Hacker News Reader

Comment by iNate2000 | Hacker News Reader

iNate2000

Aren't ocean vessels one of the most efficient forms of transportation in existence?

In terms of dollars per unit weight moved, yes. They are not only moving massive amounts of cargo with low drag, they're also relatively lightweight compared to the product being moved. Also, there's no maintenance cost to keeping a flat path across the Pacific like there is in keeping roads free of potholes.

In terms of environmental damage, not at all. Container ships burn some of the nastiest, most sulphrous and damaging forms of crude oil in existence, with little to no emissions controls.

I think rail transport is best, but I could be wrong.

Sulfur dioxide emissions at sea are not that damaging compared to in land. They did make some zero emission cargo ships but it was pretty expensive due to crew complement for the reactor.

Interesting. There is only one operational cargo ship powered by a nuclear reactor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput

Next year it will enter into force the IMO regulation on a global sulphur cap, vessels can only burn a low sulphur bunker (the fuel for a commercial ship). http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/13-su...

A lot of Chinese ships burn spent USA motor oil (illegal to burn in the USA) on the way home, ergo, free trip home! And the entire smoke plume lands in the USA . .

Do you have a source for that, I can't seem to find a reliable one

You are wrong. Even in terms of emissions ships are the most efficient way to transport goods, in terms of km-tonnes.

I appreciate that you cited a paper, but I think you are overstating. The paper discusses CO2 emissions, which indeed are lower for transport by ship than by trains. But the parent was talking about "environmental damage" from ships that burn the "nastiest, most sulphrous and damaging forms of crude oil", and thus was referring to pollutants other than just CO2.

This report, for instance (I have not read it completely) says "Rail is generally the cleanest mode of transport for most pollutants" and "Maritime shipping is one of the cleanest mode of freight transport, except for PM and specific sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions". While there is lots of emphasis currently on CO2 emissions, other pollutants are also worth considering.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/specific-...

Granted the US and EU could agree to regulate emissions from container shipping.

UN is doing something already. By January 2020, the limit for Sulphur in fuel oil used on board ships operating outside designated emission control areas will be reduced to 0.50% m/m (mass by mass).

http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/sulphur-20...

The shipping industry is responsible for a significant proportion of the global climate change problem. More than three percent of global carbon dioxide emissions can be attributed to ocean-going ships. This is an amount comparable to major carbon-emitting countries -- and the industry continues to grow rapidly.

In fact, if global shipping were a country, it would be the sixth largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions. Only the United States, China, Russia, India and Japan emit more carbon dioxide than the world’s shipping fleet. Nevertheless, carbon dioxide emissions from ocean-going vessels are currently unregulated.

https://eu.oceana.org/en/shipping-pollution-1

Not really a helpful or fair comparison. Global shipping emits more carbon dioxide than India, but that's literally apples to oranges.

It might be easier for the shipping industry to reduce it's emissions, or it might be easier for India. The benefit(s) of India polluting is spread across 1.3 billion people. The beneficiaries of polluting by the shipping industry is presumably the whole world, though the benefits are unevenly spread. It might be easier or more impactful for one to reduce while the other doesn't, but again, we can't know without more data.

A better comparison would be between shipping and air freight. Or make the case that we don't need to ship if we can produce locally instead. Maybe it could be supplemented by saying that if the cost of the externality (pollution) was borne by the producer of the products, then it would incentivize local production.

> Or make the case that we don't need to ship if we can produce locally instead.

My impression was that this was the argument being made. Shipping emissions could be cut dramatically if more things were made close to their end destination.

4.5 million gallon tank 225 tons per day I can't believe people think their cars can even hold a candle to this type of fuel consumption.

There are much more cars, so yes, overall cars can definitely be consuming more fuel than ships.

>The shipping industry is responsible for a significant proportion of the global climate change problem. More than three percent of global carbon dioxide emissions can be attributed to ocean-going ships.

According to wikipedia, ships account for 2.2%[1] of co2 emissions. However, the transportation sector as a whole accounts for 29% of co2 emissions. Considering how much ships move, that's pretty good.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...

[2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Once the packages reach a domestic port, they still have to compete the same domestic journey as a local package.

No. The 15 largest cargo ships produce more pollution than all the cars in the world combined.

http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-mo...

For certain kinds of pollution, yes. By the same logic, so do nuclear reactors, since cars don't tend to release fission products (even if reactors do so very, very rarely)

Efficient per unit distance, yes , but they're also travelling more units of distance

I don't know about that, I'm unqualified to answer. However, ocean liners do use very dirty fuels (compared to automobiles) and very dirty engines with respect to sulfur and nitrogen oxides emissions

Except for the pollution. That bunker fuel is terribly dirty.

Athens Greece has a pall of smog over it mostly coming from the ships in the harbor as they sit there spewing columns of thick black smoke into the sky. I don't doubt some of the pollution is from vehicles, but it's pretty noticeable how the particulate smog starts in the harbor and moves inland.

Only compared to alternative forms of transportation for the same distance, like airplane.

Still, shorter is better.

Perhaps, but the price of fuel already incentives shippers to use less of it. It might be better mpg to ship by sea but by shipping such a huge distance much of that may be negated

Not more efficient than trains. Environmentally, we'd all be better off if goods to the US were produced in Mexico and shipped into the US by train.

Yes more efficient than trains, though only by a factor of 2 to 3. 0.209 to 0.35 mJ/tkm for rail versus 0.11 for ocean freight. Domestic water freight (river barges) is 0.16.

Road freight is 1.3 to 2.4 and air freight is 6.9 to 10.5 waaaay worse than any of these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport

Most efficient price/volume wise, and dirtiest, environment wise

https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=1762

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_tran...

I am trying really hard to not post a bunch of expletives here, too many people on HN downvote facts, even with sources (my fault for thinking everyone has a brain and can use Google or something). Wtf happened to this site...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com