Yet another reason to stop dependence on petroleum

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

My link

The ship went aground at night in calm seas.

The questions are very poignant:

Was anyone on watch?

If there was a watch officer, where was he? Asleep?

Ships in international waters often run on autopilot, but the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea clearly require a watch officer at all times. Scofflaws should be seriously punished. Loss of master's certificate at least.

This reef is well know and charted. There is no excuse for navigating a ship to collide with it. Modern aids to navigation which include the GPS system should prevent such tragedies. This is a major danger to much threatened sea life and one of New Zealand's main tourist sites.

Serious weather changes are expected by tomorrow.

[Duke87 1,070]

Yet another reason to stop dependence on petroleum

Future headlines:

Ethanol tanker runs aground near New Zealand. Local marine life throws spontaneous wild party.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

We need a nice and accurate investigation. Possibly the unnoticeable Mr. White is to blame? Maybe we should be on the lookout for completely unnutritious but high (empty) calorie burgers from Burger Lord (where even the pickles are artificial) or maybe we have to look out for a Red (auburn, dark-red-brown) haired war correspondent for a tabloid?

(I will give you a plus up if you understand my joke reference)

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Would either of you gentlemen have taken this seriously if the tanker had gone aground off New York or Seattle?

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I believe we get our oil from a pipeline from Alaska. The huge freighters are usually exports of our superior agricultural products (apples, wheat, etc), imports of cheap chinese goods, imports of fancy Japanese goods, and possibly others (our other big boats are loaded with tourists).

Of course we need to lower our dependance on petroleum. Cars that run on petroleum fuel with less than the equivalent of 10 mpg per person should not be allowed. We should probably have that limit more at around 20 mpge/rider. We need that petroleum in the long run for electricity, jet fuel, and petrochemicals/organic chemistry (including the wide range of polymers in use today).

  Edited October 9, 2011 by OcramSeattle  

[hym 358]

This incident is a sign that we need better attention to safety in ship navigation, not that we need to get off of petroleum. If the ship had been carrying humanitarian supplies to starving children in Africa, would anyone be declaring it as a reason to let all the children starve to death? The logic doesn't work in that situation, and it doesn't work in this situation either.

We have once again entered the debate of what role petroleum should play in our future. The environmental lobby has taught the masses to believe that oil is one of the great human evils of our time and anyone who doesn't agree is a bad person. There are solutions to reducing our dependence on petroleum, but we will never get there if "Oil is bad!" style thinking continues on in the debate.

[sneakeypete 16]

I believe we get our oil from a pipeline from Alaska. The huge freighters are usually exports of our superior agricultural products (apples, wheat, etc), imports of cheap chinese goods, imports of fancy Japanese goods, and possibly others (our other big boats are loaded with tourists).

Did you even read the article? Go read (or re read) it carefully now.

[Hamish 1,369]

I think the only way that we will stop our dependance on petroleum is when it runs out.

But I don't see us actually limiting our dependance on it. At the moment, people complain when there is a rise in the price of petrol, but they don't seem to see the correlation between price rises and diminishing reserves.

Its a stupid way of dealing with the problem, we are trying to use a finite resource infinitely, and thats just not going to work. What I'd rather see is some progress being made into finding an alternative renewable resource, like solar power or something like that, because if we leave it too long it will become too expensive to try and create an alternate because of rising fuel prices and then where will that leave us? No where.

Battery powered cars are alright, but thats not the only thing that petroleum is used for. The industry is going to be the hardest hit by demonizing reserves, and trying to create a new system that will do the same thing but with a different power source is going to be hard, especially if we leave it for too long. Power plants may also see a decline in out put seeing as their services would be powered by petroleum, especially things like coal power plants, how are you going to get the coal out of the ground with not petrol? But they should also stop coal mining, as that is soon going to run out too.

I have no idea what that ship was doing, the reef is clearly marked on every sea chart and electronic navigation system, they should have been able to see it as well since the water was still. Suspicions were with alcohol, but it doesn't look like they have any good evidence to back that up. I had heard somewhere that the ship had been detained, maybe in australia, because of some mechanical problems either earlier this year or last year, but I can't remember where I read that, so it might not actually be true.

Its starting to become a big environmental disaster, or has the potential to. This link shows how much fuel that tanker is carrying. Just imagine that spreading to the main land and islands, of which most are protected marine and wide life sanctuaries.

[Duke87 1,070]

Would either of you gentlemen have taken this seriously if the tanker had gone aground off New York or Seattle?

You will find that I excel at flippancy.

This incident is a sign that we need better attention to safety in ship navigation, not that we need to get off of petroleum. If the ship had been carrying humanitarian supplies to starving children in Africa, would anyone be declaring it as a reason to let all the children starve to death? The logic doesn't work in that situation, and it doesn't work in this situation either.

Yeah, but humanitarian aid wouldn't create a slick that kills wildlife. Oil causes environmental damage if spilled.

Of course, a cargo of rare earth metals necessary for various green technologies wouldn't exactly be harmless if spilled. And, as I jokingly pointed out before, neither would ethanol (or biodiesel, for that matter). So it is perhaps unfair to single out petroleum as an environmental hazard.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Sneaky Pete is right.

did anyone read this article?

Its a container Ship, not an oil tanker.

what leaking is its own fuel supply.

It will probably turn to be some type of human piloting error or a mechanical failure and the pilot could not steer

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Oh, I did not read the article. Well, fuel cells, nuclear power, and coal are all possible fuels for large container ships.

By the way, we have enough readily available coal to last more than a century.

Edit: Now I read it.

  Edited October 10, 2011 by OcramSeattle  

[sneakeypete 16]

I really cannot see us becoming independent of hydrocarbon based fuel for propulsion in the next 50-100 years. The large scale of large ships makes alternatives such nuclear and coal possible (though coal has disadvantages in handling, and you'd need about twice as much to go just as far as oil), but for personal transportation energy density is everything, and its something that hydrocarbons excel at, being stable at room temperature and being easy to use. I imagine we'll probably start moving over to coal-to-liquid based fuels (methanol, ethanol, and some other interesting ones) and some organic ones (bio-ethanol, which is just what most people call ethanol right now anyway) once oil starts to become really scarce

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

My link

And of course the world is unfolding as it should not have to.

This container ship is carrying 1700 tonnes of bunker oil for its own fuel supply. This is the stuff that produces black globs of guck on the beaches which is now happening.

It doesn't matter what the cargo is if these little oil puddles are wandering about in the hands of seamen who can't steer. And for the nuclear minded, New Zealand forbids nuclear powered ships anywhere in its waters, so consider that solution out.

One of the possible power sources for cargo ships is a combination of wind power and some other form of drive (electric?) for the machinery when the wind is averse. Modern sail technology would move these ships just as well as the cheap machinery they use now, and with a proper fore and aft rig vessels can sail in any direction even if it takes a little longer to tack to windward. A wind generator aboard could easily keep the batteries up and supply power for the accommodation. We know that with most cargoes, time is not of the essence. If time were important, the cargo would go by air.

When sail was abandoned I am sure that the cost of shipping went up considerably. Petroleum is becoming scarce and it is time to rethink about how to get from point to point when there is all that free energy blowing around. Of course one of the most common sail materials these days is Kevlar, which is a petroleum based cloth. This little snap-back is something that would have to be addressed.

  Edited October 10, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[emperordaniel 1,281]

Well, if all the oil currently used for ship fuel went into making Kevlar, we would never have to worry again about running out of Kevlar (not for many decades, at least)

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, if all the oil currently used for ship fuel went into making Kevlar, we would never have to worry again about running out of Kevlar (not for many decades, at least)

Very true, but I am sure some of it could be used for nylon to keep the hosiery industry going.

Think of the oceans converted back to sail. Even liners and cruise ships. The Wind Star Line has been operating successfully for some years now as a top of the line outfit, so expertise in this area certainly exists. There are lots of sailors in the world, and unless the U.S. navy, for example, has changed its training policy, all graduates of Annapolis are capable sailors in the true sense of the word.

How much greenhouse gas do ships produce world-wide, one wonders? Has anyone ever tried to measure the amount of pollution produced by ships on the oceans?

"Mr. Bush, I can find topmasts even for senior lieutenants".

In one of the Hornblower novels by C.S. Forester.

[sneakeypete 16]

I'd almost guarantee that someone has, though i don't have the time nor will to find the data at this point.

Also, while ship based cargo is not "urgent", its also not "oh it'll get here when it gets here" either. Lead times in industry, food, etc, all require decently fast transit of the oceans.

Thirdly... I'd not be convinced that a wind powered vessel would be as cheap to run as a oil powered one, particularly if it was to be as fast as the oil powered one. The extra crew alone would be a huge cost. By the same token however, i suppose it depends who's running the ship, and how little non CO2 pollutants you propose to let go into the atmosphere.

  Edited October 10, 2011 by sneakeypete  

[Gringamuyloca 47]

There is interest in wind/solar powered ships: Link

How feasible it is??? Time will tell I suppose.

[emperordaniel 1,281]

It would be great for wind to be brought back to the seas, and I believe that that will more or less happen in the near future.

  Edited October 10, 2011 by emperordaniel  

[Duke87 1,070]

The problem with purely relying on wind is that it is unreliable.

That said, ships could save a lot on fuel by having sails which they could use to supplement their engines. Hangup is training crews to properly operate that.

[hym 358]

When sail was abandoned I am sure that the cost of shipping went up considerably.

I kind of doubt it. We can ship a barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia to the US for less than $0.25 a barrel. This means that, even in a worst case scenario, the shipping costs for a gallon of gasoline is about $0.01.

Petroleum is becoming scarce...

Petroleum is not becoming scarce at all. Saudi Arabia still has significant reserves, Iraq is believed to sit on more oil than Saudi Arabia has had for several decades, Canada is sitting on significant reserves, and the US is believed to be sitting on the big daddy of them all. A reserve estimated to be so big that it is larger than all the oil ever found in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, it is commercially viable even when oil is selling for $10 a barrel. That isn't even counting the oil fields that have recently been discovered off US waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone who says that we are going to run out of oil in the next few decades is sorely mistaken or blatantly spreading falsifications.

Also, for whatever it is worth, we aren't anywhere near running out of natural gas either. Within the past 10 years, ExxonMobil discovered what was described as a natural gas field with enough natural gas to power "the entire US for 100 years" and a couple years later, another field of almost the same size was discovered. Both sit in US waters. This is in addition to the huge reserves Exxon keeps finding in Southeast Asia.

[sneakeypete 16]

Big mother of them all under the USA, and iraq? news to me, though i'd have to say it'd be awesome for humanity if it were true...

However, that being said, current proven reserves, consumed at the current rate, would run out in about 67 years. That's an undeniable fact. The critical thing is how much more we discover in the future. That and how much the demand in developing countries grows.

  Edited October 11, 2011 by sneakeypete  

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Peak oil production was predicted for 2020 give or take 20 years. Natural gas and coal are so plentiful that we will not run out of fossil fuels this century.

[emperordaniel 1,281]

I read that it would take a few centuries for the coal to run out at the current rate of consumption (but of course, when the oil runs out, coal and natural gas consumption will go up a lot)

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I read that it would take a few centuries for the coal to run out at the current rate of consumption (but of course, when the oil runs out, coal and natural gas consumption will go up a lot)

The most interesting thing about coal is that some varieties can be used to make producer gas which is a good replacement for natural gas (of which there is plenty, anyway) leaving coke which is used in steel production. I don't believe oil in any form enters into this process. LNG works as an automotive fuel with only slight mods to a gasoline engine.

The current worry is not one of mine, as I don't expect to be around when anything happens. I do worry a bit about my grand-kids and nieces and nephews, but it is their problem to solve. Their parents are all university grads and there is no reason why they should not be similarly educated and able to participate in solutions. At the moment, only two of the members of my family tree are in the hard sciences, one is a journalist, one is a social worker (MSW), the rest are only of primary school age.