the Giant Engines in Large Cargo Ships
« Reply #63 on: June 04, 2018, 02:50:48 AM »

“Bunker,” the Fuel for the Giant Engines in Large Cargo Ships
by MC01 • Jun 3, 2018 • 18 Comments   
The world grapples with the emissions.
By MC01, a frequent commenter on WOLF STREET:

When pricing a container shipment, we are sometimes told rates have gone up because “bunker oil” has increased in price or that the delivery will take a few extra days because shipowners ordered their skippers to slow down to save “bunker oil.”

But what is this “bunker oil”?

The term “bunker oil” defines all types of fuel used by the shipping industry and generally speaking can be split in two categories: distillates and residuals.

Distillates are produced during fractional distillation of crude oil and generally are very close in density to diesel #2, the mainstay fuel in trucking and agriculture, but slighter denser.
2 changes to Social Security you need to know about
2 changes to Social Security you need to know about
by Palm Beach Letter

Residuals are produced from the thick sludge left over at the bottom of the refinery’s fractionating column and are only a step or two removed from bitumen, the stuff used to pave roads: the most widespread types of residual bunker available have densities ranging from 500 to 700cSt at room temperature. For comparison, the densest types of diesel fuel have a density of under 35cSt at room temperature. This means that this type of bunker has to be pre-heated before it can be pumped into the fuel system.

There are also several blends of distillates and residuals, or of various residuals, whose density ranges from 300 to 400 cSt, which are sold to provide a cheap alternative to straight diesel fuel while at the same time helping to meet environmental legislation.

Pollution by maritime vessels is regulated worldwide by the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), first ratified in 1973, and regularly amended over the years, the last time in 2013.

The MARPOL protocol legislates all aspects of ship-related pollution, from emission levels to how waste from the ship latrines should be processed and disposed of (not a joke when modern cruise ships are involved).

Emissions in particular have long focused on sulfur oxides. As with all fossil fuels, the trend has long been towards lower and lower sulfur content. But instead of focusing on emissions themselves, the MARPOL protocol legislates the limit of sulfur in bunker oil, and in such bizarre fashion it deserves a mention.

While there exists an ISO standard for bunker oil (ISO:8217, last revised in 2017), it’s not considered binding by MARPOL, which instead relies on the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to sample bunker oil sold in several locations worldwide and coming up with a “worldwide average” which is just that. Presently the limit for this “worldwide average” is 4.5% sulfur content.

This helps explain why worldwide consumption of residual fuels (as defined by the US Department of Energy) has been steadily declining after peaking in 1991. Latest data put daily worldwide consumption at 8,320 barrel per day, down 4,000 barrels per day from the 1991 peak.

When the MARPOL protocol relating to sulfur content was being discussed, several countries expressed concerns about its standards not being strict enough. To appease them, the concept of Environmental Control Areas (ECA’s) was introduced. ECA’s are areas coinciding with the territorial waters of EU member countries, Norway, Iceland and the United States (plus US dependencies in the Caribbean) where ships must use low-sulfur fuel, meaning bunker oil with less than 1% sulfur content.

In addition, the Chinese government has unilaterally created three ECA’s: One around Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta, one around the estuary of the Yangtze River, and one largely coinciding with the Bohai Gulf. These three ECA’s include seven of the ten busiest ports worldwide.

Starting in 2000, ships sailing through these ECA’s have to comply with another set of emission rules collectively known as Regulation 13, which limit air polluting nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions.

Regulation 13 is divided in three Tiers: Tier I, for ships built starting January 1, 2000, Tier II for ships built starting January 1, 2011, and Tier III for ships built starting January 1, 2016.

Each Tier is further divided in categories according to engine rotation speed. Low speed engines, the kind used in the large commercial vessels, have deceptively high limits: for example Tier III defines the NOx limit for engines up to 129 rpm as 3.4g/kWh while engines in the 130-1,999 rpm class have an emission limit of 2.4g/kWh.

However these low speed engines tend to run on much “dirtier” (meaning with a high organic nitrogen content) fuels than high speed ones for economic considerations, meaning they require even more work from engine manufacturers to provide engines the shipping industry can use worldwide.

Stricter environmental legislation around the world is only part of the increasingly more challenging environment these engine manufacturers have to deal with. There are only three that make the giant low-speed two-stroke diesel engines used in the largest container ships, bulk carriers, and tankers: MAN SE of Germany, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan, and Wärtsilä of Finland. Read…  The Engines of the Largest Container Ships in the World, and Challenges their Manufacturers Face


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
Last post May 02, 2014, 07:47:34 AM
by Surly1
2 Replies
Last post May 29, 2015, 12:42:48 PM
by MKing
5 Replies
Last post April 21, 2016, 01:58:06 PM
by Eddie