|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:As to nuclear ships, there are a few things to consider. One, piracy on the ocean is a problem, and we don't want pirates capturing entire reactors, it'd probably be a political mess. Two, most ships aren't going to be flagged and inspected by countries with high standards, like if I recall, hardly any ships fly american flags, so inspection safety won't happen as it should. Again premium container service is the first place that hits the cross over point. That mean huge rear end freeboard and hauls rear end. Those two things mean very, very. low pirate risk. Nuclear ships are not going to happen anyway. Second there are several flags of convience that have better flag state inspection programs than the USCG certificate of inspections for US flagged vessels. Some have programs made by ex USCG officials. I don't want to be specific about this and am not going to be.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
4.5% of all emissions isn't that much considering just how much cargo we move, and grain shipments are a fraction of that. Even the article says it will become the biggest source after cars, agriculture, housing, and industry, which are all areas that could stand to see a lot of improvement in efficiency. Take the numbers, for instance. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html Electricity production is a quarter of our greenhouse gas emissions. It's needlessly wasteful, and we should probably do a lot more to drop coal. If the political will and the money was there then we could provide all the electricity we could ever need from nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar. Agriculture is the next biggest cause of greenhouse gas. Why? Well, one of the main issues with agriculture is that we cut down trees to do it. This is what local farming does. This is why shipping is important. Food shipping is just a small part of global shipping, which itself is only a piece of the global transportation emissions, which is 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The best thing for the planet is to grow food where it is most efficient, places with good soil, long seasons, and hopefully good regulations of the efficiency of agricultural equipment. It's far far better for the environment to let forests around cities return to being forests so they can soak up CO2, rather then trying to grow locally just to eliminate shipping. All of that said, we could burn more efficient fuels, like say, removing the sulfur from heavy fuel oil, or just switching to something lighter, but you'd have a hard time enforcing that globally. edit: Also, in the time since those UN reports, the US has done a lot of work with the EPA to reduce the sulfur content of fuel used by ships in the US's area of control. You can read about a lot of it here: https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm Killer-of-Lawyers fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:edit: Also, in the time since those UN reports, the US has done a lot of work with the EPA to reduce the sulfur content of fuel used by ships in the US's area of control. You can read about a lot of it here: https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm Ships have to burn low sulfur fuels when they come in North Americsn waters now. That normally means LSMGO ( LSDO) ie. low sulfur diesel oil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Ships have to burn low sulfur fuels when they come in North Americsn waters now. That normally means LSMGO ( LSDO) ie. low sulfur diesel oil. That's the rule most places, while you're in port, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
The US does it for more then just in port. If you're with in 250 miles of the coast of the US or Puerto Rico you have to burn low sulfur fuel. In fact, I think it's going to go to ultra low sulfur soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:That's the rule most places, while you're in port, at least. Yep, due to MARPOL annex VI. I try not to nerd out about international maritime treaties. Don't get me started about SOLAS and the roles of Classifications societies, Flag states, and Port states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Yep, due to MARPOL annex VI. I try not to nerd out about international maritime treaties. Don't get me started about SOLAS and the roles of Classifications societies, Flag states, and Port states. What if I want to get you started?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Anos posted:Not all corporations are Enron but some are and you only need one for a disaster. Nuclear power is subject to a lot of fear-mongering and hyperbole but no matter how you slice it, it's not without risk. Nuclear is great if you have the expertise and institutions to regulate it. I'm not particularly interested in seeing it in operation without those things. If there was gonna be a big nuclear disaster (and ship sized nuke plants are not exactly big) I'd be happy for it to happen in the ocean frankly. It wouldn't do poo poo at the accident rate that would be likely. Decomissioning, of course, is a bit of a different question... But even then it's mostly because people tend to be big whiny babies about spent fuel storage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Yep, due to MARPOL annex VI. I try not to nerd out about international maritime treaties. Don't get me started about SOLAS and the roles of Classifications societies, Flag states, and Port states. Dubstep Jesus posted:What if I want to get you started? This. I work on a research vessel and dig talking ship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Ok so here's an example of how these international maritime treaties work. You have the treaty like SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea), individual countries sign onto the the treaty. There is a UN body that makes recommendations International Maritime Organizations (IMO), these recommendations end up as publications like SOLAS, the IMDG code, the BC Code, the International Grain Code, etc. Countries that signed onto the treaty are agreeing to follow these recommendations but the treaty isn't self executing. It doesn't become law when countries sign onto it. Each nation state has to in it's own laws and regulations codify the recommendations of the treaty. So each country basically has a slightly different set of rules based on their own laws. These different sets of rules are what the individual flag states enforce. Most of the the treaty is complied with by the vessels having various documents on board. These documents are things like the "Load Line Certificate" they get produced by classification societies and show that whatever they address is in compliance. The class societies are NGOs that have naval architects and marine engineers to produce these certificates on the behalf of flag states. Flag states inspect vessel for general safety and to check these documents issued by class. Port states get involved because they want to make sure that vessels that call their ports are actually in compliance with SOLAS and haven't just sought out a flag state that doesn't have strict enforcement. Port state inspection usually follow the direct recommendations of the treaty and the laws of the Port State. Where this is applicable to Agribusiness is that Grain is a fairly dangerous thing to ship and the loading of grain on vessel is covered by the International Grain Code, as part of SOLAS. But the Competent Authorities of each country decide how the IGC (or the applicable iteration of Solas the flag nation participates in or vessel was grandfathered into) gets enforced. Some countries have their version of the Coast Guard do it. Some have private contractors. Some have weird Not for Profits set up for the purpose. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Jun 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Grain is dangerous to ship? That seems...counterintuitive to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:Grain is dangerous to ship? That seems...counterintuitive to me. It's a stability hazard. It can shift and cause capsizing if it isn't loaded properly. Grain has a low angle of repose basically if you put it in a pile the pile is low and flattish. That means that when a vessel rolls it can shift in the hold. So ships have to do a calculation to show that if does shift their max list will be 12 degrees or less. It's also dusty. Any cargo that makes dust has explosion dangers. So grain elevators occasionally blow up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
Ahhh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 03:11
|
|