Biggest ship in the world - Maersk Triple-E container ship

[deltasigma]

@Princhester

It may be nasty shit but the question is whether it would be more or less polluting to burn far, far more shit that is somewhat less nasty. It isn’t the no brainer you assume.

Further, if bunkers aren’t burnt then that means in order to operate ships you have to burn something less nasty, like say diesel or gasoline or kerosene. So that means a whole heckava lot more of those need to be produced. All of which involves more drilling, more transportation and more refining.

In short, have you worked it all, all the way through, to arrive at a considered conclusion as to what the alternatives to the current fuel would entail? Of have you just said “bunkers bad, get rid of bunker burning, end of problem?”

No and and neither have you - obviously. But then that wasn’t my original point - was it. Perhaps now you would like to tell me what that point was since it obviously blew right by you.

[Princhester]

I’m well aware of your original point which was this: "It’s funny though that they’re hyping the ship as good for the environment when it still burns bunker fuel - the absolute dirtiest shit you can possibly burn. LOL. "

Your point is not valid unless burning less bunkers per tonne of goods carried (which is what the ship is hyping) is worse for the environment than the alternative.

[deltasigma]

@Princhester

I’m well aware of your original point which was this: "It’s funny though that they’re hyping the ship as good for the environment when it still burns bunker fuel - the absolute dirtiest shit you can possibly burn. LOL. "

Your point is not valid unless burning less bunkers per tonne of goods carried (which is what the ship is hyping) is worse for the environment than the alternative.

No. Let’s try this again. My point was that advertising ANYTHING that burns bunker fuel as environmentally friendly is BULLSHIT.

There. Got in now?

[Princhester]

Got it first time. Try working on the assumption I understand the point you are attempting, but don’t think you are necessarily correct, mmkay?

Would you agree that advertising solar panels as environmentally friendly was bullshit (or BULLSHIT if you think yelling will help)? Presumably you would agree because anything that involves mining, transportation, manufacturing etc is environmentally damaging, and all those activities are necessary to make solar panels. So advertising them as “environmentally friendly” is bullshit. Agreed?

No? Why not? Explain to me why not without invoking relativity to other alternatives. Do you see the point?

Essentially all environmental claims are relative, and the claim made for this ship is no different.

[deltasigma]

@Princhester

Got it first time. Try working on the assumption I understand the point you are attempting, but don’t think you are necessarily correct, mmkay?

Would you agree that advertising solar panels as environmentally friendly was bullshit (or BULLSHIT if you think yelling will help)? Presumably you would agree because anything that involves mining, transportation, manufacturing etc is environmentally damaging, and all those activities are necessary to make solar panels. So advertising them as “environmentally friendly” is bullshit. Agreed?

No? Why not? Explain to me why not without invoking relativity to other alternatives. Do you see the point?

Essentially all environmental claims are relative, and the claim made for this ship is no different.

Seriously dude? You’re really going to make an issue of this? I think you should just admit you didn’t get it the first time and be done with it but fine, I’ll play along.

First, if you’re going to use an analogy, use one that is analogous.

Second, the Maersk claim is like advertising environmentally friendly SUV’s just because they get a few extra MPG’s. Or saying coal is environmentally friendly because you’re not burning kittens. Actually that might be true, so let’s scratch that one (plus I like kittens). OK, it’s like advertising an environmentally friendly leaded gas burning engine - there you go.

Now you’re going to come back and say, well, but there’s no alternative - except that’s not really true, is it. There are alternatives, it’s just that no one is requiring that they be used because the open seas are int’l waters and no one has the jurisdiction to enforce any laws there - even if if the planet as a whole might have the will to pass them.

[Princhester]

@deltasigma

Now you’re going to come back and say, well, but there’s no alternative - except that’s not really true, is it. There are alternatives, it’s just that no one is requiring that they be used because the open seas are int’l waters and no one has the jurisdiction to enforce any laws there - even if if the planet as a whole might have the will to pass them.

My analogy was analogous. The fact you haven’t even attempted to say why it wasn’t speaks volumes. But anyway, using analogies with people who are trying hard not to see your point never works, so forget it.

In your final paragraph you are at least beginning to address the point I made in the first place: yes, what are the alternatives? Unless you have considered what the alternatives might cost environmentally, you can’t make the claim that you have.

Your jurisdictional point is BS, by the way. Shipping is heavily regulated. It’s just regulated via port state control ie by national governments enforcing rules that ships must comply with in order to be able to call at ports. There are any number of international treaties that countries have enacted into their local laws, and enforced in that way.

Indeed, sulphur emissions from ships are going to be tapered down over the next seven years by just such a treaty.

[deltasigma]

@Princhester

[1] My analogy was analogous. The fact you haven’t even attempted to say why it wasn’t speaks volumes. But anyway, using analogies with people who are trying hard not to see your point never works, so forget it.

[2] In your final paragraph you are at least beginning to address the point I made in the first place: yes, what are the alternatives? Unless you have considered what the alternatives might cost environmentally, you can’t make the claim that you have.

[3] Your jurisdictional point is BS, by the way. Shipping is heavily regulated. It’s just regulated via port state control ie by national governments enforcing rules that ships must comply with in order to be able to call at ports. There are any number of international treaties that countries have enacted into their local laws, and enforced in that way.

Indeed, sulphur emissions from ships are going to be tapered down over the next seven years by just such a treaty.

1. LOL. You’re just too cute. I didn’t bother since it was too obvious but if you insist. You didn’t specify the type of solar panel. Traditional, thin-film, etc. Each uses a different manufacturing process and different materials. You also didn’t specify the various environmental impacts involved and what they were being compared to. It was a typical apples and oranges situation. Is that clear enough for you?

2. Of course I can and you can do if you’ve read the link in post 16. Did you?

3. I’d like to see a citation for this since at this point I’m loathe to take your word for anything - sorry. I know there are regulations for what can burned in port and within coastal waters, but as to int’l waters, you may be right and that would be welcome news but I want to know what your source is.

[njtt]

This makes googling Triple-E a lot less fun.

[Princhester]

The point with the solar panel analogy is nothing to do with precisely what type of solar panel. The point is that manufacturing *anything *has *some *environmental cost. So if the only issue when evaluating whether something is environmentally friendly is whether that thing has an environmental cost, then even a claim that solar panels are environmentally friendly is bullshit. But as you have just recognised, in reality it’s a question of:

@deltasigma

… the various environmental impacts involved and what they were being compared to…

… which is what I have been saying from the beginning. You can only evaluate the environmental friendliness of a ship by considering the various impacts involved and what they are being compared to. This is pretty much precisely what I said in my first post, and precisely what you have not done. You have not done any comparison with what pollution would be emitted by ships that didn’t burn bunkers.

Your claim that the story to which you linked at #16 does that comparison is total BS. The story just states that ships that burn bunkers pollute a lot, a point denied by no one. Nowhere in that story does it say what the total environmental cost might be if they burned something else.

Not only that but really what could be viewed as the heart of the problem is that in your very first post you said the owners were “hyping the ship as good for the environment” which is a strawman in the first place. Compare it to this actual statement from Maersk’s linked site: “So we believe the Triple-E ships are good news for the environment. Of course they will still pollute like other ships – but they represent a big step in the right direction.” So they are freely admitting the ship will pollute, but making the (apparently correct) claim that the relative efficiency of this ship is a step in the right direction.

As to the jurisdictional point, it is not that international waters are currently much regulated. The point is they could be, simply by all the port states imposing requirements on the ships that call. If all the nations these large vessels call at simply said “all ships that call in our ports must burn natural gas and only have natural gas fuel on board and selling bunkers to ships is now illegal” all but an irrelevant minority of ships would have to conform. Your statement that environmentally friendly fuels aren’t being imposed by law isn’t “because the open seas are int’l waters and no one has the jurisdiction to enforce any laws there”. It’s because there is not the political will to impose the laws you might propose.

[deltasigma]

@Princhester

[1]The point with the solar panel analogy is nothing to do with precisely what type of solar panel. The point is that manufacturing *anything *has *some *environmental cost. So if the only issue when evaluating whether something is environmentally friendly is whether that thing has an environmental cost, then even a claim that solar panels are environmentally friendly is bullshit. But as you have just recognised, in reality it’s a question of:

Originally Posted by deltasigma http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif … the various environmental impacts involved and what they were being compared to…

… which is what I have been saying from the beginning. You can only evaluate an “environmentally friendly” claim by a ship by considering the various impacts involved and what they are being compared to. This is pretty much precisely what I said in my first post, and precisely what you have not done. You have not done any comparison of what pollution would be emitted by ships that didn’t burn bunkers.

[2]Your claim that the story to which you linked at #16 does that comparison is total BS. The story just states that ships that burn bunkers pollute a lot, a point denied by no one. Nowhere in that story does it say what the total environmental cost might be if they burned something else.

[3]Not only that but really what could be viewed as the heart of the problem is that in your very first post you said the owners were “hyping the ship as good for the environment” which is a strawman in the first place. Compare it to this actual statement from Maersk’s linked site: “So we believe the Triple-E ships are good news for the environment. Of course they will still pollute like other ships – but they represent a big step in the right direction.” So they are freely admitting the ship will pollute, but making the (apparently correct) claim that the relative efficiency of this ship is a step in the right direction.

[4]As to the jurisdictional point, it is not that international waters are currently much regulated. The point is they could be, simply by all the port states imposing requirements on the ships that call. If all the nations these large vessels call at simply said “all ships that call in our ports must burn natural gas and only have natural gas fuel on board and selling bunkers to ships is now illegal” all but an irrelevant minority of ships would have to conform. Your statement that environmentally friendly fuels aren’t being imposed by law isn’t “because the open seas are int’l waters and no one has the jurisdiction to enforce any laws there”. It’s because there is not the political will to impose the laws you might propose.

1. {sigh}Yes, and breathing has a cost too as it contributes CO2 to the environment. So what is your point? If you have a vehicle than can burn 20 grades of fuel, and there are at least that many - look it up, I provide the link, there are about 10 grades for just bunker fuel - and you’re advertising a ship that burns the absolute filthiest as ‘environmentally friendly’ and trying to do it with as straight face? Do you really think I’m going to let you get away with that? I mean seriously, I honestly can’t tell if you really believe the tripe your spewing or you’re just jerking my chain.

And if you want to compare, then let’s compare. Any ocean going vessel COULD burn higher grade fuel but it doesn’t simply because of cost - no other reason. But that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making isn’t it? The claim is what is environmentally friendly in an objective NOT comparative sense. If you assumed the latter, that was YOUR problem, not mine.

2. The comparison was implicit. I’m sorry if you needed me to hold your hand. See point 1 above.

3. Semantics - the implication is the same and you know it. It’s marketing and marketing is about creating a perception. If you want to split hairs, do it on your own time.

4. In other words, you have no cite. Thanks for confirming that.

[by-tor]

I am trying to picture this ship going through very rough seas. In my imagination, all those cargo containers go flying overboard. I wonder how they lock them down.

[aruvqan]

@deltasigma

Not to be rude, but I don’t think I need to be asking myself anything. Bunker fuel is, without doubt or equivocation, the nastiest shit short of plutonium that you can burn. :smack:

edit: you do realize I’m joking about burning plutonium - right?

So why don’t they make them nukes, like the Enterprise - there is a stockpile of reactors removed from vessels so it isn’t like we would have to build any new ones. Just let your fingers do the walking to the trench in Hanford…

[Sobering to think that shortly the reactors from another of mrAru’s subs will be shipped there … first the Spadefish, next the Miami]

[Princhester]

@deltasigma

1. {sigh}Yes, and breathing has a cost too as it contributes CO2 to the environment. So what is your point? If you have a vehicle than can burn 20 grades of fuel, and there are at least that many - look it up, I provide the link, there are about 10 grades for just bunker fuel - and you’re advertising a ship that burns the absolute filthiest as ‘environmentally friendly’ and trying to do it with as straight face? Do you really think I’m going to let you get away with that? I mean seriously, I honestly can’t tell if you really believe the tripe your spewing or you’re just jerking my chain.

And if you want to compare, then let’s compare. Any ocean going vessel COULD burn higher grade fuel but it doesn’t simply because of cost - no other reason. But that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making isn’t it? The claim is what is environmentally friendly in an objective NOT comparative sense. If you assumed the latter, that was YOUR problem, not mine.

2. The comparison was implicit. I’m sorry if you needed me to hold your hand. See point 1 above.

3. Semantics - the implication is the same and you know it. It’s marketing and marketing is about creating a perception. If you want to split hairs, do it on your own time.

4. In other words, you have no cite. Thanks for confirming that.

Look, by way of background, I’ve been working in the shipping industry as a lawyer for not quite 25 years. You want to tell me about fuel grades, go teach your grandma to suck eggs.

You’ve descended into whargable at this point. Your first paragraph is 90% handwaving. The only sentence with any attempt at substance is where you say “you’re advertising a ship that burns the absolute filthiest as ‘environmentally friendly’ and trying to do it with a straight face?” but the problem is Maersk don’t say that their ship is “environmentally friendly” in any unqualified sense. That’s just shit you made up and threw at them. They actually say their ships pollute but say that this ship is more efficient than usual which is “a step in the right direction”. Their comments are frank and measured and the only way you can make them sound bad is by misrepresenting what they said.

If the only difference between what they said and what you keep saying they said is semantics, why don’t you just use their exact words? Could it be that your position falls apart unless you strawman them?

You say that “The claim is what is environmentally friendly in an objective NOT comparative sense. If you assumed the latter, that was YOUR problem, not mine.”

Firstly Maersk didn’t make a claim their ship were environmentally friendly in any unqualified sense, that was you. See above.

Secondly, I am not assuming you are being comparative, I am telling you that whatever you may be attempting to do, one can on this subject meaningfully only be comparative. You agreed with this and told me this yourself only one post ago when you said that concerning environmental claim one needed to consider “the various environmental impacts involved and what they were being compared to”

Your claim that the comparison in the linked article “was implicit” is straight out, balls to the wall bullshit. The article simply does not consider at all what the alternatives to ships burning bunkers might be. You want to make out this point, you provide me with quotes from your article to the contrary.

As to the jurisdiction thing, firstly, it was your claim that fuel standards could not be enforced because of international trading. So if anyone owes a cite, that would be you. I have no obligation to put up a cite to counter your uncited twaddle.

Secondly, what exactly do you want me to provide a cite to show? That Singapore or the US or Holland could legislate to say that ships coming to their ports must be (say) natural gas powered and that only natural gas fuel can be sold to them? Do you really me need me to cite that proposition? Do you actually think that there is some sort of constitutional restriction placed on the governments of those countries to say that they can’t pass laws to that effect?

[Princhester]

Interestingly, I’ve just noticedthat the designation “Triple-E” comes from “Economy of scale, Energy efficient and Environmentally improved”.

“Environmentally improved” not “environmentally friendly”. Seems to me Maersk are being quite restrained and circumspect in their environmental claim. Shame that can’t be said for how you are trying to strawman them, deltasigma.

@by-tor

I am trying to picture this ship going through very rough seas. In my imagination, all those cargo containers go flying overboard. I wonder how they lock them down.

I can’t find anything that describes the lashing system on these particular vessels in detail. However from this page, I think it looks like the vessels have lashing bridges to about 3 or 4 high.

Rather than me attempt to explain, have a look at pages 12-14 of this document and the diagram on page 28 of this documentis pretty good too.

[by-tor]

Wow, that is pretty neat. Thanks Princhester, for the info!

[silenus]

Seconded. Those documents explain a lot.

[YogSothoth]

“We’re gonna need a bigger b…nevermind, this boat’s big enough”

[deltasigma]

1. Oh dear. Someone sounds upset.

2. Yes, the sentence structure wasn’t great, but that’s because I don’t regard you as worth the effort. You started this pointless, unwinnable and purely semantic argument simply as a pissing contest – or at least that’s my most charitable guess – and I’m just playing along with you out of boredom. So you shouldn’t be reading too much into it. I’ve already shot you down several times, you’ve just chosen to ignore those defeats. And in typical internet style, that’s what you’ll continue to do until you eventually and inevitably win some trivial an minor victory - which inevitably you will. And by the way, I have no problem with that, but I’m defitely going to make you work for it because it’s fun to see you sweat.

Now to your point, I’ve already address the sematic argument and said that’s all it is, so get over it. If you want to beat that dead horse, be my guest. I have no intention of participating.

6. OMG - I was explaining YOUR argument to YOU!!! I can’t believe I’m having this conversation.

So you are actually currently employed as a lawyer you say? Remarkable.

7. It was implicit because bunker fuel is a type of oil. There are other types of oil. Are you really having a problem with these concepts?

8. I can’t provide a cite for a negative now can I? You’re really getting desperate aren’t you?

[deltasigma]

I just noticed I didn’t included the labeled quote so I’ll try this again - sorry, just woke up

@Princhester

[1]Look, by way of background, I’ve been working in the shipping industry as a lawyer for not quite 25 years. You want to tell me about fuel grades, go teach your grandma to suck eggs.

[2]You’ve descended into whargable at this point. Your first paragraph is 90% handwaving. The only sentence with any attempt at substance is where you say “you’re advertising a ship that burns the absolute filthiest as ‘environmentally friendly’ and trying to do it with a straight face?” but the problem is Maersk don’t say that their ship is “environmentally friendly” in any unqualified sense. That’s just shit you made up and threw at them. They actually say their ships pollute but say that this ship is more efficient than usual which is “a step in the right direction”. Their comments are frank and measured and the only way you can make them sound bad is by misrepresenting what they said.

[3]If the only difference between what they said and what you keep saying they said is semantics, why don’t you just use their exact words? Could it be that your position falls apart unless you strawman them?

[4]You say that “The claim is what is environmentally friendly in an objective NOT comparative sense. If you assumed the latter, that was YOUR problem, not mine.”

[5]Firstly Maersk didn’t make a claim their ship were environmentally friendly in any unqualified sense, that was you. See above.

[6]Secondly, I am not assuming you are being comparative, I am telling you that whatever you may be attempting to do, one can on this subject meaningfully only be comparative. You agreed with this and told me this yourself only one post ago when you said that concerning environmental claim one needed to consider “the various environmental impacts involved and what they were being compared to”

[7]Your claim that the comparison in the linked article “was implicit” is straight out, balls to the wall bullshit. The article simply does not consider at all what the alternatives to ships burning bunkers might be. You want to make out this point, you provide me with quotes from your article to the contrary.

[8]As to the jurisdiction thing, firstly, it was your claim that fuel standards could not be enforced because of international trading. So if anyone owes a cite, that would be you. I have no obligation to put up a cite to counter your uncited twaddle.

[9]Secondly, what exactly do you want me to provide a cite to show? That Singapore or the US or Holland could legislate to say that ships coming to their ports must be (say) natural gas powered and that only natural gas fuel can be sold to them? Do you really me need me to cite that proposition? Do you actually think that there is some sort of constitutional restriction placed on the governments of those countries to say that they can’t pass laws to that effect?

1. Oh dear. Someone sounds upset.

2. Yes, the sentence structure wasn’t great, but that’s because I don’t regard you as worth the effort. You started this pointless, unwinnable and purely semantic argument simply as a pissing contest – or at least that’s my most charitable guess – and I’m just playing along with you out of boredom. So you shouldn’t be reading too much into it. I’ve already shot you down several times, you’ve just chosen to ignore those defeats. And in typical internet style, that’s what you’ll continue to do until you eventually and inevitably win some trivial an minor victory - which inevitably you will. And by the way, I have no problem with that, but I’m defitely going to make you work for it because it’s fun to see you sweat.

Now to your point, I’ve already address the sematic argument and said that’s all it is, so get over it. If you want to beat that dead horse, be my guest. I have no intention of participating.

6. OMG - I was explaining YOUR argument to YOU!!! I can’t believe I’m having this conversation.

So you are actually currently employed as a lawyer you say? Remarkable.

7. It was implicit because bunker fuel is a type of oil. There are other types of oil. Are you really having a problem with these concepts?

8. I can’t provide a cite for a negative now can I? You’re really getting desperate aren’t you?

[Zakalwe]

@deltasigma

7. It was implicit because bunker fuel is a type of oil. There are other types of oil. Are you really having a problem with these concepts?

Actually, bunker fuel is a fractional petroleum distillate made from crude oil (which does come in several varieties).

Bunker fuel is essentially a residue left after the good stuff is siphoned off. If you convert the ships to use a better grade of fuel, you’re going to have to process more crude to meet that demand (actually resulting in an increase in the production of residue - i.e. bunker fuel). All of this has many additional environmental impacts (petroleum source development, extraction, transportation, and distillation) which in total might be worse then just using the bunker fuel we’ve already got.