Just 16 Ships Expel as Much Pollution as All the Cars in the World

[kach22i]

Freaky if this stands to be true under closer scrutiny of the facts.

Just 16 Ships Expel as Much Pollution as All the Cars in the World
Just 16 Ships Expel as Much Pollution as All the Cars in the World

[Porsche-O-Phile]

However, as the article hints at, it's far easier to tax and regulate the hell out of cars than ships.

Ironically I wonder how many of the worst-polluting ships operate solely to deliver fuel for cars. Probably damn nearly all of them.

[URY914]

Someone send this to Al Gore.

[sammyg2]

Nope, sorry, simply not true. Not even close. It can't be. Physically impossible.

Bunker fuel (what ships typically burn when not in port) does not contain enough sulfur to do what they (you) claim.
Even if 100% off the sulfur in 16 very large container ships was emitted into the air it would only be a fraction of the total amount of sulfur coming from all the cars in the world.
Fuels burned in on-highway vehicles are extremely clean when compared to bunker fuel, but the sheer volume of fuel burned in vehicles is staggering.

Bunker fuel contains around 1% sulfur on average. It can go as high as 5% but it usually doesn't.
A typical container ship burns around 215 tons of fuel per day at full steam.
At 1% sulfur, that's about 4300 pounds per day. Time 16 is 68800 pounds per day, or 34.4 tons of sulfur burned per day by 16 very large container ships. Not all of it ends up in the atmosphere BTW.

Just in the US, we emit 400 tons of sulfur from on-road vehicles every day. Sulfur Dioxide | Air Emission Sources | US EPA
That is with extremely clean ultra-low sulfur diesel and reformulated gasoline with under 50 ppm (.00005%)
Now you figure out how much fuel is burned in other countries, and figure that only some countries (US, Europe, Japan, etc) have extremely clean fuels, the number climbs dramatically.
Maybe in his mind 34.4 tons is more than 800 tons (my estimation).

Another enviro-wacko exaggeration.
For them the end justifies the means so making crap up is perfectly OK if it convinces the mush-heads to agree with them.
It has become standard practice for them to imagine BS that would support their fantasy world and then spew it as fact. All because there are others waiting to lap the BS up because it makes them "FEEL" good.

Now here's the funny part:
Bunker fuel is filthy and needs to be cleaned up. I agree with them on that and I'd estimate that most people knowledgeable on the subject agree with that. There really is no need for exaggeration or wild claims.

The problem is, it's cheap and in the open ocean who can tell them what to do? The US can't tell a ship not to burn dirty fuel off the coast of Africa, any more than Norway can tell a ship not to burn dirty fuel in the middle of the pacific. All we can control is what they do in port and in our territorial waters.

The only way to clean up the bunker fuel is to globally ban the manufacture and sale of dirty bunker fuel.
Unfortunately that isn't an easy thing to do.
Cleaning it up will significantly increase the cost. It costs around $1.80 a gallon now. That's about $500 per metric ton so a big ship can burn over $100,000 per day of fuel. It's their largest expense by far.
Lowering the sulfur would increase the cost quite a bit and that would increase the cost of shipping, and would either raise the cost of shipped goods or lower the profits of the companies that make them. It would lower the global standard of living a little and cost jobs, and lots O'people don't want to do that.
Maybe that's why that enviro-nut wrote that paper with the gross exaggerations.

We could mandate only low sulfur bunker fuel be produced in the US but no one would buy it. they'd just get it from other places. All that would do would be to hurt our economy and move more jobs overseas. it would not reduce the amount of sulfur burned.

In the port of Long Beach they decided that ships in port can't burn the dirty crap and the shipping companies pitched a huge beotch saying it'd cost too much and that they'd take their business elsewhere.

Then the moron-politicians and enviro-tards decided they'd mandate natural gas burning diesel trucks working in the port, and require expensive modifications on trucks hauling freight from the port area. which cost a whole bunch. Huge. They even had to build a large natural gas fueling terminal near the port to fuel the trucks (which was subsidized by joe taxpayer). The net effect of replacing or modifying the trucks is negligible BTW.

The eviro-holes realized they'd screwed up when the immigrant truck drivers from our neighbors to the south sued saying it was discriminatory.
The answer? Subsidize independent truckers and minorities that can't afford to modify or buy new trucks. No problem, the taxpayers will pay for it. They're suckers, they'll pay for anything!
We'll spend $$$$ per truck of our hard-earned paychecks to modify the trucks, or if they are old and can't be modified we'll help them buy new trucks, so they can make lots of money and send it out of our country and help a different country's economy. Brilliant.

[varmint]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Nope, sorry, simply not true. Not even close. It can't be. Physically impossible.

they have a comments section on the enviroweenie site.


PLEASE post that there. it will be fun to watch.

[jmaxwell]

Just a small correction, but the over the road sulfur total in the citation is 145,966 tons per year (in 2005) , or about 400 tons per day, not 4000. But your point is still valid; over the road emission total is still more than 16 ships if your other assumptions are correct

[sammyg2]

I got an idea, lets send our jobs somewhere else!

LA-Long Beach Backlash
Bill Mongelluzzo | Mar 23, 2009 4:00AM GMT
The Journal of Commerce Magazine - News Story

As fees increase, so do shipper diversions

Importers and exporters are diverting some cargo to other gateways because of the plethora of fees Los Angeles and Long Beach charge to fund infrastructure and environmental programs.

Shippers say the Alameda Corridor fee, the PierPass extended gates fee and the newly instituted clean-trucks fee are driving their shipments to other ports where no such charges exist.

Other ports are exploiting the situation by using the Southern California fees as a marketing tool and saying the cumulative impact of existing and proposed fees is almost $150 per TEU.

The Port of Long Beach is fighting back. In a chart entitled “Fees: Claims vs. Reality,” Long Beach dissects each of the port fees and concludes that many shippers are paying no more than $20 per TEU in charges.

Port fees in Southern California fall into two categories: Infrastructure development fees fund specific projects, such as the Alameda Corridor. So-called behavior modification fees are designed to change shipping habits to reduce port congestion or pollution from trucks.

The Alameda Corridor fee, assessed since 2002, stands at $20 per TEU. Revenue is used to retire the debt on the $1.8 billion rail corridor. The fee is scheduled to end in 2037 if the corridor debt has been satisfied. Shippers generally accept this fee because it funds a project that has improved rail efficiency and reduced vehicular delays in the Los Angeles area.

Because it is charged only on cargo that enters or leaves the region by rail, the fee is paid by about 36 percent of all cargo moving through Los Angeles-Long Beach, according to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority. Local cargo that moves by truck does not pay the fee.

The $50-per-TEU PierPass fee was started in 2005 to reduce truck congestion. It is assessed against traffic during the peak daytime hours. Shipments that move in the off-hours are exempt. PierPass has modified shipper behavior in a major way: About 40 percent of harbor truck trips now occur off-hours, and long truck lines are a thing of the past.

Similarly, the clean-trucks fee that began on Feb. 18 encourages motor carriers to purchase new, low-emission trucks, which are exempt from the fee. Cargo interests whose shipments move on noncompliant trucks are assessed a $35-per-TEU fee. The revenue is used to subsidize motor carriers so they can purchase new vehicles.

That fee will end within five years when all pre-2007 model trucks are banned and only low-emission trucks are left in the harbor.

Later this year, the ports plan to institute a $6-per-TEU fee to help fund infrastructure development, but that fee could be delayed until construction begins on projects whose environmental impact reports were only recently approved.

Long Beach emphasizes that under these guidelines, only intermodal rail shipments are certain to be assessed a fee today. Truck shipments that move in the off-hours in environmentally compliant trucks pay no fee. Given the exemptions that are available, Long Beach said, most shipments incur modest fees of $20 to $50 per TEU.

By contrast, shipments moving on all-water services from Asia to the East Coast via the Panama Canal, without exception, pay a $63-per-TEU canal toll.

Shipper representatives bristle at such comparisons. “It’s not about the money,” said Robin Lanier, executive director of the Waterfront Coalition, which represents retailers and other shippers. The myriad of fees and exemptions make shipping through Los Angeles-Long Beach “infinitely more complex” than shipping through all other U.S. ports, none of which have such fees, she said.

The fees also represent a “hidden cost” to shippers who must track and document their shipments to claim exemptions, said Dan Meylor, customs administrative manager at Carmichael International Service, a Los Angeles-based customs broker and forwarder. “It’s an extra administrative cost when the economy is bad,” he told a recent Town Hall meeting at California State University in Long Beach.

Peter Friedmann, who serves as counsel to the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said any fee in a slow economy is burdensome, especially for low-margin shippers such as agricultural exporters. The fees add to the high-cost environment in Southern California and have contributed to cargo diversion, he said.

Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bmongelluzzo@joc.com.

[The Gaijin]

At least we are talking about by-products of sulfur here - honest to goodness pollution.

[sammyg2]

http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6356

Application for Truck Retrofit Funding
Port of Long Beach Clean Trucks Program
Checklist to apply for a Retrofit
To obtain up to $20,000 toward a California Air Resources Board (CARB) verified retrofit that
achieves at least 85% PM reductions and 25% NOx reductions, applicants must complete twelve steps
listed below. After review of the Application for Truck Retrofit Funding (Application Forms A
through E) , additional supporting documentation may be requested. Applicants will be contacted at
the primary contact phone number provided in Application Form B – Applicant Details. All
paperwork, including the original application, must be provided to the Port of Long Beach (Port) Grant
Administrator at the Clean Trucks Center located on Terminal Island at the corner of Pier S Avenue
and New Dock Street. The Clean Trucks Center has bi-lingual advisors to assist applicants to fill out
Application Forms A through E and to answer questions about the Clean Trucks Program. Retrofit
funding is limited and, if retrofit applications exceed available funding, awards will be selected at
random from a pool of qualified applicants. Completion of the application (Forms A through E)
does not guarantee acceptance into the retrofit funding program

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by jmaxwell

Just a small correction, but the over the road sulfur total in the citation is 145,966 tons per year (in 2005) , or about 400 tons per day, not 4000. But your point is still valid; over the road emission total is still more than 16 ships if your other assumptions are correct

Yep, you're right. Thank you. I went back and made the correction.

Does this mean I'm not going to pass your class? Oh man, not summer school again!

Counting zeros on my calcumalator isn't as easy as it used to be. It fine when I bought it years ago but the display has miraculously gotten smaller as I've gotten older

[javadog]

Look at it another way. How many large ships are out there, sailing around the world on an average day? According to sources on the internet, there are in excess of 53,000 ships in the world's fleet. I bet a decent number of those are moving on a daily basis. The pollution from shipping may indeed be pretty significant. Funny how car get all the attention.

I'll bet that if you add up the damage from shipping, rail travel, air travel and powerplants and compare it the impact of the world's cars, the output of cars is almost insignificant.

JR

[GH85Carrera]

Maybe so but we can't stop shipping things. How will I get my imported beer?

[jyl]

Originally Posted by javadog

Look at it another way. How many large ships are out there, sailing around the world on an average day? According to sources on the internet, there are in excess of 53,000 ships in the world's fleet. I bet a decent number of those are moving on a daily basis. The pollution from shipping may indeed be pretty significant. Funny how car get all the attention.

I'll bet that if you add up the damage from shipping, rail travel, air travel and powerplants and compare it the impact of the world's cars, the output of cars is almost insignificant.

JR

sammyg posted data. You could do the same.

[RWebb]

it won't be insignificant - for one thing the pollution from cars exits close to the intakes for your lungs

that is why the issue re ports - many people live at or near most ports (that's why they _are_ ports)

I suspect the comparison is based not on "All the Cars in the World" but All the Cars in the World if they were all new car/recent models in good tune. Nonetheless, 16 ships surprises me -- maybe they picked the 16 dirtiest ships with the dirtiest fuel?

Ship fuels are a big pollution issue however. As cars become cleaner, the impacts of other sources stand out more prominently.

[javadog]

Originally Posted by jyl

sammyg posted data. You could do the same.

Well, Bunkie, I'd post some if I had any.

How's this tidbit, stolen from elsewhere on the 'net:

Global annual nitrogen and sulfur emissions from ships are estimated to be 10.12 Tg (1012 grams) and 8.48 Tg, respectively, showing that ship emissions represent more than 14 percent of nitrogen emissions from global fuel combustion sources and more than 16 percent of sulfur emissions from world petroleum use.

Now, maybe I'll leave this thread to you guys and go look for some cheerleader pictures, or something.

JR