The 15 biggest ships emit as much pollution as EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD COMBINED...

The 15 biggest ships emit as much pollution as EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD COMBINED. There are currently 140 nuclear powered ships in use around the world-- submarines, icebreakers, aircraft carriers-- HOW IS MAKING THESE COMMERCIAL VESSELS NUCLEARLY VIABLE NOT OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY?

We're spending all this money and effort making regulations to reduce carbon emissions that make everybody's lives more difficult and cost people their jobs while this solution is staring us right in the face.

Reposting this thread here since you guys might have actual reasons why this isn't happening. All I can think of are conspiracy theories.

Other urls found in this thread:

newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/
flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/
world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx
b9energy.co.uk/B9Shipping/tabid/4036/language/en-US/Default.aspx
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Source: newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

Is this is intended as some sort of sly
>muh cars only pollute as much as 15 ships, we don't gotta touch me car
argument by bitter drivers who fear change?

He has a point unlike you. Why change a billion cars before 15 fucking ships? Makes no sense.

>I'm too poor to even have a garage, drivers must pay!!!

who's actually bitter here?

>muh fear of change!!!

Four countries have launched nuclear-powered merchant ships: America built the NS Savannah, a passenger-cargo ship; Germany built the Otto Hahn, which carried ore for nearly a decade; Japan built the Mutsu, which was decommissioned after a single test run; and Russia built the Sevmorput, which carried cargo until 2012. www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships

flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/

The German-built 15,000 tonne Otto Hahn cargo ship and research facility sailed some 650,000 nautical miles on 126 voyages in 10 years without any technical problems. It had a 36 MWt reactor delivering 8 MW to the propeller. However, it proved too expensive to operate and in 1982 it was converted to diesel.

world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx

The problem is that large modern ships do not burn diesel. They have special engines that run on 'bunker oil', a tarry substance that has to be heated to become semifluid and combustible. Asphalt, the cheapest and dirtiest fuel in the world. That's why just 16 of the world's largest ships emit more sulfur (partially into the hydrosphere) than all the world's cars combined emit into the atmosphere. IMO regulations are voluntary.

I own a townhouse in the middle of an expensive city where there's no parking and have a 15 minute bike ride to work. You live in a suburb of some shithole like Houston where "having a garage" is considered a status symbol and have a 2 hour commute

Are you bragging about living in a city? Lol im dead.

Not him and that's nice for you, hell I'd greatly prefer that over having to drive everywhere but you realize that simply isn't possible for most locations. Especially larger more forestry states like the South.

This shouldn't be an excuse to stop improving cars but if it would be much more beneficial to pull research into making larger crafts like boats more efficient then why not do it?

Stop buying shit from overseas. Buy locally produced goods.

>irony is that I'm typing this on a computer filled with blood minerals

>The 15 biggest ships emit as much pollution as EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD COMBINED.
It's not what you're thinking. It's as much of certain specific kinds of pollution (mostly, sulfur compounds). They use only the tiniest fraction of the energy of all the cars put together.

This is tolerated because they mostly operate out to sea, where that pollution is nearly-literally a "pissing in the ocean" thing: it will quickly be washed out of the air by rain, diluted in the ocean, broken down to harmless compounds, and not affect the chemical composition of the ocean measurably. The ocean isn't just salty water, it's a mix of all kinds of elements, not at all like freshwater, which has been effectively distilled by evaporation and rainfall.

It's really not a problem. Just every once in a while some idiot who doesn't understand tries to make a big deal of it.

If you wanted to fix it, simply burning cleaner fuel would be a more reasonable answer than nuclear. This wouldn't even require any modifications to the ships themselves. They're also big enough that new ones could easily run on liquefied natural gas.

>living in a city

Sounds terrible. I live on my own farm and rarely need to leave it. When I do leave it I have to drive 10 miles to the nearest town. I drive like 100 miles a year. I spent all yesterday with friends, neighbors, and family outside playing games in the yard and having BBQ.

Different kind of pollution.

Some ships are employing kites now. They make up like 40% of the propulsion.

It's interesting how wind power has come back

>not living in a dense city and having a cabin in th emiddle of nowhere

lol yeah.

b9energy.co.uk/B9Shipping/tabid/4036/language/en-US/Default.aspx

I lived in a city for a few years. You are not fooling anyone.

you have shit taste then

enjoy your endless strip malls and parking lots in soulless suburbia

>cost people their jobs while this solution is staring us right in the face.
Wot? The only jobs we've really lost have been coal, but that's because coal is an awfully inefficient fuel source rather than some sinister narrative the neocons are forcing. Moreover we've made up plenty of jobs in new fields of energy. You're grasping at straws.

>All I can think of are conspiracy theories
And that's why, I know this message won't get through to you at all but try to approach this a little more rationally and you'll realize /x/ and /pol/ are full of shit

I'm the one who lives on a farm. My nearest neighbor is 1/2 a mile away. I have to drive 50+ miles to the nearest mall. These are pics from with in a 5 mile radius of my house (reposted from old /out/ thread.) I wouldn't go back to a city if you paid me.

I see. And clearly you posted this on Veeky Forums because Veeky Forums is the official hangout of all the national leaders of the worlds. Indeed, you have made a great post. I have Mr. Donald J. Trump on the line right now and I'm telling him all of this (he is currently busy browsing another board).

>The 15 biggest ships emit as much pollution as EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD COMBINED.
Please show me how you managed to pull that alternate fact out of your ass.

This ripped my sides open.
>tfw brainlet

>I know this message won't get through to you at all

I came here didn't I? You're the one who didn't bother supplying a reason why we on land should bust our asses reducing emissions while 15 ships are polluting as much as all of the cars.

Did you read the source you memeloving fuck? I'm not from here, I just read the research that's been done already. If I'm not getting the whole story than tell me how I'm wrong

Alright I don't mean to hijack the thread or anything but I have to ask this stupid question here.

As user mentioned, theres some ships that are nuclear powered. Lets think of a carrier.

What happens if a carrier is destroyed in action? Is their destruction dangerous? Is the nuclear material they carry dangerous to the eco system?

Short answer: Yes, [spoiler]but it will literally never happen (at least to US carriers) because despite being giant and massive targets because they carry so many aircraft, they are literally the most protected things on the entire earth. We can intercept a majority of projectiles, torpedos included (something people said wasn't possible). So while it would probably be bad, it's not a plausible scenario. Another Fukushima is more likely.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]REEE WHY CAN'T I SPOILER I'M GOING TO KILL MYSELF REEEEEEE[/spoiler]

wow that seems like such an easily implemented way to save the companies money on fuel.

those ships make rich people a lot of money. fucking over the powerless poor masses with cars is the obvious choice for the true elites.

The advantage to nuclear power for a ship is that it can stay at sea much longer. This is not an useful advantage for a cargo ship which by its nature spends its time going between ports. the downside of making a ship nuclear are that it is incredibly expensive and requires a full-time nuclear physic team onboard (these guys are also very expensive). A nuclear powered cargo ship would have to ferry nothing but gold bricks to make enough money to pay for its fuel.

Fucking retard
They emit as much sulfur and nitrogen oxides, nto as much CO2

The problem is that the people who own the ship don't pay the fuel costs, that comes down to whoever charters it. So the ship owners pay the cost to have it installed but then the charter saves the money.

Another dumb question, from somebody that knows nothing about this.

What happens if the carrier goes boom due to the impact of anything (anything that causes it to be completely destroyed), could this trigger a nuclear explosion?

Maybe charters should pay the ship owners.
but those are still ghgs

>but those are still ghgs
No they aren't, sulfur has a cooling effect

No, but it the impact could release radioactive/irradiated materials.

They both create acid rain.

Acid rain isn't a greenhouse gas

Well it remains to be shown if more cloud cover is really beneficial in the long run but purposefully releasing sulphur oxides and dust into the atmosphere (the troposphere) could be a temporary solution while we figure out how to stop releasing ghgs.

also, acidifying the ocean further is going to negatively impact it's ability to sequester carbon

beautiful.

also, full agreement. i grew up and went to boarding school in the middle of nowhere, then moved to cities for study and work. currently finishing another study program, after that i'm moving back to the middle of nowhere again. i'm in the position to be able to work from home and freelance, all i need is a stable internet connection and i'm good to go.

fuck cities. there's a reason everybody who can afford to moves back into nature.

>Make ships nuclear
>Allu Akbar intensifies
>Ports of extreme economic importance around the world go boom as terrorists jury rig the reactors to reach critical mass and detonate in massive nuclear explosions

There's your diddly reason, OP. Muslims

Real answer is no, if you had to choose one ecosystem on Earth to have a large dump of radioactive isotopes the oceans are your best bet. Even the relentless 20MT+ nuclear tests of the cold war have left no trace in the actual marine ecosystems, only on the actual islands does the radiation persist. And that's far worse than a reactor, the worst disaster of which has failed to permanently damage the surrounding ecosystem despite predictions to the contrary. I'd even go so far as to say that a oil spill would have harsher and longer lasting effects than a catastrophic reactor breach.

I was about to bring up the long term cost savings of nuclear reactors that only need refueling every 20 years, but
>requires a full-time nuclear physic team onboard
Is a pretty valid downside.

1. It's expensive
2. People on board are fuckwits and accidents are common, do you really want an accident to lead to radiation all over the place?
3. Current ship engineers are not trained for that sort of thing, and it would be too difficult and expensive to actually get them trained on it, especially given that the vast majority of ships will remain fueled by traditional methods.

If you want to know what the real meme fuel is going to be, it's LNG.

Anyway, I'm a qualified navigational officer and I've worked on a bunch of ships and know the industry. So that's my (slightly educated) opinion.

>It's as much of certain specific kinds of pollution (mostly, sulfur compounds).

It's also worth keeping in mind that there lots of coastal areas are implementing SECAs (Sulphur Emission Control Areas), which require switching to low sulphur fuel when you're in them. Pic related, the European area.

You could do it easily enough
You would need regulation changes so that cheaper production of self-contained nuke plants was possible.