1 Ship Creates As Much Pollution as 55 MILLION cars!

[Lordbenny]

And 16 ships create as much pollution as EVERY car on the planet!

I did not know this!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-122...

[k-ink]

Think about that next time you order more st from China you don't need.

[Jasandjules]

Seriously?

You didn't know that when all those Eco Cars are shipped across the planet (along with the Eco Solar Panels) etc that it really isn't.........

[Scuffers]

Lordbenny said:

And 16 ships create as much pollution as EVERY car on the planet!

I did not know this!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-122...

You do realise this is the daily mail?

The detail is on about sulphur emissions, and since petrol has gone low sulphur, then yes, they emit more (although i think they have ignored allnthe cars in China, India, Pakistan, etc)

If you follow shipping, all new ships have to meet ever stricter emissions, much the same as cars have over the years.

The only usefully bit of info in that link is about oil tankers, fans the problem there is the bankers etc playing the oil market.

[McWigglebum4th]

Sit down and work out the MPG per ton of a supertanker

they do 14 knots an hour 24 hours a day

They use about 80 tons of fuel per day


Sounds terrible compared to a truck


A truck carries 35tons at most

A supertanker carrier 300,000 tons

[Lordbenny]

Scuffers said:

You do realise this is the daily mail?

The detail is on about sulphur emissions, and since petrol has gone low sulphur, then yes, they emit more (although i think they have ignored allnthe cars in China, India, Pakistan, etc)

If you follow shipping, all new ships have to meet ever stricter emissions, much the same as cars have over the years.

The only usefully bit of info in that link is about oil tankers, fans the problem there is the bankers etc playing the oil market.

Seems the Grauniad are reporting it too!

http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

[PlankWithANailIn]

Gaz. said:

I'd have thought aircraft would have this licked- the most efficient 747 needs 53335 gallons for 8699 miles with a maximum take of weight of 447 tons. 0.16 miles per gallon. I'm sure that's wrong but I got all of that from a 747 technical paper.

But a full one with 660 people on it does 100 mile per gallon per person, one of the most efficient modes of transport.

[whoami]

Lordbenny said:

Seems the Grauniad are reporting it too!

http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

I love it when that happens.

[Scuffers]

PlankWithANailIn said:

Gaz. said:

I'd have thought aircraft would have this licked- the most efficient 747 needs 53335 gallons for 8699 miles with a maximum take of weight of 447 tons. 0.16 miles per gallon. I'm sure that's wrong but I got all of that from a 747 technical paper.

But a full one with 660 people on it does 100 mile per gallon per person, one of the most efficient modes of transport.

That's not right, and even if it was, a train has it beet hands down.

Buy tonnage, the new mazerk EEE class container ships win.

[McWigglebum4th]

Scuffers said:

PlankWithANailIn said:

Gaz. said:

I'd have thought aircraft would have this licked- the most efficient 747 needs 53335 gallons for 8699 miles with a maximum take of weight of 447 tons. 0.16 miles per gallon. I'm sure that's wrong but I got all of that from a 747 technical paper.

But a full one with 660 people on it does 100 mile per gallon per person, one of the most efficient modes of transport.

That's not right, and even if it was, a train has it beet hands down.

Buy tonnage, the new mazerk EEE class container ships win.

Nope not even close to a ULCC

[creampuff]

Daily Mail = Bullst

[Willy Nilly]

Gaz. said:

I'd have thought aircraft would have this licked- the most efficient 747 needs 53335 gallons for 8699 miles with a maximum take of weight of 447 tons. 0.16 miles per gallon. I'm sure that's wrong but I got all of that from a 747 technical paper.

But that's with 300 people on board. IIRC the specific fuel consumption of the RR Trent 900 is something daft like 190g/kw/hr and the big 2 strokes in container ships are similar, show me a car engine that gets near that.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Scuffers said:

bankers etc playing the oil market.

Banker?

Bunker?

There must be some connection....

[Steffan]

I do doubt the maths somewhat but the hysterical eco lobby have cheerfully ignored the reality of pollution outputs for years. Cars are am easy target. Ships are not generally seen by landlivers. All forms of human activity create massive waste and pollution. We are not naturally eco sympathetic animals.

[Scuffers]

McWigglebum4th said:

Scuffers said:

PlankWithANailIn said:

Gaz. said:

I'd have thought aircraft would have this licked- the most efficient 747 needs 53335 gallons for 8699 miles with a maximum take of weight of 447 tons. 0.16 miles per gallon. I'm sure that's wrong but I got all of that from a 747 technical paper.

But a full one with 660 people on it does 100 mile per gallon per person, one of the most efficient modes of transport.

That's not right, and even if it was, a train has it beet hands down.

Buy tonnage, the new mazerk EEE class container ships win.

Nope not even close to a ULCC

Really?

I would have thought 23tonnes/day for 18,270TUE capacity was pretty good.

[ging84]

anyone check the date on that article ?
UPDATED: 22:13, 21 November 2009

the interesting bit was about the tankers sitting anchored waiting for fuel prices to rise, till i noticed the fking date