By Steve Goreham
Originally published in TheT&D.
Occasionally a report appears which claims to be wisdom, but after careful analysis, offers solutions that don’t make much sense. Such a report was issued earlier this month by United Kingdom consulting firm GL Reynolds, titled “The multi-issue mitigation potential of reducing ship speeds.” The report proposes that we can reduce global warming by imposing speed limits on ocean-going ships.
The GL Reynolds report concludes that a 10-20 percent reduction in ship speeds would have a “highly positive potential impact” on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and nitrous oxide (NOx) and sulfur oxide (SOx) pollutants. The report also projects that a ship speed reduction may reduce fatal collisions with whales.
The report is actually conservative and recommends that more study is needed. But the BBC and environmental groups now hail the report as a roadmap for international maritime policy.
Matt McGrath, environment correspondent for BBC News, wrote “Cutting the speed of ships has huge benefits for humans, nature and the climate, according to a new report.” John Maggs from Seas at Risk told the BBC, “It’s a massive win, win, win, win.”
According to the International Transport Forum, ships carried 10.7 billion metric tons of freight in 2017, 70 percent of world freight volumes. ITF projects maritime freight volumes to triple from 2015 to 2050.
Like almost all modern transportation, ships emit carbon dioxide when they burn fuel. Ships emitted about 932 million tons of CO2 in 2015, about 2.6 percent of global emissions. When ships move at lower speeds, they consume less fuel and emit less carbon dioxide. A 2017 study by CE Delft estimated that a 20 percent reduction in commercial ship speeds would reduce CO2 emissions by 19 percent, after a required 13 percent increase in the number of ships to provide the same transport work.
In 2017, the value of the world shipping fleet was estimated at $829 billion. Increasing the size of the fleet by 13 percent would cost over $100 billion, plus additional costs to hire and train additional crews.
Today, most global corporations practice cycle time reduction as a key business process. Apple, currently the world’s most valuable company, calls it “reducing time to value.” On-line retailing giant Amazon implemented one-day delivery for many products this year. Footwear and apparel producer Nike announced a goal to reduce supply chain lead times by 83 percent.
Regulations to reduce the speed of ocean-going ships by 20 percent would increase cycle times and costs for the shipping industry. Crews would need to be paid more for longer voyages and each ship would take 20 percent more time to deliver the same cargo. Cycle-times and costs would also increase for Apple, Amazon, Nike, and all freight customers.
Advocates point out that emissions of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides can be reduced with slower ship speeds. But international regulations are already in place to reduce SOx emissions by reducing the sulfur content of fuels and to reduce NOx emissions through new diesel engine emission standards.
Collisions with whales have been rising with the growth of the world shipping fleet. National measures such as routing and speed restrictions are now in place in coastal whale migration areas at certain times of the year to reduce collisions. But how will increasing the number of ships by 13 percent reduce the number of whale impacts?
In 1975 during the first oil crisis, the US federal government imposed a National Maximum Highway Speed Limit of 55 mph. Officials estimated that lowering highway speeds would cut national gasoline consumption by over two percent. Later studies showed actual savings to be less than one percent. Today the world is awash with petroleum and the US 55 mph limit no longer exists.
We could certainly run our ships, planes, and vehicles at slower speeds. And if we returned to horse-drawn wagons, vehicle collisions with deer would be eliminated. But does anyone really think this would stop sea levels from rising?
Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business, and public policy and author of the book Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.
I could be wrong, but I though these large ocean-going ships already move at an optimal speed, based on tonnage and hull design. Limiting speeds based on some weird notions would only decrease efficiency.
The silly notion is that CO2 has ANYTHING to do with climate. It does NOT. It is an EFFECT of climate change, not the CAUSE of climate change. I learned 60+ years ago that you cannot change climate. Nothing has changed, except now they teach that you CAN change climate (without even trying, by farting), yet no proof has ever been presented to show how it could be done. There are international laws against even TRYING to control climate. Good god, what have we come to?
Why not replace the diesel engines with nuclear reactors like several navies do? If nuclear reactors are safe enough for boats that can be targeted for missiles and torpedoes, surely they can be safe enough for boats not targeted by foreign navies.
Or why not rig up some kind of tether and sail for ships traveling the direction of the wind. I saw a concept a long time ago where a cargo ship would use an air canon to shoot a sail high into the atmosphere to catch the wind. The sail would then pull the ship so that ship used less fuel. Or maybe ships can go hybrid and use solar panels to supplement the diesel turbines.
My point is there has to be better ideas than to slow down ships.
You forgot putting a line of ships across the ocean, nose to tail, and then pumping the oil from ship to ship until it reaches the front ship on the other side.
/s
It’s called a pipeline!
The ship slowdown will reduce global emissions by 19% of 2.6% or 0.5% and to propose that costly action thr benefit of this reduction must be shown.
Exactly what is the benefit other than the feel good thing of doing the right thing and being green?
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/11/16/agw-issues/
Global sufur cap on shipping fuel comes into force from Jan next year.
Decreased SO2 emissions will reduce aerosols and this will provide warming.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es901944r
Many other papers state the same.
Why bother with ships which are already slow ?
They should instead propose to limit the planes’ speed to 55 mph.
Particularly for internatioanl / overseas flights.
Many years ago, my buddy was flying his old bushplane against a terrible headwind, the traffic on the highway was going faster than he was.
They could put speed bumps on heavily used shipping lanes.
noaaprogrammer
They already have speed bumps. They are called whales. 🙂
No, icebergs.
No icebergs.
The last I heard many ships have already reduced their speed below their full cruise capability for some economic reason. It was (as I recall) due to over capacity since the financial crisis, 2008
God already has, they’re called waves…..
Ever run over a 50′ speed bump? I have…..
As already noted, use nuclear power.
Good enough for large aircraft carriers, good enough for large container /tanker ships.
Eeconumpties recommend a 0 knot speed limit. This will save the lives of hundreds of anchovies! “It’s a massive win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win, win!”
We can reduce fuel use in ships by building nuclear powered ships. The USA build on such, named USNS Savannah, IIRC. If fuel costs and concern over pollution were the ACTUAL concern, that’s what we’d do. But the eco-freaks just want to destroy the economy and cause as many deaths as possible.
I have a better idea. Bring manufacturing back to the West, and there’ll be no need for so many ships.
But that will require rolling back many of the BS ‘environmental’ laws which pushed it out. And having reliable power and lots of it.
Better plan. Fit large whale grinders to the front of ships that fed into the fuel tanks.
Whales are renewable, more or less, and if we accept whales are going to jump in front of ships then at least nothing goes to waste.
Surely no one can complain about that idea? 🙂
When one lusts for power,they must control EVERYTHING.
So is seeking to control the world marine trade and step up or a step down, from claiming to control the Climate?
Shades of Kids in the Hall;’I’m crushing your head…”
Is the CO2 from shipping 2.6% of human-originated emissions or 2.6% of all CO2 emissions including things like rotting trees etc?
Short-sighted thinking. Policy changes like this have many consequences. For example, we bring manufacturing back from over-seas to USA and Europe. MAGA! We can buy more domestic goods instead of imported ones. We can add air cargo and pipelines to natural gas and oil. Chinese will build a railway to Europe.
If a chap, chapess or chapette has oodles of dosh, they could build a “Black Pearl”. Not Captain Jack Sparrow’s but this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7pCkzz7IWY
However, the technology is first world & would not be available in any world envisioned by Greta Thunderbird. She is a silly goose who has no chance of laying a golden egg.
“But does anyone really think this would stop sea levels from rising?”
Well Steve, if we have to put more ships on the oceans this will raise sea levels due to extra weight displacement. I’m sure there must be a satellite that can measure sea level rise in hundredths of a mm.
I read the title and the first thing that comes to my mind is the fact that ships always travel at their economical speed unless they are behind schedule or to avoid collision or any other reason. Economical speed is not the slowest speed possible neither the fastest.
Is there a economical speed limit, where any faster and it cost more than the commercial gain ?
This is yet another try to destroy our economy,
MJE VK5ELL
Yes. This was all nutted out during the ocean liner wars to win passengers back in the early 20th century. It is also one reason why you see that massive bow “bulge” on modern ships.
Idiocy
Speed limits would only mean an increase in the number of ships.
The “green” left’s real objective is to make everyone (but themselves) poorer, and to reduce the population. I say let’s start with them and thereby raise the average level of rational thinking for the species.
Whales.
How many have been recorded as damaged / injured by ships.
Are they so stupid that they are unaware of any approaching ships. The massive underwater noise generated by shipping must surely make any whale disappear in the opposite direction.
There is this crazy thing called “calibration engineering” in which engineers “calibrate” ships combustion through the load profile. The majority of ships are running at specific speeds, so the fueling of such ships is “calibrated” based on emissions regulation and then tested in a regulatory capacity to comply with laws. Every change to these regulatory laws requires hundreds of hours of testing and re-certification of these maritime engines, another massive cost that would be passed down to the shipping industry in the purchase of new powertrains and ships. Guess who pays for this, the final customer. The engines are calibrated to have the best emissions they can at specific loads and speeds, thus changing these speeds would almost in all cases result in lowered emissions systems efficiencies and require modifications.
Get a f’ing job.
For the record…
I remember when the yacht Stormvogel set a 24 record of 304 nautical miles.
Today a trimaran Spindift 2 is in the starting blocks for an attempt on the Jules Verne Round-the-World record that currently stands at – here – read it for yourself
https://www.yachtingworld.com/news/francis-joyon-and-idec-smash-jules-verne-crewed-round-the-world-record-with-26-8-knot-average-speed-104160
cheers edi