Thread

1. JoeAltmaier · 1789668436 · focus · HN ↗

   A 5% reduction in fuel is significant, especially as cargo ships are responsible for a disproportionate share of petro-pollution. They burn the cheapest petro gunk, emitting tremendous volumes of soot and such.

   1. culi · 1789668648 · focus · HN ↗

      Is this still true after the IMO 2020 sulfur regulations? I remember they found out that these ships were producing so much white aerosol clouds that it actually had a really significant albedo effect that reflected a lot of the sun's heat back out. When they were banned it actually temporarily accelerated warming by an estimated 0.05°C bump

      1. go_elmo · 1789671989 · focus · HN ↗

         Yes it is still true. Sulphur is one element only that got regulated - petrol on its own is a soup of different hydrocarbons - various chains & lenghts - every one has specific burn characteristics and optimal conditions to burn.

         Using this thick soup thats close to coal, the process of burning is always far from optimal for most of them. Thus black sud gets emitted - basically unburned carbon - a huge waste financially but also ecologically as its comparable to cigarette Fumes regarding unhealthy compounds. Plus fine particle dust. Chances its toxic for marine life are huge.

         Those are all externalized costs no one of the polluters pays for besides the collective life on this planet.

         How can this be fair?

         1. BurningFrog · 1789673110 · focus · HN ↗

            The argument is simply that killing marine life is less bad than killing humans.

            1. go_elmo · 1789761724 · focus · HN ↗

               What? Heat kills both, sulphur pollution damages both. Its all connected, always..

               1. BurningFrog · 1789875634 · focus · HN ↗

                  I'm talking about ocean crossing container ships having less strict emission standards, because almost no humans has to breathe those emissions.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.