How many quarts to add?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you imagine how much more pollution would be emitted if everything was transported by air? Joking aside, if you want to keep your Chinese made products really cheap at Walmart just suck it up and drive on.
 
Originally Posted By: BobsArmory
Can you imagine how much more pollution would be emitted if everything was transported by air? Joking aside, if you want to keep your Chinese made products really cheap at Walmart just suck it up and drive on.


While driving through the woods of Vermont, I could only pick up an NPR station. There was this girl who was dead set on changing the environment. She proposed we ban ships and ship everything via air freight ...
 
Originally Posted By: BobsArmory
Can you imagine how much more pollution would be emitted if everything was transported by air? Joking aside, if you want to keep your Chinese made products really cheap at Walmart just suck it up and drive on.

There's nothing wrong with having some sort of pollution standards on ships, and if it bumps up the cost of cheap junk from china, its a net positive IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: BobsArmory
Can you imagine how much more pollution would be emitted if everything was transported by air? Joking aside, if you want to keep your Chinese made products really cheap at Walmart just suck it up and drive on.


While driving through the woods of Vermont, I could only pick up an NPR station. There was this girl who was dead set on changing the environment. She proposed we ban ships and ship everything via air freight ...
Most NPR outlets have a chipmunk powering the transmitter.
 
Last edited:
Is it in my imagination, or did I see something on tv about a town in Florida that became a ghost town because they used some kind of chemical on the dirt roads to control dust or erosion, or something. I would like to follow up on this but cannot find anything on google.

By the time they figured out they were contaminating everything, it was too late and they evacuated the town.
 
Let's not pretend like it's only China's problem, or only their contribution ...

This is a global issue. This represent the world fleet, not just one nation. I'm sure we benefit from the shipping of good in terms of both imports AND exports. For example, we are soon to be (if not already) the leading producer and exporter of CNG, and it get's where it's going by ocean vessel as well ...

And because these huge ships burn the lowest grades of fuel (essentially tar-like fuel that must be heated before consumed), we have to ask ourselves a few things:
1) isn't this fuel source a byproduct of the hydrocarbon fuel industry?
2) isn't a good idea, generally, to fully utilize byproducts rather than waste them?
3) if ships don't burn these fuels, what else would we do with them?
4) Would they be consumed in some other manner, or just become true waste?
5) if they be true waste products, which countries are going to be responsible to dispose of them (Oh - I think we know the answer to this one ... )

Gee - maybe the EPA can mandate a massive CAT/SCR/DFP exhaust treatment system for any of the world's fleet that would enter US waters ....



This is also why I say we focus often on the wrong things, and/or worry about trivial things. I'm NOT saying this ship-fuel topic is one to ignore, but it does put OTHER things into perspective. For example, vehicle emissions in North America. They have become so darn clean running that any progress in this field is practically moot! We've got emissions so low in North America that further efforts in reducing them do NOT provide a reasonable ROI to the consumer, or even the environment. The entire world fleet of vehicle emissions is dwarfed by the world's ocean fleet (1:260). And the world vehicle fleet is far dirtier than the North American fleet, which means the N/A vehicle fleet is a TINY FRACTION of pollution overall. Therefore, any EPA driven changes to N/A fleet emissions is pointless; it won't shift pollution issues one little iota in terms of real measurable success. What they can show in the lab as a success, won't manifest into reality on the streets because our N/A vehicle emissions is already nearly-zilch in contrast to other world industries and developing countries that we have zero control over. This is like concern over hearing-loss from the TV volume in your home when the neighbors are having a raucous block party on one side of your home, and the folks on the other side are putting in a 1/4 midget race track.
 
Last edited:
The most famous of these is Times Beach Missouri, which was closed, and soil burned in special incinerator called Blue Goose. Dioxin laced waste oil.

Rod
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Let's not pretend like it's only China's problem, or only their contribution ...

This is a global issue. This represent the world fleet, not just one nation. I'm sure we benefit from the shipping of good in terms of both imports AND exports. For example, we are soon to be (if not already) the leading producer and exporter of CNG, and it get's where it's going by ocean vessel as well ...

And because these huge ships burn the lowest grades of fuel (essentially tar-like fuel that must be heated before consumed), we have to ask ourselves a few things:
1) isn't this fuel source a byproduct of the hydrocarbon fuel industry?
2) isn't a good idea, generally, to fully utilize byproducts rather than waste them?
3) if ships don't burn these fuels, what else would we do with them?
4) Would they be consumed in some other manner, or just become true waste?
5) if they be true waste products, which countries are going to be responsible to dispose of them (Oh - I think we know the answer to this one ... )

Gee - maybe the EPA can mandate a massive CAT/SCR/DFP exhaust treatment system for any of the world's fleet that would enter US waters ....



This is also why I say we focus often on the wrong things, and/or worry about trivial things. I'm NOT saying this ship-fuel topic is one to ignore, but it does put OTHER things into perspective. For example, vehicle emissions in North America. They have become so darn clean running that any progress in this field is practically moot! We've got emissions so low in North America that further efforts in reducing them do NOT provide a reasonable ROI to the consumer, or even the environment. The entire world fleet of vehicle emissions is dwarfed by the world's ocean fleet (1:260). And the world vehicle fleet is far dirtier than the North American fleet, which means the N/A vehicle fleet is a TINY FRACTION of pollution overall. Therefore, any EPA driven changes to N/A fleet emissions is pointless; it won't shift pollution issues one little iota in terms of real measurable success. What they can show in the lab as a success, won't manifest into reality on the streets because our N/A vehicle emissions is already nearly-zilch in contrast to other world industries and developing countries that we have zero control over. This is like concern over hearing-loss from the TV volume in your home when the neighbors are having a raucous block party on one side of your home, and the folks on the other side are putting in a 1/4 midget race track.


this is one of the problems of using crude oils from tar sands. The leftover petcoke is a huge problem. What do you do with it?
 
This is one of the problems with "facts" in the hands of people with agendas.

Asthma causing emissions...in the middle of the ocean ?
SOx ?...have them carry around what could be cargo space but instead filled with lime (and the local pollution THAT made), so that they can harvest the sulfur as gypsum and drag it along using more fuel ?
Yes, it's "acid rain", in the middle of the ocean, when the reason for our controls was deforestation and our limeston buildings dissolving.

In the scheme of things, the big boats do not much...and it's not China to blame. It's the same basic fuel as the Queen Mary 2 uses, before she switches to low sulfur fuel entering harbour.

Roll on the nuclear powered ocean liners/ships, I fully advocate same.

Roll on Cardiff Aviation and the airships too I say.
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
this is one of the problems of using crude oils from tar sands. The leftover petcoke is a huge problem. What do you do with it?


I've seen it burned quite successfully in coal fired power stations as an admixture. Modern power station and pollution controls, and the stuff should be encouraged for power station use.

It's strange stuff in that it handles like ilmenite grit, and has a propensity to set off metal detectors on the coal trains
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
this is one of the problems of using crude oils from tar sands. The leftover petcoke is a huge problem. What do you do with it?


I've seen it burned quite successfully in coal fired power stations as an admixture. Modern power station and pollution controls, and the stuff should be encouraged for power station use.

It's strange stuff in that it handles like ilmenite grit, and has a propensity to set off metal detectors on the coal trains


It has a very high carbon content, around 90%. Burning it is worse than coal as far as CO2 emissions. They do burn it in China as a fuel shaped into donuts almost everywhere on the streets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top