A shift in China to less toxic coatings for containers increases shipping costs
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/hanjin-creditors-fighting-over-...
If your VOC burner is off, you can't paint cars - the EPA levies a SERIOUS fine, like thousands of dollars a minute.
Even with the VOC burner on, paint shops always smell funny.
If you helped with the changeover, you should know this.
VOC is not the same as HAPS.
(Nor is VOC in any way related to how harmful the compounds are to people)
Trivial example: Acetone is VOC exempt in the US.
It's pretty trivial to make a 0 VOC solvent based coating using acetone.
They tend not to because it's not horribly friendly to use, due to, among other things, how quickly acetone flashes off.
In truth, water based or solvent based doesn't really change the VOC level that much these days, nor would it really matter to people.
A lot of the auto paints are 2k urethanes. a 2k water based polyurethane is still gonna be isocyanate + something else.
It doesn't really matter whether it's 0 VOC or not. You are going to use a supplied air respirator (minimum) because breathing isocyanate is a really bad idea.
So the idea, often floated, that lowering the VOC helped people's occupational exposure, is usually unsupported by evidence, at least in the auto industry (i'm only familiar with wood and auto :P).
The auto industry did not used to spray water based 2k urethanes. Now they do. Spraying and breathing a post-cat lacquer with n-butyl acetate in it + some acid, is infinitely better for you than spraying + breathing a water based 2k urethane with isocyanate in it.
Are there cases it ended up better for people? Sure, of course. But most of that is completely and totally independent of VOC content.
Because of course, most coatings manufacturers, surprise, optimized for legal VOC content, often at a cost to harmfulness to humans.
Note that, of my professional wood coatings, my water based and solvent based still have exactly the same amount of VOC (2.75lbs). Are there some that don't? Sure. They are mostly crap, because nobody has come up with magic ways to dissolve or emulsify various polymers and catalysts :)
So i can't get a water based post-cat conversion varnish that is anywhere near as good as a solvent based one. The chemistry to do it simply doesn't exist.
I can get a water based 2k urethane that has as nice (or nicer) properties than that conversion varnish, but at a high possible cost to my health. I'll pass.
Also as far as I know, the clear coat is still solvent based, but I may be mistaken about that.
Thanks for the detailed comment.
Despite its urban sprawl, LA has one of the lowest emissions per capita in the US, lower than nyc even. The pollution tends to accumulate due to it's geography, being that the city is in a basin instead of dispersing. Tear down the Santa Monica and San Gabriel mountains, and the air quality would be greatly improved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_...
Both LA and Beijing have similar topological bowl and inversion problems. Tear down the western and northern hills in Beijing, and the air quality would also be greatly improved.
So yeah no.
USA on place 12, Germany 38 and China is at 55.
Better list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
I was in Beijing in 1983 and the air was clean and everyone rode bicycles with almost zero cars. They could do that although it wouldn't fix the steel plants...
It is true that the US could be doing better, but it's not doing the opposite of what China is doing when it comes to energy & environmental improvements.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country
as in, it was propaganda act by politicians who used ignorance of what it stood for so you would think they were doing something about it when they were doing absolutely nothing. it had no power of enforcement because they could not even come to an agreement of who would be allowed to enforce it. when you let the fox set the rules the chickens outcome does not change.
it was worse than no treaty. with no treaty people can be brought back to the table and iron out one that has limits that apply equally to all nations with an agreed to enforcement. (per capita limits are the means some countries used to skirt any impact they have on the world)
For instance, on the renewable energy angle, according to the American Wind Energy Organization, five states now regularly generate 20%+ of their energy from wind. (http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber...) That number would've been unthinkable 10 years ago.
(Note that the windy states tend to be Republican voting rural mid-west ones. That doesn't mean that Trump isn't going to stop mocking wind energy (as he just recently did). Rather, it does mean there is bipartisan support in these states for wind energy, and that Trump's negative comments on wind in Iowa didn't go down very well with Iowans and Iowa politicians from both sides of the aisle -- https://apnews.com/a2b500b82d5a44eeb9759ca31d0b4a33)
Having a national leader that seems hostile to anything environmental certainly doesn't help matters, but it's not all doom and gloom.
that's 4% in 11 years, basically flatlining compared to other countries.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/medi...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_co...
2. https://askjaenergy.com/2014/11/17/iceland-is-the-world-larg...
No, it's 45% growth in 11 years. It's 4 percentage points, but that is something different.
CLIMATES NOT TO USE COR-TEN®:
COR-TEN® steel requires alternating wet and dry cycles to form a properly adhered protective layer. Areas that have salt laden air, high rainfall, humidity, or persistent fog are typically not the proper environment for COR-TEN®.
The new bridge is made of marine-grade aluminum.
[1] http://www.hmbreview.com/news/groundbreaking-for-coastal-tra...
Galvanization was popular for a brief time while the industry was still trying to find replacements for lead in paint that didn't have crap performance.
Cold galvanization is expensive and involves nasty chemicals. Hot galvanization is cheaper but not as cheap as paint and involves equally nasty chemicals and molten metals.
Basically paint is cheap and good enough.
really seems much ado about nothing.
Either you increase the number of 'machines' (lines in this case) or you increase your drying area foot print to compensate.
Once you do the latter you can produce at the same rate assuming all products produced are identical) since you the ones coming out the dry end do so at the same speed as the input end.
Edit: This does assume production demand is constant, longer pipelines make responding to demand more difficult.
* Water based paintings dry much faster than oil based paintings
* The durability is pretty much the same
* The scratch resistance of oil based paintings, once fully dried, is light years better than that of water based paintings.
In some aspects the green movement has brought us water based colors where you could water your home plants with but are inadequate for some (read: wide) range of application.
WW2 fighter jet
The number of times I have to manually edit a wikipedia URL every day to remove the ".m" part is getting frustrating. I'm sure there's a browser extension for that but really, I blame wikipedia's poor ergonomics.
[1] https://nickcraver.com/blog/2017/05/22/https-on-stack-overfl...
It actually does, but only when deciding to show the terrible mobile site instead of the desktop one. Even on a bloody iPad.
You're right. There isn't. It's taken for granted that you are aware of the fate of unpainted steel in a salt air environment.
Those things are not painted and google told me that you can calculate how much is oxidized in a year.
I would really love to know how a shipping container is so much more fragile.
Perhaps it is not that relevant but in masses it makes a relevant amount of money. Like steel container 20 years and with color 25 years and that makes it just better.
I imagine Hyundai, Maersk, etc. could buy or start some container manufacturers, but it sounded like in the article that they were just going to unhappily deal with it.
Regarding this article: either you lease more containers to handle a peak season, or you choose to just have a bigger container fleet. I question if it really makes sense to lease containers only during a peak season. If you already bought those containers last year then increased prices this year doesn't affect things as much as this article pretends: you still have your entire container fleet. Containers yet reused and written off over many years (e.g. 8+.. though just guessing), it is not a one-off activity!
But I appreciate you taking my comment seriously.