18wheelers make up for 25% of the emissions from vehicles

What is your point, though? I know it's not 'make an effort to reduce all emissions', is it, you child?

Isn't that already a thing?
They put a kite up front that helps pull the ship, and it reduces fuel consumption by six percent, or something.

>
>Isn't that already a thing?
>They put a kite up front that helps pull the ship, and it reduces fuel consumption by six percent, or something.

Yes

why arent they electric?

Massive power demands and no place to plug it in when you're in the middle of the pacific.

Even if you plastered the entire surface of a chinamax freighter with solar panels you would only produce ~117000 kWh per day.

That would be enough power to run the engines at full for about an hour.

Because you would still need a diesel engine to run a generator you stupid twit.

not if you use a giant battery

Why not nuclear?

Any decent electric uses diesel engines running at their most efficient rpm as a power generator, like freight trains. Batteries are inefficient.

good question

We're going to replace 90% shipping with a massive worldwide pneumatic tube system.

Liberals would rather lay waste to the bird population with windmills or shill non edible gmo corn made to produce ethanol than admit nuclear is the best alternative powersource ever created.

This tbqh, dubs confirm it too.

What does the corn being GMO have to do with ANYTHING, you fucking retarded liberal arts student?

You can't even eat it. It destroys the entire point of corn being some random renewable resource when now using it digs into our food supply and raises prices all around.

>not installing a fart can on your horse

It literally is tar. The shit they scrape out of the refineries after all the other products are utilized.
>100,000 horsepower diesels
>sails will work just as well!

Because we as a species do not like to consider good alternatives to our own drawn out suicide because there's a miniscule chance of shittily made and maintained tractors breaking down and doing minimal damage.

>the big money that controls the government through lobbying creates most of the pollution
>wonders why the government cracks down on the little people who don't matter instead of the major producers

Its a ruse you fool.
Emmisions are just an excuse to enforce restriction of movement.
None of this has anything to do with the environment.

Seriously. Fix the supertankers spewing sulfuric acid directly into the atmosphere not my nova spewing sweet sweet burbles.

2 things, you have to genetically modify corn for the ethogen gene if not you're using 3 times as much land for the same amount of ethanol yield, and you might aswell be using sugarcane for ethanol. and there are multiple types of corn or maze, sweetcorn, mill corn?, and dent corn. the actual gmo trait didnt make them inedible we could easily make gmo edible ethogen traited sweetcorn.

Imagine how fun it would be to ride one of those...

Because Greeks can't even keep their cruise ships off of the rocks. Imagine the hippies complaining after that shit happens with a nuclear powered ship.

If you'd like to be able to point a ship in a direction you'd like to go, not where the wind wishes to send you, then no. A tanker cannot use wind propulsion alone.

I've been through the BSFC of a typical 8-10MW two cycle diesel in another thread, the typical content of HFO and DFO, the rate at which it is burnt in g/kWH, and what residue is found in the exhaust boiler after ten thousand hours operation. What the media reports and what is actually discharged from the turbocharger outlet seem to be two very, very different things.

Couldn't give you a percentage on sulfur emissions but international shipping and coastal trading accounts for nine percent of the global CO2 emissions as of March 2015, that's from the IMO.

MARPOL does indeed have an annex for air pollution but it is not widely upheld. To my knowledge it's only three Euro ports and some Californian ports than enact annex six.

tl;dr Horseshit. Want to make a difference to International and Coastal trading? Subsidise the retrofitting of SCR units to existing vessels.

There is not a storage system capable of delivering the power required, or storing it for the time required. Nothing will beat storing potential energy in chemical form for another decade or two, I think.

Our ship isn't huge, yet we generate 21049kW in propulsion power with another 1.5mW in electrical power. We will not shut down the ME and Aux's for days to weeks on end. Battery power is not a logical alternative.

If you had every seen how many of these ships are maintained, giving each crew the power to induce a meltdown is not a good plan.

HFO is not tar. It does have a thick consistency but the tailings you are describing are too poor to be burnt in an IC engine. HFO is lower on the fractional distillation scale than most fuels, but it is not a waste product.

Fuck the Greeks.

the only way to make shipping cleaner is to convert them to natural gas. Which means giving up a lot of precious hull space for fuel. nuclear is not really an option. commercial shipping is all about being a cheap as possible. oil prices would have to rise a lot to even make economic sense.

trucking can go to CNG, with little problem.

Rail can be electrified. Add more rail lines and you also reduce the need for trucking.

shipping is about being cheap. cheap hulls, cheap crews.

nuclear powered ships would be expensive. the nuclear engineers would be expensive. decommissioning the ship would be expensive.

you would need 30 years of super expensive oil to justify nuclear shipping.

then you have the port access problem. a lot of countries would just not allow nuclear ships in their ports. Unless they were going to starve or economic ruin.

batteries are efficient, they are not power dense.

Ships push out most of there shit out at sea.

Cars are in citys and in our streets.

Big difference.

Co2 is Co2 no matter where its produced at.

Per tonnage moved Rail probably puts out the least already given that they're hybrid diesels.

And so are many ships. Diesel over Electric systems have been used in a widespread range of roles since the 1920's.

There is far less resistance from the rails on the locomotive wheels than there is the resistance of pushing a displacement hull through the water.

Shipping makes sense for many areas and so does coastal trading, areas where over-the-road trucking and frequent rail freight is a non-option or trading between coastal islands and the mainland. That said, I think there should be more freight done over rail than over the road. Just my opinion.

SCR and particulate filters are the way. CNG changes the vessel's fuel system from medium risk to high, being that the CNG flashpoint is below ambient versus DFO at about 65 C and HFO at 80 C. Converting the existing engines and auxes or repowering is certainly possible, but reconfiguring the vessel and the inboard fuel service system is either exceedingly difficult, more expensive than the vessel's worth to the company or both.

There will not be widespread conversion to CNG. There is a steadily growing market share of CNG engines in some vessels but international and coastal traders are not part of this market.

you don't convert ships. you just slowly replace oil burners with gas burners.

you can also inject CNG into diesel engines. So you are burning both at the same time. So you burn less oil. They do it in semi trucks and farm equipment.

Weighted or stacked shoes, causes a memory of pain. Tennessee Walker type prance. Very illegal in the US.

lol, yes, that's what stance is. Much like the horse, the stanced car needs to be put out of its misery.

Let a horse eat grass all summer. You'll get farts alright...

I already have. I've even stanced my girlfriend. It's a lifestyle, yo.

I'm sure this technology will roll out the the larger vessels in the next few decades, along with a return to (assisted) wind power.
maritimejournal.com/news101/power-and-propulsion/the-hour-of-power-hybrid-marine-technology-and-green-ports

I believe there are new regulations coming in around 2019 which will make SCR a requirement. Not sure on the power density or engine size this will affect but definitely smaller engines.

>giving each crew the power to induce a meltdown
It's pretty much impossible to have a Chernobyl-style meltdown on a ship. You have access to an unimaginably vast thermal mass to draw heat away from the reactor. Sure, you'll irradiate the water and any nearby fish, but you won't have an out of control reaction creating an ecological disaster lasting thousands of years.

>18wheelers make up for 25% of the emissions from vehicles
Yes, but they move more than a car.

It's emission per ton of goods moved. Ya know, economy of scale? Look at trains for example...

A trio of GE AC6000's will move 1 ton of freight 300+ miles on a single gallon of fuel. On their own, an individual AC6000 will get about 3 gallons to the mile, but it scales out.

Though emissions standards are choking everything. Even the lowly GP38-2/3 is being retired, not because it's not good at its job, but its EMD 16-645E diesel just can't make the emissions requirements anymore.

What happens when one dumbfuck fucks up real fucking big time and ends up turning the entire Gulf of Mexico into a massive irradiated shitstorm that spreads that fallout across the entire planet.

I'm sorry, but there I will be disagreeing with you.

You do not treat a low speed marine plant like a truck engine or tractor. If you add fuel without respect to timing in a low speed engine where each degree of crankshaft rotation can be measured in tenths of a second versus hundredths it is very likely you will place the Location of Peak Pressure at Top Dead Center, and the connecting rod and piston crown are going to have a bad time.

If it was as easy as spraying CNG into an engine, there would not be a multi-billion dollar industry converting conventional diesel plants to CNG.

MAN, MaK, CAT, MTU, all of the larger players have a range of both dedicated CNG plants and multi-fuel plants handling CNG and DFO. There are a number of changes between a DFO engine and a CNG engine that prevents the changeover being as simple as you think unfortunately.

Can I ask you, what do you think is burning the oil on-board? Boilers and 'burners' are not used for either power generation or propulsion. The smallest consumers of fuel oil are the boilers. The next are the auxiliary plants, then the Main Engine.

You do not simply replace these with CNG systems.

And yes, you do convert the vessel. An Inboard Diesel Fuel Service and the associated pipework, breathers, valves, transfer pumps, filtration systems and centrifuges will not be compatible with the CNG fuel system. So you will very much be converting the entire vessel to suit the CNG system.

Currently, all new vessels constructed from 2014 and under 1500GRT must meet IMO Tier 3. To my knowledge, there is only MAN Diesel and Turbo's 12V range of pleasure yacht engines that achieve this rating 'in the box' without SCR.

It is pleasing to see legacy manufacturers such as EMD releasing catalysing manifolds and after treatment systems for existing engines.

See .

That very measurably vast heat sink is already very hard to use in terms of cooling a conventional fire on-board, so I have strong doubts about it's use to control a nuclear reactor fault.

Fire on board is horrifying and a very real possibility.

Burning a hole through the hull and allowing both spent and active nuclear fuel to leave the vessel, or stay with the now-breached vessel on the sea floor is probably what I and the IMO would call an ecological disaster, seeing as they also catagorise one tonne of dispersant a 'severe incident.'

The rapid filling of machinery spaces and other voids below deck with super heated steam is also a potential bad day.

A meltdown is not the only issue that can arise from a functioning reactor, though I have no training with nuclear systems, so that's about as far as I go.

Also not keen on having nuclear fuel floating around waiting for any old Somalian to get a hold of.

The real question is why we give a fuck a hint Co 2 emissions when they directly correlate to the rate which plants grow. Global warming is good.

Good lord, don't breed.

What on Earth would a Somalian think to do with nuclear fuel?

He is partially correct actually. NASA have shown that plant life on earth over the past 40 years has become more green. Low levels of CO2 is bad for plants, as it is their food source.

Here you can see a historic graph of CO2 levels versus volcanic activity. This data is composed from ice drill samples.Historically speaking we are at an all time low in CO2 levels.

tier 4, fuckers

I forgot to say that even with a small increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 100 years, we have also had a 700% population increase. That is what is really killing the planet. And when is all said and done, CO2 is about 500 parts per million in atmosphere. Much less than it has been previously.

EMD can bring 710 series to Tier 4 with catalysing manifolds, low lube oil consumption Power Assemblies and exhaust after-treatment.

But old mate beat me to it! Though this image is a very recent crankcase with oval inspection plates, so most likely new or a repower.

The warming of the globe is not a good thing. The increased levels of CO2 may be having a positive effect as you've shown, but rising sea levels have a negative effect on those living at sea level.

Yeah, the AC6000 was just the first thing that came to mind for the example of scale. From what I recall, most of the east coast RR's went with the AC6000 while the west coast was heavily invested in the SD40's, and chose to wait for the SD70's.

But my evidence is anecdotal at best, and beyond the scope of my initial argument.

>That very measurably vast heat sink is already very hard to use in terms of cooling a conventional fire on-board, so I have strong doubts about it's use to control a nuclear reactor fault.
You can dump a reactor into the ocean. It's a lot harder to dump a deck into the ocean. Fires on ships are usually either fluids lighter than water or the hull of the ship itself, which is why it's hard to use the ocean to put the fire out (without sinking the ship). The cool thing about a nuclear reactor is when it melts down, it literally melts its way downward: through steel, concrete, granite, whatever. Just design the ship in such a way that the whole thing doesn't flood and sink if it shits out its reactor and you're golden. And while U-235 isn't safe to eat, a couple tons of it in the entire ocean isn't really a big deal. Natural decay is a whole lot less scary than a nuclear chain reaction.

CO2 isn't a real problem, but global warming is. There's a lot of greenhouse gasses that are thousands or millions of times more effective than CO2 that are effectively unregulated. The regulatory focus on CO2 is a bad thing, as it draws attention away from actual dangers.

I know exactly where you are coming from mate.

And anecdotally it is sad to see some of the hardest working marine propulsion units be put out to pasture due to emissions regulations. While I understand the obligations entirely, it's sad to see the end of days for the old EMD's, Detroit 149's, the Cat 516A's, Pielsticks, rattle-your-fillings-out Duetz's and older MAN's and the like.

No, fires onboard are most commonly in the ELV electrical systems. C class fires are not either the most usual, or the most dangerous. An E class fire that become an A,B and F class by spreading through conduction and convection in the ventilation system are by far the most dangerous. The density of the liquid does not factor highly in the ability of water to extinguish a C class fire. While present, it's not a big drama.

It is difficult to use the ocean as the heat transfer is both rapid and vast. Conduction of heat from bulkhead to bulkhead spreads the fire throughout the vessel as quickly as convective heat through ventilation systems and open hatches does. The intense heat of a failed reactor I would imagine will spread very quickly.

As said though I am not trained in nuclear propulsion, so I really cannot say for sure. Having fought fires onboard though, I'll take this opportunity to reserve a seat away from the nuclear vessels.

710 is dead like every other 2-stroke. It looks like EMD is going forward with the 4-stroke 1010 from here on.

The world revolves on two-cycle marine diesel. Two cycle medium and high speed, absolutely. They are becoming rarer and rarer. But two cycle will not die until the ship is moved without internal combustion.

EMD systems are still offered new, and I have not been told anything to suggest new crankcases and PA's will not be made until 2020. I can think of a number of ports and harbours where their harbour tugs are still EMD 645's and 710's and likely will be until they are retired.

>No, fires onboard are most commonly in the ELV electrical systems.
I suppose I phrased that poorly. My point is that the reason it's hard to use the ocean to fight fires at sea is because things that catch fire are not easily jettisoned.
>The density of the liquid does not factor highly in the ability of water to extinguish a C class fire.
It does if it makes the difference between being able to dump the thing on fire off the ship and have the fire actually go out or not.

Obviously, jettisoning your cargo or your primary power source isn't an ideal solution, but when you get to the point where you've fucked up hard enough that your only solid thing to stand on in a thousand-plus mile radius is on fire, it's hard to call anything ideal.

People have been saying we're killing the planet for 200 years now. It's false. The planet is fine. Climate related deaths are less than deaths by intoxication by carbon monoxide, aka trying to warm your fucking house with coal. Human beings produce more than they consume, we're resources ourselves. More human beings = more resources produced, more innovations. You environmentalists have more death on your shoulder than all world wars combined.

>but when you get to the point where you've fucked up hard enough that your only solid thing to stand on in a thousand-plus mile radius is on fire, it's hard to call anything ideal.

Haha, doesn't get any truer than that! Sitting in your own shit in a liferaft for two days is pretty ordinary but it's far better to bob there and watch it burn than burn.

*tips fedora*

We're not trying to reduce passenger car emissions

We're trying to make people feel good about themselves and get more votes/money

>buy this newly manufactured tesla don't you hate big oil (made with 100% freshly mined and refined metals and hydrocarbons)
>the people can surely afford to buy new cars and deal with limits on mods in the name of smog
>those poor national freight companies can't though

Like seriously does that look like caring about the environment to you

It's the same thing with everything else in politics. Ban something, regulate something, accomplish nothing, get re-ellected because you can say you care.

>I banned ASSAULT WEAPONS while handgun crime ran rampant i care about ending senseless violence
>We're protecting you from the terrorists and stopping zero terrorist attacks in the process we're defending american freedom honest
>Please continue supporting your government that clearly loves you

Carbon dioxide is a boogeyman, literally the least significant and most easily solved "problem", and it gets the spotlight because it's the sole remaining "problem" with the personal devices that are easy to get away with regulating. Everything else is a problem of mass freight, power generation, coal transport, and industry, and those are business. You don't fuck with business.

A lot of time and effort has been put into commercial vehicle emissions as well both on and off road (see the latest Euro 6 and Stage 4 legislation respectively), the problem is especially with ships they have a disproportionality long service life. The other major issues with shipping is that of international registration, requiring multilateral legislation.

>In the grand scheme of things the emissions from cars in my country means nothing and even if you took them all off the road you wouldn't stop global warming
>Still have to pay an emissions based tax

Mother fucking why....

Cows produce more greenhouse gasses, why aren't farmers taxed?

nobody drives cars, you live closer to work in a nightmarish dystopian multi-level city. your commute is like ten seconds down one of the emperor's slip and slides.
nobody grows cows, you become a vegetarian and need to constantly engage in an expensive dietary balancing act to avoid death on top of having to pay for your car.

There are over 7.4 billion people in the world, 56 million die every year, I should be allowed to shoot Donald Trump without recuse.

>Hating on Trump

Cuck detected

Bigot reporting in.

The reason Tesla is popular is a mix of those reasons but the main reason is that niggas dont want to pay for gas, so now they dont have to. The whole gov saying global warming crisies and all that shit is the biggest scam, Tesla takes advantage of that and we should try to as well its a great marketing ploy put some fucking leaf on your product say you help env buy buying it and these retards will buy it cause it gives them a sense of purpose.

You misread my post. I am saying the amount of CO2 we release is fuck all. Other waste and destruction from 7 billion people is far worse.

>the drive 18 wheeler that idles for most of the day 12-14 hours a day non stop

Enjoy your future electric shit box

nuclear ships and 18wheelers when?

tbqh I hate truckerfags. If the US just invested in a proper freight rail system we could take a lot more trucks off of the road, and the roads wouldn't be raped non stop by 40,000 lb trucks

>tfw stuck on I-80 behind two trucks trying to pass each other up a mountain

The problem with rail and why OTR trucking survives in the US is because ancient tax codes tax the bejesus out of railways.

> The daily mail
Discarded.