6 ms·

To expand a little, most container ships use bunker crude, which is borderline sludge. It even needs to be heated before being pumped out. But it's cheap and at

To expand a little, most container ships use bunker crude, which is borderline sludge. It even needs to be heated before being pumped out. But it's cheap and at the size, pressure, and speeds these engines run at they get most of the energy out of just about any fuel.

orbitingpluto 12y ago
Obligatory link: How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-1...
- saalweachter 12y ago
  An important note: as much sulfuric pollution as all the cars in the world. Which is bad enough, but -- for instance -- cars are (probably) still winning on CO2 emissions. For those who don't follow the link, the 16 ships in question burn the sludge that's left over after refining all the cleaner burning bits out of petroleum. So it's not so much a "quantity of fuel burned" problem as it is that they're burning the worst possible thing you can burn, as far as this sort of pollution goes.
  - Already__Taken 12y ago
    And yet seems like such a good candidate for nuclear power use.
    - darkmighty 12y ago
      I concur, it's an almost perfect application. So much that most aircraft carriers already use it, not sure what's holding back the private sector (probably safety concerns).
      - kyllo 12y ago
        Nope, it's definitely cost. Bunker is still very very cheap.
sanoli 12y ago
I read somewhere that container ships' fuels are the dirtiest of all fuels used everywhere, which made buying electronics really non-green (since they're all come in ships from the other side of the globe). Anyone here knows how accurate this is?
- Already__Taken 12y ago
  The fuel statement is accurate see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil It's quite unpleasant stuff but you have to remember to factor in just how much stuff its moving across the planet.

orbitingpluto 12y ago

Obligatory link: How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-1...

saalweachter 12y ago
An important note: as much sulfuric pollution as all the cars in the world. Which is bad enough, but -- for instance -- cars are (probably) still winning on CO2 emissions. For those who don't follow the link, the 16 ships in question burn the sludge that's left over after refining all the cleaner burning bits out of petroleum. So it's not so much a "quantity of fuel burned" problem as it is that they're burning the worst possible thing you can burn, as far as this sort of pollution goes.
- Already__Taken 12y ago
  And yet seems like such a good candidate for nuclear power use.
  - darkmighty 12y ago
    I concur, it's an almost perfect application. So much that most aircraft carriers already use it, not sure what's holding back the private sector (probably safety concerns).
    - kyllo 12y ago
      Nope, it's definitely cost. Bunker is still very very cheap.

sanoli 12y ago

I read somewhere that container ships' fuels are the dirtiest of all fuels used everywhere, which made buying electronics really non-green (since they're all come in ships from the other side of the globe). Anyone here knows how accurate this is?

Already__Taken 12y ago
The fuel statement is accurate see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil It's quite unpleasant stuff but you have to remember to factor in just how much stuff its moving across the planet.