Guess essay by Eric Worrall
Climate campaigners are upset that the climate targets recommended by the UN International Maritime Organization don’t include a requirement that overall CO2 emissions be reduced.
Campaigners criticise global deal on carbon emissions from shipping
Green groups say agreement will allow emissions to continue to rise in the next decade
Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent
Sat 24 Oct 2020 03.32 AEDTGovernments have rejected calls for tougher regulation of international shipping, settling instead for new rules on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that campaigners say will imperil the Paris climate goals.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN body that regulates international shipping, agreed on Friday after a week-long online meeting to make an existing target legally binding: to reduce the carbon intensity of shipping by 40% compared with 2008 levels in the next 10 years.
The conclusions, reached by ministers from around the world despite calls from the UK, Ireland, New Zealand and others for more stringent curbs on emissions, will go forward to the IMO’s marine environment protection committee for acceptance next month.
Campaigners said the deal would allow carbon dioxide emissions from shipping to continue to rise in the next decade, despite warnings from scientists that global emissions need to be brought down sharply over that period.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/23/green-groups-condemn-proposals-to-cut-shipping-emissions
I can’t help thinking international shipping organisations are missing an opportunity to turn the tables on climate activists.
One of the few geoengineering proposals which seems unlikely to kill people is to seed the ocean with iron oxide. Iron is the primary limiting nutrient for microscopic plant life over vast stretches of ocean. Even a few extra tons of iron delivered to the ocean surface could make a significant difference to algae growth over a vast area.
If ships could inject small quantities of cheap low grade iron into their exhaust, either as a fuel micro-additive or via a mechanism to inject powdered oxide into their exhaust stream, or even simply toss a few bags of iron oxide over the side as they travel, they would be in a strong position to claim their activities were a net climate benefit.
Hey, no need to worry about this.
If Joe Biden and Kamala Harris get elected, they have promised to transition the US off “oil” (i.e., petroleum and its refined products that are used as fuel). Since ALL large ocean-transiting cargo ships use a range of crude oil-derived fuels (ranging from Bunker C to diesel), the US ocean cargo transportation industry will be forced to buy fuel for their ships from foreign suppliers of such, but at what inflated prices?
And it will then be only a matter of time before the Biden/Harris administration issues an Executive Order banning all US commercial vessels from purchasing oil-derived fuels from foreign suppliers.
Or instead perhaps Biden/Harris are of the mindset that solar, wind, geothermal and hydro “green renewables”, together with massive batteries, can indeed replace evil, “polluting” fossil fuels for all ocean-transiting marine vessels. Go figure.
Ammonia fueled engines are being developed. Made from hydrogen this fuel could get the industry where it seems everyone wants it to go.
So how do we produce economical hydrogen that is carbon dioxide free? Answer: We can’t.
But as long as the industry says it is made from clean hydrogen, blue or green, activists will be happy not to point out the flaws.
And industry can claim a win.
Keith,
The higher heating value, in units of BTU/pound, of ammonia is 9,690 compared to 12, 800 for ethanol, 14,00 for anthracite coal, 19,300 for diesel, 19,860 for kerosene, and 21,700 for propane (ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion ). Therefore, with such low energy density, no component engineer seriously considers ammonia as a viable replacement for other fossil fuel-derived energy sources.
Also, the vapor pressure of ammonia at 70 deg-F is 129 psia, and at 100 deg-F it is 212 psia; meaning that higher pressure storage vessels (=$$$) will be needed if the stored ammonia is not to be actively refrigerated (=$$$) so as to maintain it as liquid instead of much less dense gas.
Gordon:
I have no dog in this fight so to speak . Engines are being developed for ammonia combustion as this article reveals, https://www.wartsila.com/media/news/30-06-2020-world-s-first-full-scale-ammonia-engine-test—an-important-step-towards-carbon-free-shipping-2737809