The dirtiest fuel

Nov 24, 2009, 8:16AM EST
The dirtiest fuel
A New Scientist report highlights that the shipping industry is using the dirty, polluting fuel that's left behind by the cleaner fuels used on land.

 I think it’s fair to say that the global cargo industry has never enjoyed a ‘clean and green’ reputation, but its impact on the world’s seas has just been given another blow, thanks to a new report from the respected New Scientist magazine. 

With an estimated 100,000 vessels on the seas, the report’s statistic that just 16 of the world’s largest ships generate as much poisonous sulphur as all of the world’s cars has caused some alarm in the ecologically aware areas of global policy making. 

Delivered by award-wining science writer Fred Pearce, the report illustrates the seriousness of the chemicals pumped out by large cargo ships, bringing the issue to the attention of the responsible shipping industry players that are keen to reduce their emissions as much as possible. 

The report centres on the black smoke from the funnels of container ships, cruise liners and oil tankers, stating that while we already knew that the brown haze it leaves across ports and shipping lanes looks unpleasant, we were not aware that it’s also terribly poisonous, as it contains high levels of lung-clogging sulphur. 

Pearce’s report centres round the fact that, for some unclear reason, the massive engines of these vessels are allowed to burn the dirtiest, most polluting high-sulphur fuel, whereas comparable fuel guzzlers on land, such as power stations, have to use comparatively far cleaner fuels.

The International Maritime Organisation, the IMO, a UN body that is in charge of policing the world’s shipping industry, has long been the main whipping boy for the complaints about the pollution of the world seas. The IMO has had a long-standing agreement with the 169 governments that are active in the organisation to be allowed to burn the so-called bunker fuel, the high-sulphur fuel that’s left over after all the cleaner fuel has been extracted and used on land. 

This latest New Scientist report is calling into question this decision, with the aim of reducing the sulphur in shipping fuel from it’s current unacceptable levels of 4.5 per cent down to 3.5 per cent by 2012 and eventually a mere 0.5 per cent.

Although many major shipping industry players are keen to point out that they do not use fuel with such high levels as the report suggests, it’s certainly a strong-smelling issue that wont go away of its own accord. 






 
Report abuse



Bookmark this page to:Add to Faves Add to MyAOL Add to Simpy Add to Delicious Add to Live Add to Digg Add to Newsvine Add to Reddit Add to Multiply Add to Blogmarks Add to Yahoo MyWeb Add to Slashdot Add to Mister Wong Add to Spurl Add to Furl Add to Link-a-Gogo Add to Yahoo Bookmarks Add to Twitter Add to Facebook Add to Diigo Add to Mixx Add to Segnalo Add to StumbleUpon Add to Magnolia Add to Ask Add to Backflip Add to Terchnorati Add to Google Bookmarks Add to MySpace

Comments
James Nicoll
This HFO bunker fuel is also used on land becuase it costs less than the "cleaner" more expensive stuff. A recent Danish study concluded that air pollution from vessels was about half of what is was half of what it was thought to be. For some facts please visit http://www.marisec.org/shippingfacts/keyfacts/
12/1/2009 10:16:31 PM
 
Steve Toby
Not having access to the original journal, I wonder if there was discussion of solutions. Should restrictions on sulphur emissions from ships become law, does that mean HFO will become obsolete, creating a new waste product at refineries that requires expensive new disposal processes? This would also put additional stress on the world's supply of crude and would be economically untenable.

On the other hand, are emission controls technically feasible that could be installed on the ships to treat the flue gases after burning the HFO? That would be a more practical solution, although it would also have a cost.
12/2/2009 9:19:31 AM
 

Sign in

Latest blog comments

2/4/2012

dilipan thomas
well there is no job for most people who has finished studi...

2/2/2012

Saunders Jones
Joe, You are right on regarding both GMATS and the Super...

1/25/2012

Joseph Keefe
Mark: You get the prize, indeed. Thanks for weighing in....

1/24/2012

Mark Sales
An apt and appropriate view of the situation. It also shou...

1/24/2012

Eric Goldring
I just wrote an article on my blog about the hype which has...

1/20/2012

Shiran Senanayake
I believe that Cruise Masters are fatigued with so many por...

1/19/2012

Alan Loynd
Absolutely correct. With the largest passenger ships now...

1/19/2012

James Lynch
Well stated. The need for regulation is obvious in any fie...

1/19/2012

Eugene (Gene) Horton
Dear Greg, I read your article on “size matters” and found...

1/19/2012

Laurie Thomas
Joe, to add to John's comment, here's another gem/bad news ...