Maybe. Maybe not. That doesn’t change the fact of what low-grade, bottom of the barrel bunker fuel is - does it?
No, it certainly doesn’t. Until an alternative is proposed and fully costed out, we simply don’t know which is worse (environmentally speaking - for the moment I’m ignoring economic impact).
So, until that’s done, I would say the construction of devices that do the same job as existing devices but pollute less is not a bad thing - even if they don’t yet reduce impact to some theoretical minimum. One might even describe them as a “step in the right direction”.
That’s certainly true and I’ve never disputed that have I?
Not directly, no. But you did say:
[Emphasis added]
Princhester pointed out that 1) Maersk never said it was good for the environment, they said it was better than current ships (which it is). 2) If you want someone to stop burning bunker fuel, you’re going to have to replace it with something else and that something else might be worse overall. We won’t know until something is proposed and all of the costs (environmental and otherwise) are added up.
Then you guys started some weird tangent about maritime law that frankly doesn’t interest me.
Ship is pretty damn cool though. I do wonder about piracy given the route they’re taking and the ship’s very low speed.
Exactly, I made a passing comment that was meant to be a joke and people, for reasons best know to themselves, decide to jump all over it and start this massive circle jerk.
All I was saying was there was more than a bit of irony there. And by the way, if you go to the Maersk site now, I’m pretty sure the banner I saw isn’t there any more. I wish I’d taken a screen print in Evernote, but I had no idea certain people here were going to find my comment so utterly fascinating.
Lost track of this thread.
Thanks Zakalwe.
And deltasigma, here’s a clue: if you make a comment and someone calls you on it, and you defend your comment vociferously for a page, no one is actually going to believe you when you then claim you had originally just intended your comment as a “joke”.
Plus your “can’t prove a negative” thing is a cracker. I’ll have to remember that one for personal use. You’re saying you can dump a steaming load proposition and as long as it is a negative proposition, you can’t be asked for a cite? Are you sure it was me who was desperate?
Here’s a clue for you. Bite me.
edit: lost track eh? I’m happy to pick up where we left off and continue to defend my comment. I don’t really consider you much of a challenge.
I was thinking of an old TOS episode where Kirk is saying, “Well, let’s see. Power, that’s no problem, it regenerates. And food. We have enough to feed a crew of four hundred and thirty for five years. So that should last us…”
I’ve always wondered what storage space food & supplies for 5 years might look like in some sort of ship form. Maybe this comes close. 
I wonder what it takes to pose a credible threat to such a ship. Would the weapons available to your average pirate be adequate to cripple the rudder, or punch big enough holes at/below the waterline to overwhelm any bailing pumps?
How high is the lowest edge of the ship? Intermodal containers are about 8 feet high; looking at this picture and comparing the edge’s height above the waterline to the height of the containers, it looks like it’s about 50 feet. IANAP, but that seems pretty high. How do pirates get aboard other ships?
It’s not about being a threat to the ship. It’s about getting on board. My understanding is that container vessels with high freeboard and high speed have tended to be unattractive targets. This vessel is slower but has high freeboard. I think pirates have nonetheless got on board similarly seemingly inaccessible vessels using rope ladders etc.
Am I understanding correctly that currently 2000-10,000 shipping containers fall overboard every year? That’s a lot of pollution!