Large shipping vessels,are they really efficient ? EPA Hypocrisy

[Laurentiu]

yes but I will probably take a while until we start seeing most ships equipped like that.

Thanks to its unique physical properties, the system produces between 5 and 25 times more power per square meter than conventional sail propulsion. A 160m2 SkySails generates a tractive force of 8 metric tons, which is comparable to the thrust of an Airbus A318 engine.

This is from the skysails.info homepage. It is amazing how much of potential wind energy would have if we found more efficient ways to harness it. Here's one of the ideas

[cfg83]

Laurentiu -

Originally Posted by Laurentiu

Source : www.guardian.co.uk


Of course this article speaks by itself of how much pollution is spewed by these gargantuan sea-monsters but the angle that I want to look at is how come EPA in the US is so stringent on Diesel engined cars/vehicles yet seems to be doing nothing significant about the pollution coming from shipping.

Any thoughts ?

I see this as being similar to the "SUV loophole". One reason SUVs were attractive to automakers was that they were classified as trucks for use as "farm equipment". In the interest of commerce "farm equipment" doesn't have to meet the same emission standards as passenger cars (so SUVs cost less to make and increase profit margins). This also makes sense in agricultural communities that have fewer cars and people per acre than urban centers. I think the same logic would apply to shipping vessels.

I would also guess that it's more difficult to enact and enforce emissions standards on international waters.

CarloSW2

[Piwoslaw]

Big ships pollute in more ways than just emissions: Dumped trash, dumped (human) waste, dumped fuel and oil, etc. Not to mention mutilating ocean life and/or disorienting it with sonar.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by Piwoslaw

...Dumped trash, dumped (human) waste, dumped fuel and oil, etc. Not to mention mutilating ocean life and/or disorienting it with sonar.

...we do the samething to the land & air, so where's the difference? (sardonic statement, of course)

[Laurentiu]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...we do the samething to the land & air, so where's the difference? (sardonic statement, of course)

There's probably more human waste dumped from trains than ships if that's the kind of waste you refer to..the brown/yellow kind

[rmay635703]

Ah but sails would make them steam more slowly and no we could never possibly have the ships operate more efficiently now could we?

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by Laurentiu

There's probably more human waste dumped from trains than ships if that's the kind of waste you refer to..the brown/yellow kind

I don't believe that is the case "in general" anymore... At least in the US, I don't believe Amtrak does the "direct dumping" anymore, and I think newer trains in the "more developed" parts of the world also have retention tanks.

However, I can't speak for every location / country...

[Clev]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I guess we could say they are fuel efficient but alas they pollute.

Yeah, it's a bit of a misleading (and sensational) headline. Shipping vessels are fuel efficient for the load they carry. And since the EPA is creating a 'reduced emissions zone' around the US, where ships will need to clean themselves up to continue to deliver to the US, I fail to see the 'EPA hypocrisy.'

But hey, it got me to click on the thread, so I guess mission accomplished.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Piwoslaw

...dumped (human) waste...

Umm... What does a whale do in the ocean, kiddies?

As long as you don't overload it, say by running unprocessed urban sewage into a bay, nature will recycle animal waste just fine. In fact, a lot of organisms see it as a banquet :-)

[SentraSE-R]

There aren't 7 billion whales in the ocean.