my 2cents worth (albeit controversial).
most military aircraft carriers (Charles de Gaul, Eisenhower) are often
nuclear powered. could a pebble bed reactor be economically viable for
commerical shipping? (although clearly not politically).
also there have also been some advancements in hydrogren fuel cells, so i
guess ocean ships which clearly dont have the weight restriction of
airplanes could be fitted with these and electric engines (althought it may
take a very longtime to charge up the "batteries" before each voyage).
n
ps: there's also an interesting article about biodiesel:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
From: "A Taylor (NVC Findhorn Slovakia)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "A Taylor (NVC Findhorn Slovakia)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DISCUSSION- EMISSIONS GOING BY SHIP IS 2.5 TIMES WORSE THAN
FLYING?
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:03:42 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk ([130.246.192.55]) by mc3-f24.hotmail.com
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:04:57 -0700
Received: from LISTSERV.JISCMAIL.AC.UK (jiscmail.ac.uk) by
smtp.jiscmail.ac.uk (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id
<[log in to unmask]>; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 0:04:48 +0100
Received: by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.4) with spool id
58203758 for [log in to unmask]; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:04:32
+0100
Received: from 130.246.192.52 by JISCMAIL.AC.UK (SMTPL release 1.0m) with
TCP; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:03:51 +0100
Received: from web33009.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33009.mail.mud.yahoo.com
[68.142.206.73]) by kili.jiscmail.ac.uk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with SMTP id
j6IN3m6w019404 for <[log in to unmask]>; Tue, 19 Jul 2005
00:03:49 +0100
Received: (qmail 60897 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Jul 2005 23:03:42 -0000
Received: from [80.176.96.49] by web33009.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue,
19 Jul 2005 00:03:42 BST
X-Message-Info: KtxBqYfPyq0g7ittCGUwPGJozu3ABQVeY4WdCileF80=
X-RAL-MFrom: <[log in to unmask]>
X-RAL-Connect: <web33009.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.73]>
X-RocketYMMF: abigslovak
X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: 0 :
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39
Comments: To: George Marshall <[log in to unmask]>
Precedence: list
Return-Path: [log in to unmask]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2005 23:04:57.0516 (UTC)
FILETIME=[1DE7AEC0:01C58BED]
Dear George
thankyou for this work - timing couldn't have
been better for my "less flying" project.
Thanks to all those who replied too - very
useful.
Please continue to add more thoughts.
I'll try to be a devil's advocate to your
argument with several additional points (the most
important one is last). Round One:
- its not just about airplanes; imagine the
amount of agricultural land that will be
tarmacked if every large town and city in Europe,
India, China, and former Soviet Union decides to
have an airport and new roads to serve it; the
ports are already built, and so are the roads
that serve them
- a non-luxury vessel could carry ?5 times more
passengers than the QEII in its current form, and
even if not, the QEII offers way beyong first
class to its passengers. Economy Class on an
aircraft is not equivalent to standard class on a
cruise liner, and even freight ships do not offer
true economy class, since the death of passenger
shipping in the 60s
- the most realistic sea travel options at the
moment are with
(a) combined rail/ferry - it would be interesting
to look at a trip from Hong Kong to Tokyo/Kyoto
or London to Casablanca
(b) Grimaldi freight ferries etc on <1000 mile
trips; I'm not sure if you could do a similar
comparison there as how would you cost this when
the ship will go with empty berths on non-cargo
decks anyway? As I think about it, it becomes
obvious that adding more and more berths on upper
decks of freight ships is an ace way to displace
air passengers.
- on the Queen Mary you can take unlimited
personal baggage (I assume you have to be able to
get it onto a trolley) - how would the same
baggage be transported by an airline passenger?
- have you thought about lifecycle of the craft;
I doubt whether many aircraft will have as long a
working life as the QE II
- I think we will sooner be able to have viable
hydrogen-powered+solar+wind-powered ships (sic)
than hydrogen-powered aircraft; and the exausts
could be drunk by the passengers, with CO2
bubbles in
- I think the fairest comparison would be between
(a) aircraft and
(b) shipping-with-the-economies-of-scale-we-
could-expect-to-see-after-10/20years-of-pressure-
to-develop-more-sustainable-transport.
Biodiesel would be more energy-positive now if it
wasn't being compared to an up-and-running
mineral diesel system. If large numbers of people
were doing business trips and visiting relatives
by ship because sustainability policy and demand
made flying expensive, economy class crossings
and lean burn shipping would start to grow.
The question for me is, "Are there going to be
enough voices leading the way with a switch to
sea transport, to encourage capital investment in
the shipping systems needed?"
It maybe that the existing inertia is too great
for that to happen, and that even if it does the
saving in emissions+forcing per passenger won't
be that great.
On the other hand it may be that
sustainability-pushing innovators will wake up
demand and interest, as has happened with fuel
cells, biodiesel, Freiburg's transport system,
cycling in the rain etc etc
I really want more info on this because it will
affect whether I emphasis "fly less" or "travel
less" in my project.
I'm starting to lean towards the latter anyway,
for various other reasons.
Andy Ray Taylor
--- George Marshall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> I have been distracted by a question which has
> been puzzling me for a
> long time: are emissions from a ship actually
> better or worse than
> flying? In materials and discussions we often
> assume uncritically that
> ships are technologically superior to ships in
> emissions terms.
>
> So I have done a simple and undoubtedly
> conjectural comparison between a
> transatlantic journey by 747 and by the QE2-
> and it doesn't look good
> for ships.
>
> 747s and the QE2 are of similar age in
> technology. The QE2 had the then
> most efficient engines installed when refitted
> 15 years ago. Because I
> am comparing technologies,not actual emissions
> I have assumed 100%
> occupancy of both 747 and QE2
>
> OK the figures:
>
> The QE2 holds maximum 1,800 passengers. It
> burns 433 tonnes of oil per
> day at sea, says Cunard, and takes 6 days for
> the southhampton to new
> york trip. This is 2.88 tonnes of oil per
> person for a return trip. 1
> tonne of marine fuel contains 0.85 tonnes
> carbon, or converted to Co2
> (x3.72) this is 3.16 tonnes co2/tonne. So, a
> return atlantic trip on a
> full QE2 will be 9.1 tonnes of CO2 per
> passenger.
>
> This is at the highest end of the estimates I
> have seen, a full 747
> will emit up to 800 tonnes CO2 on the same
> return route. If we assume a
> further 'uplift' due to contrails, nitrous
> oxides etc and multiply by
> 2.7 (the IPCC's reckoning) that is 2160 tonnes
> of CO2 equivalent. A 100%
> full jet with 1st, business and economy classes
> has 406 seats. So a
> return atlantic trip on a full 747 will have a
> climate impact of 5.3
> tonnes of CO2 per passenger. But, here's the
> crunch, this is high
> because it allows a lot of space for the first
> and business passengers.
> If all passengers were in economy seating,
> there would be 600 seats,
> which would be 3.6 tonnes per person.
> The emissions per passenger of the QE2 are
> therefore 2.5 times greater
> than economy passengers flying.
>
> Of course, one could argue that the QE2 is a
> luxury vessel and wasteful
> of space etc. However, it is also relevant that
> it is an extremely large
> vessel, carrying 5 times more passengers that a
> 747 (not to mention all
> the support staff), so it should be able to
> achieve far higher economies
> of scale than a small vessel like a 747. If we
> wanted to compare luxury
> with luxury, we can consider that first class
> passengers on a 747 take
> twice the space of economy passengers. So, even
> if the 747 were totally
> first class, passenger emissions would still be
> lower than the QE2 at
> 7.2 tonnes CO2 per person.
>
> And there is reason to believe QE2 emissions
> may be higher still. Whilst
> the 747 has been penalised for the 'uplift'
> caused by contrails, nitrous
> oxides etc, the QE2 has only been judged for
> CO2. I have charitably
> assumed 100% conversion of fuel, but if any of
> the carbon is released as
> particulates that too will have a powerful
> multiplier effect. Marine
> engines are usually extremely dirty,although
> the CO2 will be at the
> cleaner end I imagine.
>
> This is not the end of the comparison. There is
> the matter of embodied
> energy. The aluminium (80% of the total weight)
> of jumbo is 75 tonnes
> (embodied emissions- assuming not HEP powered,
> are 27kgco2 per kg
> aluminium). So the embodied emissions in a 747
> are 2,025 tonnes CO2, or
> 5 tonnes per passenger place.
>
> Now the QE2 on the other hand, weighs 70,327
> tonnes. I have no idea what
> percentage is steel, but to be charitable, I
> will assume 80% again. The
> embodied emissions of steel are 3.2 kg CO2/kg
> steel. So the embodied
> emissions of the QE2 are 180,037 tonnes CO2, or
> 100 tonnes per passenger
> place.
>
> All in all I think there are grounds to
> seriously question whether we
> can say that boats have lower emissions for
> intercontinental travel.
> What we can say is that people will not be
> popping over to New York for
> a shopping weekend if they had to take 2 weeks
> to get there and back and
> pay through the nose, but are there not ways to
> discourage flying which
> have a similar effect?
>
> Any thoughts or challenges to my figures?
>
> Love
>
> George
>
>
> --
>
> George Marshall
> Co-Executive Director
> The Climate Outreach and Information Network
> (COIN)
> 16B Cherwell St. Oxford, OX4 1BG, UK.
> Telephone 01865 727 911
> Mobile 0795 150 4549 (I will return your call
> to save you high calling
> charges)
> E-mail [log in to unmask]
> Web: www.COINet.org.uk
>
> COIN is a charitable trust, registration number
> 1102225. It supports
> initiatives and organisations that increase
> public understanding and
> awareness of climate change.
>
> > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.11.17 -
> Release Date: 5/25/05
>
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Andy Ray Taylor is currently in Findhorn checking emails most weekdays
Contacts:
---------
Pager messages - 07666 778016
Work phone - 0845 058 0537 (9-12.30pm and 2-5pm)
Texts - 077654 77305
Home phone - 077654 77305 (7am and 10pm are best times)
Andy Ray Taylor
Posthouse
305 The Park
Findhorn
Moray IV36 3TE
|
