tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post7569134605565390544..comments2024-03-28T09:10:42.703-05:00Comments on Bayou Renaissance Man: So much for automobile pollution!Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-67922549776117809092009-11-30T17:45:46.032-06:002009-11-30T17:45:46.032-06:00Rich makes some good points. The article says that...Rich makes some good points. The article says that "There is no reason ship engines cannot run on clean fuel, like cars." This is sort of true. In fact, when starting up from a cold plant, they MUST use cleaner fuel, (#2 diesel, as I recall) to generate enough steam to heat the bunker tanks so the fuel will flow. As stated, it's essentially tar at room temperature.<br /><br />I see 2 problems with not using bunker fuel. First, cleaner fuels are much more expensive and much more in demand. Think for a minute of the impact if just those 16 largest ships switched to cleaner fuels. The price of trans-ocean cargo shipments would rise, but so would every other transportation mode that uses fuel, from the urban moped-messenger to daily commuter-cages to semi trucks and locomotives. <br />Second, what would we do with the bunker fuel. It's also called "residual fuel," which means "whatever's left over after we take out the good stuff." <br /><br />Of course, it's probably possible to remove a lot of the sulfur from the fuel, but it will raise the price.joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14981428927321701616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-1502822167415394182009-11-30T07:56:17.275-06:002009-11-30T07:56:17.275-06:00I have three thoughts on this .. first the comment...I have three thoughts on this .. first the comment to the original article that volcanic sulphur is likely more important than is acknowledged by the "climate change" community seems pertinent, if stated hyperbolically. Why aren't global warming claims ever raised in full context? <br /><br />In the same comment, the extrapolation of the questionable nature of the number of deaths "caused by sulphur" is most telling. While my quick research indicated that most volcanic sulphur emissions occur in places where anthropomorphic emissions are minimal, the question of assumptions is extremely relevant.<br /><br />Second, I'm not so sure that making intercontinental shipping of consumer doodads more expensive isn't a good thing. Assuming (and it's a big assumption) that raw materials shipments don't become too prohibitive, I'd like to see locally made products become more competitive.<br /><br />After all, until all foreign countries implement the minimum wage, social security, environmental regulations, medicare, medicaid, worker's compensation, etc., we won't be able to compete in the truly global economy,<br /><br />Third, while I'm more than tired of the "green" frenzy, I'm not sure I'd call the prior lack of emphasis on shipping hypocrisy. I'm more likely to call it a combination of laziness and ignorance. They were too busy pillorying the average American to look around. I think they'd have been all over the issue if it would have occurred to them.<br /><br />RichRichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-36981843665984728962009-11-30T07:20:39.442-06:002009-11-30T07:20:39.442-06:00The only way to fix the problem is to either find ...The only way to fix the problem is to either find a really big unicorn that poops something better than bunker oil, or literally cripple the global shipping industry.<br /><br />JimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com