How the Dirtiest Ships Are Cleaning Up Their Act
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 тра 2024
- Shipping goods across the seas makes up 90% of global trade, a fact that comes with huge environmental costs. But thanks to some ambitious engineers, carbon-spewing ships may soon get a whole lot greener.
#Accelerate #Green #BloombergQuicktake
--------
Like this video? Subscribe: ua-cam.com/users/Bloomberg?sub_...
Become a Quicktake Member for exclusive perks: ua-cam.com/users/bloombergjoin
Subscribe to Quicktake Explained: bit.ly/3iERrup
QuickTake Originals is Bloomberg's official premium video channel. We bring you insights and analysis from business, science, and technology experts who are shaping our future. We’re home to Hello World, Giant Leap, Storylines, and the series powering CityLab, Bloomberg Businessweek, Bloomberg Green, and much more.
Subscribe for business news, but not as you've known it: exclusive interviews, fascinating profiles, data-driven analysis, and the latest in tech innovation from around the world.
Visit our partner channel QuickTake News for breaking global news and insight in an instant. - Наука та технологія
The best solution is more distributed manufacturing of quality, durable products. Thus a lowering of shipping demand. Even if more expensive upfront. Real quality always ends up being cheaper in the long run. Even promotes inter-generational wealth growth if children can inherit long-lived items.
The current paradigm is just driven through marketing anyway. Doesn't make anybody truly happy.
Thats never gonna happen, business always have two different ways to operate, either quality or quantity and many business run on quantity over quality, to have both you need to have a very big business already.
@@Soul-ft7bg you just need laws. I think they actually reduced the product warranty time by 5 years. Fridges and washing machines are thrown away after 3 years now. These used to last over 30 years. Not to mention right to repair. We are unable to repair our electronics nowadays.
@@TheBooban Exactly, just 7 years back the microwave my grand pa had for over 30 years died and had to buy a new one and guess what? The new one died 5 years later.
Well actually, cargo vessels are one of the most efficient modes of transportation. The bigger the ship, the more fuel-efficient it is. Same applies to factories, you don't want distributed manufacturing facilitates for environmental benefits because having more factories means more concrete used for building them and potentially less green land. And shipping goods they produced won't be as efficient either compared with the current concentrated model (i.e. most of the goods are now produced in China) due to the lower economies of scale (and thus lower energy-efficiency)
@@chm0225 An ever wider variety of goods are ever more viable targets for distributed manufacturing thanks to advances in additive manufacturing though. And with an emphasis on quality and durability I would be the first to admit that I'm talking about a paradigm shift here. In the end countries will have to decide if they want the hidden costs loaded up front, or addressed randomly down the line as they make themselves known. I am certain that with time the distributed manufacturing of robust goods will become the status futurum, because I see it as is the most viable model that might qualify to be any kind of status futurum. In a number of ways.
It looks like someone just used a Kodachrome filter for the thumbnail
Excited to have these all over the Southern Oceans one day and supported from Cape Town, South Africa😎
This is a perfect example of big company’s doing nothing but talking about what they might do.
Solution: Stop manufacturing disposable garbage products in China/India and shipping them across the globe.
It will stop being manufactured when people stop buying it or legislation prevents its existence
Why do you want to keep Asia and Africa poor?
The thumbnail is just the picture in grey 🤣
The title panel suggests the dirtiest ships clean up their act by photoshop.
3% is lesser than livestock rearing. If people reduce eating beef and pork, that will be a bigger impact.
Exciting stuff. Lets hope this change to low/no carbon fuel ramps up fast and continued advances. 👍
P
O Iv our fr sysssssssaaaaaaaay
1
Very encouraging.....👍
A range of 80 compared to 5000 is a ridiculous difference, even by a factor of 10 this is wholly inadequate.
And make sure there is renewable shore power in all ports so that ships don't have to run generators while being docked.
Ground power units like we have at airports when the machine taxies in and is plugged in straight away
Nice thought until you think about it for even a second.
Ships spend very little time in port. Usually only for active loading and unloading. Refueling, crew food and supply replenishment, maintenance and cleaning of the ship is all done at sea. The time waiting for a dispatch is spent sitting in designated areas away from ports.
When ships are in port they are almost always required to have their engines operating and crew on the bridge ready to take action in case of an emergency. Not only that, but the engines to power a ship are substantially larger than your car. The term cathedral engine comes to mind. You don't shut off and restart a ships engine instantly. It would actually cause more engine wear from the shutdown and restart process and more pollution and that pollution would be released in ports near major population centers.
You have officially earned your participation trophy.
You can get a lower port fee if you plug in, at least in my local port...
Nice
Oahu is one of the best places in the UK and has been in a great state
In the opening photo even the water is better looking. Changing where products are manufactured is an entirely different issue. Not possible to dictate. Ammonia is immediately incapacitating. Accidents happen.
Thank you for never pandering to polarization for ratings. Bloomberg is among the best.
Several solutions are missing like using rigid/ semi-rigid / inflatable sails - e.g.: Michelin WISAMO project - as well as kites/ wings - e.g.; Airseas' project (a spinoff from Airbus).
WOW! Container ships carry 80-90% of global goods, yet only produce 3% of air pollution?
Sounds to me other modes of transport should be given much more priority to get them clean.
They said 3% of co2 not 3% of pollution. Bunker oil is the most polluting of fossil fuels.
@@steven4315 When comparing pollution per ton and mile, trucks are over an order of magnitude worse ...
@@peregreena9046 not for sulphur
@@MyKharli A modern container ship carries 20,000-30,000 twenty foot units. You really think that many trucks pollute less?
You're not listening to what the video said.
Another key approach will be to localise where possible (and that will be in more and more areas as we develop and apply green technologies).
Saying biofuels can be generated with renewable energy is nonsense right? Because we do not have enough renewable energy. When there is not enough renewable energy, then more coal, oil and gas have to be burned to generate the electricity to generate bio-fuel. It would be better then to take the oil directly to the ship engine?
Do we know when and if there will be enough renewable energy to power all households, factories, electric cars and to create biofuels for shipping and aviation industry? If we don't know (or if we do know there won't be enough renewable energy), then biofuels are a scam right.
So biofuels work a bit difrent than you might think the energy gets mostly added by the growth of plants to the fuel so for that you tipicly dont need electricity. And than you have processes which refine the oils which use energy. But on another note the elektricity suply is also relevant for bateries. And i find batery boats are the bigger scam because they deplet the earth of valuable rare earth metals.
Changing fuel isn’t the only way to reduce emissions. You can also just slow down the ship.
Never gonna happen, people expect fast shipping this days
Already being done, slow steaming...
Ships are really slow 😂
And you can’t slow them to much because you need speed to maneuver …
According to the thumbnail, it looks like boating in blue water is the answer
Why don’t ships use wind electric energy? Simply install a few wind turbines on ships and use the generated electricity to power the engines! No shortage of wind on the seas…. What a thought!!!
Wind turbines also offer resistance to the wind, much as a sail does (we don't care much about that on stationary turbines, as long as it isn't at potentially damaging speeds).
And there's the matter of the direction the wind blows, compared to where you want to go (stationary turbines need merely rotate to face the wind, regardless of direction, and often automatically where a tail/vane is involved, to get the most out of it).
It's not clear that you're going to break even on this...
What about Wavefoil?
to everyone saying “go nuclear” yeah, you could do it, theoretically. there was never a nuc-plane cause of how heavy it was. light reactors are so expensive they easily cost more than a panamax ship. also, waste storage.
While the NS _Savannah_ worked, its design was just way too expensive to operate because it used an older reactor design. I expect someone soon to build a test ship using a far more compact (and way safer to use) Generation IV reactor, one that make it possible to built gigantic container cargo ships that run for years at a time without refueling with no air pollution emissions, either.
@@After_Pasta Remember that the reactors on ships are MUCH smaller than a reactor used in a power plant, you're trying to power a ship, not power an entire town. :)
That doesn't mean it's not an issue, but it's 'less' of an issue than it's made out to be.
Well nuclear subs run on.. Yep you guessed it.. Nuclear power
So to have nuclear on a ship is not a weight problem or a cost problem at all. Those nuclear power motors on the subs are of an older design so a new would weigh less I guess
I live right on the seafront in an estuary going into London. That means I get to see all the ships going past belching smoke. I have dozens of pictures of smoke belching giants, some of which push out more smoke in one minute than all the vehicles in London in a month, so I would be very surprised if it was as low as 3%.
3% of carbon dioxide. Sulfur dioxide, sot etc is another thing. What are your laws on sulfur in ship fuel? Same as for land vehicles? If not, it should be. Sulfur in diesel is like 0.1%, bunker oil is several percent, basically it's the leftover gunk after refining away gasoline, diesel, kerosene etc.
As I watched this video it's seems very clear that no one wishes to talk about the elephant in the room which is hydrogen. Hydrogen is the fuel of the future as if you look at what they a burning now it's the hydrogen that is providing the power to move these big ships around so switching the source of that hydrogen is the solution. Why they are talking about it is a mystery to me.
The thunmnail is just aship darkened lol
These ships are cleaning up their bad doings, but do you know what you need to do?
Clean up that attitude.
Marketing. These ships are durrrrrety.
Nice video.
How about all the countries produce all of their own stuff.
Then you won’t need container ships.
One solution,Nuclear powered cargo ship.
I always wondered why the big containerships arnt using old nuclear power, like ive seen in russia they have old nuclear submarines rotting away.they cant cut the section off with the powerplant and install that in the hull of a big containership
Nuclear reactors in the hands of third world countries seafarers: that's the perfect recipe for disasters
How are they changing ,Filters
How about a global ban on the sale of bunker oil. That would make a quick change and low cost. The current engines can run on normal diesel. But bunker is so keep it's preferred
Greenwashing
OMG!
It would be awesome to see stuff like this!
Electric powered container ships can lead to electric powered cruse ships!
And maybe even Nuclear powered ships!
Nuclear ... bro u ok?
@@markullgaming6289 Yeah!
I saw a documentary on a nuclear powered ship and it was awesome!
It could go for months without refueling!
Chinese ship are required to be green to enter US ports but before they get to the ports they just switch fuels and after they leave they switch back to the dirty fuels. at sea, Chinese ships use number 1 fuel oil and coming into ports they use number 2 diesel.
That is normal for all boats...
@@Uffeful Yeah was about to say since different areas of sea lanes have different acceptable ranges. Like ships crossing the Atlanic use a more dirty fuel then when they pull up on the North American Coast they switch to a cleaner one since cleaner fuels are often more expensive.
TLDR: Essentially they currently don't
It's not going to be easy and it's going to take some time.
You forgot about fuel cells to produce electricity
2:12 - this graphic is a little misleading. The biggest container ships can can carry more than 20,000 TEU (Twenty-foot equivalent units) - so only half that number of the (more typical) 40 feet containers as shown in the graphic.
The industry standard is to talk TEU. Just the way its done. There is also far more 20 foot Containers in circulation than 40 foot.
Maritime industry should get away from their long obsession with Diesel IC engine if they really want to get green. Hydrogen fuel cell is another alternative.
Hmm weird how the title is just one photo that was photoshopped to make il look more dirty
I like your vids but I got a 24 hors chalinge
they already have an electric ship that is autonomous
why not nuclear powered ships? (Such as the N.S. Savannah or a ton of naval ships)
I think this is where hydrogen fuel cell is a perfect solution. And you have the added benefit the fuel is right underneath you.
Hydrogen is not as efficient as simply using natural gas, the source of most hydrogen.
Hydrogen has a storage problem (liquid H2 has a very low density that means big tanks, and is liquid at much lower temps than methane) and getting it from the surrounding water to separate it from the oxygen takes...energy. More than you can possibly get back from a fuel cell, much less have anything left to run the ship's motors.
The laws of thermodynamics are a...female dog.
Happy Happy Happy news!!!!
It boils down to saving money. If you can make non polluting vessels cheaper to run than polluting ships change will happen. Other wise it won't.
The New Century Is Electric
Lithium Not Oil
You mean groundwater which gets poluted by mining, fast degradation of the storage medium, low energy density, bad scalability
@@jurgenkriebs9405 Adapt And Overcome
Lithium degrades hella quick and is really no reuseable or recycable not to mention its one of the worst in terms of landfill pollution.
@@dragonace119 So They Are No Perfect Solutions ? Welcome To Reality..
@@danjohnston9037 like tell me how would someone overcome the scalebilitty issue if we have finit resurces here on eart and most things needed for bateries are not that common maby try transporting it by rail at least for there test project it seems like a valid alternativ and at least between europe and asia that alternative would be worthwhile
Wouldnt this cause redundancy?
Now lets get the numbers on emissions from producing those batteries!
It is still less, most of the concern is to get the raw materials sustainably.
@@defnotaghost6460 Less than what?
Generally when you take a look at emissions from producing Electric cars, they have to run for way too long, to produce less greenhouse gasses than a conventional car with a combustion engine. Furthermore the main amout of power produced still comes from burning coal etc.
and this is the fact in most bigger countries
what these guys are trying to do is what should have been done 2 decades ago
Graphine twisted upon itself is light weight and creates an electric field…. but don’t listen to me… I’m a UKE….? Maybe a huge Tesla type water pump instead of a propeller?🖍🖍🖍
would love to see a hydrogen powerd ship they already take the salt out of the water for drinking whats stopping them in putting a small hydro plant on the ship
Hydrogen is, like a battery, just stored potential energy. To extract it from the water, you would need more energy than it would produce.
The classic sailing vessel needed huge sails. Huge sails required dozens of sailors to 'man' the sails; actually, putting them up when the wind was right and taking them down when it wasn't. But if you had hundreds--thousands of small, two foot by four foot tall sails, attached to the sides of the ship and controlled by computers, modern ships could at least be 'assisted ' by the wind. Modern sailors have figured out how to take advantage of even contrary winds. This could be a partial solution.
Filters huh
Cargo Ships would be the perfect candidate for nuclear power. We already know that it works in naval vessels, and it's incredibly safe.
Why not an electromagnetic engine?
Tell us exactly what that means, please.
@@stardolphin2 Hey?
@@zeph6439 What *is* an 'electromagnetic engine?' Please explain.
Most electric motors involve electromagnets, but I don't think that's what you mean, and those still need electricity from some source. I can't say more until I know what you're talking about.
Green hydrogen is the future
How about hydrogen cell
You could, but the hydrogen it needs doesn't store easily (as a liquid, *very* cold and low density, meaning large tanks for a useful amount), and it takes significant energy somewhere else to produce it.
what about nuclear? look at us carriers
By using photoshop ?
Why not use engines that work on hydrogen like Toyota tries to do with cars? They can convert sea water into usable water for electricity storage.
It’s an interesting option for the future, but the energy density of hydrogen, while better than batteries, isn’t that great when compared to hydrocarbons. It’s also not widely available right now, so it’s not really a viable option for most cargo ships.
Because hydrogen infrastructure is silly expensive and hard not to be leaky .
converting seawater to hydrogen takes more energy than burning said hydrogen in a motor would make.
Also seawater will be more salter. Imagine the sealife.
Its not as clean as you might think,if you get your methanol from corn then no .
Yes let's automate trains ships and taxis huh perfect idea...
Always look at the operational design domain most of the time its only parcial automation and no were near full automation
What about building ships that are powered by their turbine turning in the water whilst on the go....
Um, that causes drag that *will* be greater than anything you can get from it to then power the ship motors to keep moving through the water.
(Same as if you tried to connect a generator to an electric car's wheels, or hung a propeller off a plane to power its electric motors...you can't get something for nothing)
GO nuclear or fusion that's the best way forward for cargo ships.
The moment someone has a practical and sufficiently small fusion reactor, I'm all for that.
But it won't be tomorrow.
why not nuclear-powered cargo ships? wont that make more sense?
Probably better/more efficient to leave the rectors on shore and use their power to make ammonia or methanol for the ships.
@@zapfanzapfan think about the extra transportation/insurance/maintenance costs
How do you know carbon is bad for the environment, co2 is a bye product it is not the problem.
Earth receives energy from the sun mainly in the form of visible light (radiation). This heats up the earth. Heat is radiated back into space as infrared radiation. That cools the earth back down. That's kind of in balance.
CO2 absorbs infrared light and lets visible light through. This is a basic property of CO2. That's why CO2 makes it harder for earth to loose energy: heating earth up. That is going to change the weather, it is going to melt a lot of ice. Warmer water increases in volume.
This has been predicted since 1880. Oil companies predicted it in 1970 in detail. Predictions of temperature made in 2000 are being proven with measurements now.
CO2 is a by-product of your own biology...but you wouldn't want to be locked in an airtight enclosure with it.
You can have too much of anything.
A Canadian company is making machines that make ammonia at massively less cost, each ship could have its own ammonia production as you only need water and air. No green house gas emissions fuel positive.
Imagine if I cared
So for 3 % ur putting more regulation on shipping industries!!! TTS dumb …. Better ban all cars…
Green methane is solution
5
🙏🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Yes the green push, truly about removing more money from the working class.
Uooo yey
Why not convert these ships into electric with the new micro molten salt reactors? They are expensive at first but within the lifespan of the ship they will never need new fuel
nuclear powered ship need constant protection so the cant be turned into dirty bombs. And maintaining a nuclear reactor requires highly skilled workers. Most ports dont allow nuclear powered ships to dock either. In theory its an great idea, but very hard to actually do.
Qwezy
Z
L
Bdu
First, fu @Sumanasri Machi
First
Cool