CONTINUOUSWAVE

Many on this forum run some of the smallest power boats. I just saw this last night on the Emma Maersk, one of the largest ships in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6epAf9tipeo

The EMMA MAERSK episode of MIGHTY SHIPS was one of my favorites. It is convenient that you can watch it on youTube.

Her fuel economy is an amazing 28.2-feet-per-gallon. She contributes more dangerous exhaust gas emission to the environment than 50,000,000 automobiles--yes, fifty-million cars.

Ships like the EMMA MAERSK are how all that inexpensive made-in-China stuff gets here to be sold on Amazon.

According to one source, the deadweight tonnage (the weight of the ship and its cargo) for the EMMA MAERSK-class container ship in metric-tons (2,200-lbs) is 165,000-metric tons, which is 363,000,000-lbs. Compared to say a Boston Whaler MONTAUK 17 that weighs perhaps 2,500-lbs with an engine, fuel, crew, and gear, that is a weight equivalent to 145,200 Montauk-type boats.

The EMMA MAERSK fuel economy of 28-feet/1-gallon can be compared to the collective fuel economy of 145,200 Montauk-type boats. Let us assume a modern Montauk with a efficient outboard consumes fuel at a rate of 5-miles/1-gallon or 26400-feet/gallon. The net fuel consumption of 145,200 Montauk boats would then be 26400-feet/145,200-gallons = 0.182-feet/gallon. This suggests that in terms of moving the same weight of hull, engine, and cargo, the EMMA MAERSK is more efficient than a fleet of Boston Whaler MONTAUK 17 of the same total weight by a factor of 28/0.182 = 154-times. Or stated slightly differently, a MONTAUK would need to get a fuel economy of 770-MPG in order for the fleet of 145,200 Montauk boats to consume the same amount of fuel as the EMMA MAERSK in terms of their total weight moved a particular distance with a certain volume of fuel.

Also, MAERSK now operates even larger container ships, the EEE class. Although they are not much longer or wider, by careful design their capacity is 16-percent greater. And--this should come as a surprise to many--their efficient diesel engines are two-stroke-cycle engines.

More on the EEE-class (for Economy of scale, Energy efficient and Environmentally improved) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maersk_Triple_E_class

Then we could say that these ships are extremely efficient in terms of fuel/ton/mile and the gross pollution is really about the fuel rather than the ships or their modern engines. My diesel truck burns ultra low sulfur fuel, injects urea into the exhaust stream, and filters out any soot it might produce. I don't have any choice about this, as all of these interventions are required in newer diesel vehicles. It is actually also required for ag tractors which never spend time in smoggy population centers. The copper smelters in AZ used to produce huge amounts of sulfur dioxide. It is now scrubbed from the exhaust gas stream, converted to sulfuric acid, and used to treat copper oxide ore to extract additional copper. Maybe each ship needs a scrubber. Does any entity regulate the emissions of ships in international waters?

I believe that since the article about the Emma Maersk was written, some policies have changed. I think these huge ships have to burn a better grade of fuel, that is, lower-sulfur fuel, when closer to shore.

Mo-mighteyer mighty ships: LONG URL

The Benjamin Franklin would have been the largest in the world, but now a ship carrying 19,200 standard containers is in operation, and 21,000 TEU container ships are already in production.