• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Two oil tankers hit in Gulf of Oman

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
"Just one of the world’s larger container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars."
That needs a little context, especially since those ships use heavy fuel oil as their fuel and that is becoming increasingly restricted by countries around the world. That reason is part of several responses I found online, to include one that also did some basic math on ships vs cars:

"A single RO/RO can carry an average of 8,000 cars, trucks and other equipment. Let’s take an average RO/RO shipping 8,000 cars from Hong Kong to Los Angeles. This is a distance of about 7,286 miles....The RO/RO however only requires 510 Metric Tonnes of fuel to move all of those vehicles and itself from Hong Kong to Los Angeles. This means the ship only used 7.8% of the total fuel required by all those vehicles for the same distance."
 

Griz882

Well-Known Member
pilot
I won't defend the statement's accuracy or context. In class I used it as a starting point for further discussion.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I won't defend the statement's accuracy or context. In class I used it as a starting point for further discussion.
Flawed facts for a flawed argument.

The widespread use of nuclear propulsion in commercial vessels seems extremely unlikely.
It isn't economical for a myriad of reasons, and business is usually wary of things that cost more money for some odd reason.
 

Griz882

Well-Known Member
pilot
Flawed facts for a flawed argument.
Here we don’t agree. The facts aren’t necessarily flawed, you simply don’t like the context. Moreover, you quote an article that discusses RORO operations (smaller ships) when the other discusses bulk operations. You can’t compare ships to cars (because no car can carry that many tons of cargo) but you can compare cargo to cargo. Lastly, I don’t teach maritime engineering or architecture...I teach history and nuclear power once had a place in the maritime industry. The introductory point isn’t remotely flawed, just your understanding of it.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
So you start out by saying this:

"a large modern container vessel used in Trans-Pacific trade, with a maximum container capacity of 7,750 TEUs (twenty foot equivalents) or 3,875 FEUs (forty foot equivalents) using a cost of bunker fuel at $552 per ton, and with fuel consumption of 217 tons per day, a single 28-day round trip voyage for this one vessel would produce a fuel bill of $3,353,952.

"Just one of the world’s larger container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars."
Then this:

I won't defend the statement's accuracy or context. In class I used it as a starting point for further discussion.

But I misunderstand your 'introductory' point?

Here we don’t agree. The facts aren’t necessarily flawed, you simply don’t like the context. Moreover, you quote an article that discusses RORO operations (smaller ships) when the other discusses bulk operations. You can’t compare ships to cars (because no car can carry that many tons of cargo) but you can compare cargo to cargo. Lastly, I don’t teach maritime engineering or architecture...I teach history and nuclear power once had a place in the maritime industry. The introductory point isn’t remotely flawed, just your understanding of it.
 

Griz882

Well-Known Member
pilot
The point about fuel burn/pollution is a “devil’s advocate” introduction for a discussion about the history of nuclear power in the merchant fleet that typically leads to the conclusion that Brett came up with. It is a modern version of the sail vs steam debate. I’m not a merchant-nuke advocate, I simply used the information to spark discussion.
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
I dug this out of some notes for a class I once taught...

"Ocean shipping is the most energy efficient forms of freight transportation. Recent estimates show that moving goods by ocean container can be 17 times more fuel-efficient than transporting the same goods by air, and 10 times more efficient than transporting goods by road."

BUT...

"a large modern container vessel used in Trans-Pacific trade, with a maximum container capacity of 7,750 TEUs (twenty foot equivalents) or 3,875 FEUs (forty foot equivalents) using a cost of bunker fuel at $552 per ton, and with fuel consumption of 217 tons per day, a single 28-day round trip voyage for this one vessel would produce a fuel bill of $3,353,952.

THERE'S MORE...

"Just one of the world’s larger container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars."

All of this was a draw to a discussion on the history of non-military nuclear powered ships.
Bunker fuel is supposed to switch over to low sulfur next year.

While restrictions on sulfur emissions in shipping are not new -- emission control areas have long existed in certain regions -- the transition to IMO 2020 is daunting, with the majority of bunker demand having to switch to 0.5% sulfur from 3.5%.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/092319-shipping-industry-eyes-clean-fuel-switch-in-october-sources

As for the attack itself, the WSJ is reporting that it could take KSA substantially longer than first reported to get back to capacity.
Aramco’s Repairs Could Take Months Longer Than Company Anticipates, Contractors Say
https://www.wsj.com/articles/aramcos-repairs-could-take-months-longer-than-company-anticipates-contractors-say-11569180194
 
Top