Sport the bastard lie logical error here:
Shipping must live up to the Paris Agreement and commit now to zero emissions by 2050, before it is too late.
Shipping has traditionally not received the attention it deserves when it comes to reducing global emissions. This is despite the fact that around 80% of global trade is transported across oceans on cargo vessels – currently powered by fossil fuels such as heavy fuel oil.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations agency in charge of regulating maritime transportation, estimates that shipping accounts for about 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. But given the current growth rates and a lack of substantial efforts to decarbonise the sector, researchers warn that shipping could well represent up to 10% of all global emissions by 2050.
The rise in shipping emissions as a percentage of total emissions is because other emissions fall substantially.
And if other emissions fall substantially then the emissions from any one remnant sector of the economy are less important to reduce, not more, aren’t they?
Arsewipes.
Quite right too.
There’s a simple solution. Dri holes in the side of the container ships and chain all the illegals in hotels to some oars made out of wind turbine blades.
Will these holes be above or below the water line?
decnine
Yes.
How about starting by taking an honest look at the container vessels ferrying 7.5 million tons of biomass each year from US/Canada to North Yorkshire where it is burned as part of our Net Zero programme.
Ocean going ships use the dirtiest diesel. It’s cheap because it’s relatively unrefined. And the emissions are not in built up areas so the effects are minor and diffuse. Turning the sulphur into sulphuric acid would be quite expensive but at least there’s a demand fo the acid, used in enormous quantities for a huge range of industrial processes.
The shipping industry would quite like to reduce emissions but not at the cost of losing competitive advantage. The industry could be made to clean up its act without international treaty: simply deny the ports to the dirtiest engines. As we already do with lorries going through European tunnels, for example.
Already being done – ships in port (and I think it’s to be extended to coastal waters – must, in the EU, use low sulphur fuel.
“Shipping must live up to the Paris Agreement and commit now to zero emissions by 2050, before it is too late.”
Are they going to use nuclear power then or go back to using sails?
Stonyground
Since experience shows sails are impractical (that’s why they were replaced by fossil fuels), clearly all shipping must now be nuclear powered.
I love to imagine the howls of horror at that one.
Stonyground
Of course not! Solar, you fool!
Just following the chain of info in an amateru way:
A biggish container ship seems to have a 50-100,000 BHP motor
At about 1KW per BHP, thats of the order of a megawatt.
You need 2-5 acres of solar arrays to get a megawatt of solar
All these under unspecified conditions.
So best put some margin in.
It is obviously desirable that all ships tow a folding, wave-surface conforming 20 acre solar array behind them to provide electrical power to the ship’s electric motors.
Apparently an acre of solar panels is about $500K, should probably double or triple that to account for necessary floatiness and seaproofing. Call it $2M/acre. So about $400M per ship.
Plus, it’s almost certain it’ll need continuous maintenance and repair.
You need – apparently – to buy a Very Big Ship Indeed to pay $400M.
Of course it’s expensive, but it just cuts into the profit margins of Evil Capitalists, so that’s OK.
People like this use the word “Must” a lot. Do they have a key just for this?
BiTiN
Is the figure of a 100,000 BHP engine for a container ship = ~1MW correct? My recollection was that one of the applications for GE LM6000s and LM2500s was ship propulsion – and they’re rated at ~45MW and 25-35MW (depending, of course). I think you’re off by almost 2 orders of magnitude: 100,000 HP = ~75MW.
That means your entirely reasonable and modest proposal would require towing perhaps 700 acres of floating, salt-water resistant solar panels, and associated wiring harness, etc. Which will have no drag, and not impede vessel performance in any way. If the ship is to proceed other than in daylight hours, of course it will need batteries (which will likewise not include any weight penalty), and the solar array increased accordingly to allow both propulsion and battery recharging.
I understand that some oceans have clouds here and there, which may affect shipping schedules somewhat. I imagine harbours may become slightly more crowded, what with all the towed solar arrays.
Don’t forget, the Suez canal is only just wide enough for 1 ship to pass at a time, so the 1000 acres (as you said, we’ll need more for charging the batteries) of solar panels can not be wider than 1 ship.
According to DuckDuckGo the Suez maximum boat beam is 77.5m. As we’re working in acres I’ll convert that to 85 yards. Given that the definition of an acre is 1 chain by 1 furlong, or 22yd x 220yd, we can adjust the proportions to (22 * 220 / 85) by (220 * 85 / 220) or ~57yd by 85yd. Our floating solar array would therefore need to be 57000yd long, or 32.4 miles.
Quite sensible, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Bunker fuel, the really dirty stuff, is well on its way to not being used. Yhe activists are now just stirring the pot for enjoyment and a possibility of getting a payoff somewhere.
BiW – thank you! A valuable contribution to this most reasonable approach to the problem. I fear you have overlooked another problem: according to Wikipedia, the New Panamax beam limit is just over 51m – or ~55 yards. The floating panels would have to be 88,000 yards long – call it 50 miles (which exceeds Panamax length, I’m afraid). Of course, there’s hardly any traffic through the Panama, so it might not be that much of a constraint…