I'm gonna say that's at sea Duncan. Didn't read the article.
It only takes about 30min to transit most anchorages and dock in the harbour so even if you include firing up and shutting down that's not a lot of steaming time.
Even if there weren't laws forbidding running bunker in port they still wouldn't do it. Maneuvering is always done on DFO(diesel)
that math is for sulfur not overall emissions and bunker fuel which isnt burned at port so its not relevant to swtich's claim.
I was one told you could switch all the large bulk carriers to clean diesel for 50 - 100 billion per year. or course the poor countries (and china) and wont want to pay
where is Christy??? what an awesome leader we have. every time something goes wrong she just disappears.
I'd be curious if there are numbers to back that up?
I'm not saying deep sea ships don't create pollution, just I've never seen any numbers to back up your claim.
Most deep sea ships would be running an aux and a boiler while at anchor or at the dock.
Very little steaming time while in port.
It was something I read in the Sun or Province a few years ago.
This has some data:
http://www.bcairquality.ca/topics/vehicle-emissions-stats.html
It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells
"World leading spill response system"
Maybe the oil will help reduce the fecal coliform level in English Bay.
It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells
I'm gonna say that's at sea Duncan. Didn't read the article.
It only takes about 30min to transit most anchorages and dock in the harbour so even if you include firing up and shutting down that's not a lot of steaming time.
Even if there weren't laws forbidding running bunker in port they still wouldn't do it. Maneuvering is always done on DFO(diesel)
Bottom line is, just one of those vessels has a massive impact on air pollution. The article referred to the specific case of smog from vessels idling offshore or blowing onshore from shipping lanes causing widespread haze over the country and health problems.
we dont have vessels idling offshore tho . 200kms out they switch to diesel and go straight to anchorage or berth
we dont have vessels idling offshore tho . 200kms out they switch to diesel and go straight to anchorage or berth
From the article, for what its worth
Last week it was revealed that 54 oil tankers are anchored off the coast of Britain, refusing to unload their fuel until prices have risen.
But that is not the only scandal in the shipping world. Today award-winning science writer Fred Pearce environmental consultant to New Scientist and author of Confessions Of An Eco Sinner reveals that the super-ships that keep the West in everything from Christmas gifts to computers pump out killer chemicals linked to thousands of deaths because of the filthy fuel they use.
We've all noticed it. The filthy black smoke kicked out by funnels on cross-Channel ferries, cruise liners, container ships, oil tankers and even tugboats.
It looks foul, and leaves a brown haze across ports and shipping lanes. But what hasnt been clear until now is that it is also a major killer, probably causing thousands of deaths in Britain alone.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html#ixzz3Wvi3lvA2
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The notion that polluting "out at sea is OK" is in itself ridiculous. Greenhouse gases and pollutants don't stay in one place. The oceans are not a garbage dump.
We (used to?) tow garbage barges out to sea and dump everything out there too. When you start doing that for 8, 9, 10 billion humans, it becomes more than just a problem "way out at sea"
im just commenting on the local airshed pollution that switch brought up not on the air quality in Britain or globaly
It was something I read in the Sun or Province a few years ago.
This has some data:
http://www.bcairquality.ca/topics/vehicle-emissions-stats.html
Those numbers are legit, but they're from 2005. Lots of stuff has changed since then. Diesel went from 500ppm sulphur content to 15ppm in 2010. The North American Emissions Control Area (ECA) came into effect in 2012 requiring the use of diesel instead of bunker fuels within 200 nautical miles of the coast.
Always more that can be done, of course….
Fantastic post on reddit about the oil spill.
https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/323f6c/some_facts_about_the_marathassa_oil_spill/
16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world"
You realize that your article is from 2009 and that even in that article it states that IMO required ships to reduce sulphur content from 4.5% to 3.5% by 2012 and down to 0.5% after that. Yes, bunker is dirty but let's stick to the facts and not make grandiose statements based on half truths.
Assuming that burning LNG is going to be better for the environment (I don't know much about the ramifications of burning LNG), there seems to be a push for more ships, ferries, tugs etc to switch to burning LNG. In the meantime, like was said previously, the tugs, ships etc burn low-sulfur diesel within 200 miles of shore.
I'm definitely interested to see what caused this bunker fuel spill by the grain ship in English Bay. As I said before in another thread, when people were all concerned about increased tanker traffic, the tankers are way less of an issue and have so many safeguards for their transits in our waters than the single hulled cargo ships that travel around without tug escorts, and no one seems to pay any attention to that. People seem to grab onto a hot topic from the media and run with it as the next big problem, without having a real grasp on the entire scenario, and where the true problems lie.
You realize that your article is from 2009 and that even in that article it states that IMO required ships to reduce sulphur content from 4.5% to 3.5% by 2012 and down to 0.5% after that. Yes, bunker is dirty but let's stick to the facts and not make grandiose statements based on half truths. Assuming that burning LNG is going to be better for the environment (I don't know much about the ramifications of burning LNG), there seems to be a push for more ships, ferries, tugs etc to switch to burning LNG. In the meantime, like was said previously, the tugs, ships etc burn low-sulfur diesel within 200 miles of shore.
I'm definitely interested to see what caused this bunker fuel spill by the grain ship in English Bay. As I said before in another thread, when people were all concerned about increased tanker traffic, the tankers are way less of an issue and have so many safeguards for their transits in our waters than the single hulled cargo ships that travel around without tug escorts, and no one seems to pay any attention to that. People seem to grab onto a hot topic from the media and run with it as the next big problem, without having a real grasp on the entire scenario, and where the true problems lie.
the dirty bunker is still getting burnt and that's what ships are using the majority of the time for fuel - the 200 mile limit is simply window dressing. out of sight out of mind seems to be the modus operandi for many industries. i think the bigger concern most people have though is the response to the spill by the various levels of government.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
I'm not denying that burning bunker offshore doesn't have an impact on air pollution locally or globally; I'm simply correcting some people's impression that bunker is being burned all the time.
And yes, there needs to be immediate response to any spill. Why was there a delay in this incident? We have spill response vessels in Vancouver Harbour.
Forum jump:
