| |
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
IMPORTANT PLEASE READ This website and forum has been living on borrowed web server time for years. At the end of this month silsden.net in it's present form will cease to exist, BUT there is a new silsden.net in the making, and a new forum, and lots of exciting new things coming to this space. Peter |
back
to General Forum | back to forum index | login
|
sign
up | help
| latest topics | search
Replies in this thread : 5
Author |
Topic : pollution |
|
| dogcatcher |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) saw this in the PAPER it beggers believe we are so concerned about cars etc,,,,the shipping industry is on another level,thanks to its burning of marine diesel thats like black treacle,just a single transatlantic crossing by a container ship creates more co2 than the entire british road network does in a year and how many ships are there ,makes the car industry seem like a pea compared to the ocean traffic.more like its those ships that need looking at first for pollution,disgraceful. '  '); ' '); |
|
| HB |
You are partially correct. Large commercial vessels primarily burn what's called Heavy Fuel Oil when out at sea. This fuel is not heavily refined, has high sulfur content and produces a lot of sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide compounds when it is burned. Cars burn a highly refined gasoline which produces almost no sulfur oxides or nitrogen oxides. Even trucks burn a highly refined highway diesel which must contain less than 15 parts per million of sulfur, so they too produce very few sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. Cars and trucks do produce quite a bit of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. So yes, the biggest ships produce more sulfur oxide pollutants than all the cars in the UK, because they run on completely different fuels. A ship produces more carbon dioxide emission per mile and per gallon of fuel than a car. Ships in general, however, have the lowest emission levels of any other method of cargo transport , producing fewer emissions per ton of freight per mile than barges, trains or trucks |
|
| HB |
Also, you talk about CO2, the carbon chains in Ship fuel is longer but it is still a hydrocarbon so the ship would need to to burn more ship oil than all the cars in the UK burn diesel and petrol—- there would not be enough space on the ship! |
|
| Corky Yorky |
quote"A ship produces more carbon dioxide emission per mile and per gallon of fuel than a car. Ships in general, however, have the lowest emission levels of any other method of cargo transport , producing fewer emissions per ton of freight per mile than barges, trains or trucks" At this point your argument ends because you have brought politics and consumerism into the equation! Irrespective, whatever the reason of pollution: Pollution is pollution! You should not accept that pollution by saying its okay because of the amount of cargo that can be transported?? Maybe we should say to Poland..lets keep your economy flowing by producing more coal because other countries are producing less without addressing the reasons!! Your clearly a person in favour of pointless, carbon offsetting? |
|
| dogcatcher |
this post has been edited 2 time(s) looks like the papers wrong again ???!!! AND IT ISNT ME TALKING ABOUT CO2 ITS OUT OF THE PAPER |
|
| old_miner |
The technical answer to this situation is to use nuclear heated boilers for steam power. However as anything with nuclear is still associated with big bombs polluting hydrocarbons have prevailed. Sailing ships eco friendly as well. |
|
| Replies in this thread : 5 |
|
events sale / wanted general have your say looking for.. skippy greengrass |
|
DON'T FORGET THE SUBJECT IS >>>>>>>> Forums Home > General Forum > pollution |
|||
|
<< HOME PAGE < RETURN ^ PAGE TOP ^ | ||
 |
|||
|
webenquiries to |
||
02/12/2018 : 23:45:57 