Author Topic: Southend to Melbourne without flying...  (Read 4614 times)

Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #100 on: October 13, 2019, 09:02:26 pm »
To quote of the of the planet destroyers, ...

Every little helps.

If we adopt a defeatist attitude and just roll over we are no better than Trump or Johnson, ...

I've finally gone vegetarian inspired in part by Greta and her can do attitude but also in part by becoming properly aware of the damage done in meat production, especially beef.

We don't have a car, we don't fly.  We buy our gas and electricity from apparently renewable suppliers.  We don't just 'shop', we've been working to better insulate the house over the past few years and we've been shopping fair trade and organic for many years.  Yet, here I am unnecessarily burning fuel in making this post.

Oscar's dad

  • Cheers!
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #101 on: October 13, 2019, 10:02:57 pm »
I’m in no doubt that climate change is a thing and radical action needs to happen now. Greta and XR etc are 100% correct.  But we need governments across the world to pass legislation which will bring about the required changes assuming it isn’t too late already. Unfortunately I can’t see governments passing the required legislation because they don’t have the mandate from we the voters, nor will they have until the world is on the absolute brink of collapse, by which time it will probably be too late.

So Wow might as well buy some plane tickets.

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #102 on: October 14, 2019, 09:24:25 am »
To be honest though, while people may indeed support the necessary changes in principle if the inconvenience becomes more than abandoning plastic straws, they're unlikely to vote for it. And with increasingly populist governments that's going to be a problem. You can't remove a single parking space these days without umpteen years of consultation and objection.
!nataS pihsroW

Oscar's dad

  • Cheers!
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #103 on: October 14, 2019, 09:32:21 am »
To be honest though, while people may indeed support the necessary changes in principle if the inconvenience becomes more than abandoning plastic straws, they're unlikely to vote for it. And with increasingly populist governments that's going to be a problem. You can't remove a single parking space these days without umpteen years of consultation and objection.

My point exactly.

Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #104 on: October 14, 2019, 09:41:32 am »
The Monbiot piece I referred to above is here:

https://www.monbiot.com/2019/10/11/oil-strike/

Quote
But the biggest and most successful lie it tells is this: that the First Great Extermination is a matter of consumer choice. In response to the Guardian’s questions, some of the oil companies argued that they are not responsible for our decisions to use their products. But we are embedded in a system of their creation, a political, economic and physical infrastructure that creates an illusion of choice while, in reality, closing it down.

We are guided by an ideology so familiar and pervasive that we do not even recognise it as an ideology. It is called consumerism. It has been crafted with the help of skilful advertisers and marketers, by corporate celebrity culture, and by a media that casts us as the recipients of goods and services rather than the creators of political reality. It is locked in by transport, town planning and energy systems that make good choices all but impossible. It spreads like a stain through political systems, which have been systematically captured by lobbying and campaign finance, until political leaders cease to represent us, and work instead for the pollutocrats who fund them.

Within such a system, individual choices are lost in the noise. Attempts to organise boycotts are notoriously difficult, and tend to work only when there is a narrow and immediate aim. The ideology of consumerism is highly effective at shifting blame: witness the current ranting in the billionaire press about the alleged hypocrisy of environmental activists. Everywhere I see rich Westerners blaming planetary destruction on the birth rates of much poorer people, or on “the Chinese”. This individuation of responsibility, intrinsic to consumerism, blinds us to the real drivers of destruction.

I'd go further. Anyone who sticks their head above the parapet and tries to affect the political process outside of the normal party system is liable to end up with the full force of our "democratically elected leaders' " wrath coming at them. Thus it was that I found myself in the Royal Courts of Justice trying, without representation, to defend myself and 11 others from the Southend Borough Council and some of our number ending up paying a large legal "bill" for trying to exercise our democratic rights. Julian wrote a blog piece about it at the time. I'll ask her if it still exists.

Oh, Bach without any doubt. Bach every time for me.

Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #105 on: October 14, 2019, 09:44:07 am »
Thanks for the link Wow.

Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #106 on: October 14, 2019, 10:13:44 am »
It is odd that people can contemplate their own inevitable demise with reasonable equanimity (I don't want to live forever, FTR) yet have a problem with the - equally inevitable in geological terms - demise of humanity. But think of the children! (those we shouldn't be having to conserve the planet, that is).

Humans and humanity carry the seeds of our own destruction. Entropy is all.


(And no, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't try to make our environment last a little longer, just observing, that's all)

Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #107 on: October 15, 2019, 09:34:50 am »
It is odd that people can contemplate their own inevitable demise with reasonable equanimity (I don't want to live forever, FTR) yet have a problem with the - equally inevitable in geological terms - demise of humanity. But think of the children! (those we shouldn't be having to conserve the planet, that is).

Humans and humanity carry the seeds of our own destruction. Entropy is all.


(And no, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't try to make our environment last a little longer, just observing, that's all)

I don't have any issue with the long term demise of humanity - as you say, it's inevitable in geological terms, and even in the shorter term it may not be a bad thing for the rest of life on the planet. I do, however, have an issue with the amount of suffering that will happen as a result of climate change. I can easily imagine millions of deaths as water and food shortages spur mass migration to places that don't want / can't cope with the migrants. It's already happening now, to a lesser extent. If we can avoid that by making big changes now, I think we should. (I'm also aware that I'm being pretty hypocritical in some ways, sitting here in my centrally heated house with two laptops switched on in front of me.)

Cudzoziemiec

  • Waking up now, put the kettle on!
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #108 on: January 07, 2020, 09:37:26 am »
Story in today's nGuardia about travelling by cargo ship across the Atlantic. Booked through a company called Slowtravel Experience. Took 15 days; didn't the prewar liners do it in a week? So do the cargo ships of today go slower to save fuel maybe? It can't all be down to the extra stops. Anyway, he enjoyed it.
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2020/jan/07/cargo-ship-train-rail-to-vancouver-canada-low-carbon-travel-europe
I do not ride a great big Mercian, gangster tanwalls, fixed cog in the back.

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #109 on: January 07, 2020, 09:41:40 am »
Yes, ‘slow steaming’ is standard practice for container lines. The absolute speed is not an issue but the reliability of schedules is. There may be half a dozen ships operating a single ‘loop’ and they need to maintain separation between arrivals.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #110 on: January 07, 2020, 11:01:06 am »
1) Melbourne (in fact, all of the Australian capitals) are a f*ck of a long way from anywhere else. Unless you are going to spend weeks on a sailing ship you will be flying thousands of miles. Just the length of the WA coast is half the width of the Atlantic, and that doesn't even get you to the adjacent country.

2) Add up the carbon cost. Planes are terrible, yes, and also surprisingly efficient per passenger. Better than buses. Not as good as a good train. Spending weeks on a train might be worse than taking two flights.
I thought buses and coaches were quite good, note one of the most damaging factors of air travel is where the pollution is emitted (high up)

Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #111 on: January 07, 2020, 11:17:18 am »
Anyone have any thoughts on how the Santander/Bilbao ferry compares to flying?

(The crappiness of the booking website is enough to drive me away)

Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #112 on: January 07, 2020, 11:40:40 am »
Anyone have any thoughts on how the Santander/Bilbao ferry compares to flying?

(The crappiness of the booking website is enough to drive me away)

Train is a good way to get to San Sebastián and Bilbao. We went last February.
Oh, Bach without any doubt. Bach every time for me.

Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #113 on: January 07, 2020, 05:13:18 pm »
Anyone have any thoughts on how the Santander/Bilbao ferry compares to flying?

(The crappiness of the booking website is enough to drive me away)
I went to Santander in September by coach, £28 each way, a bagged bike would have been an extra £9, I took a folder for free.  About 20 hours London > Bilbao, which is I think quicker than the ferry.


FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #115 on: January 07, 2020, 07:18:12 pm »
Container shipping is often said to be "dirty" but I do wonder how it compared per tonne of cargo as most of the comparisons seem to be based on distance.
Unfortunately capacity is measured differently...

Digging in:
The OOCL Hong Kong has a capacity of 21,413 TEU (plus 12 passengers) and a Deadweight of 197,317 Tonnes.
Where as a 747-8F has a lift off weight (probably the closest) 447.7Tonnes

So roughly 441 747-8 freighters to the worlds highest capacity cargo ship.

OOCL handily have a CO2 calculator based on their fleet rather than an individual ship but anyway...
Code: [Select]
Origin:
Southampton, Southampton, England, United Kingdom
Destination:
New York, New York, New York, United States
Cargo Volume:
197317 TONs
Route:
Southampton (Vessel[ATE1]) > New York
Total CO2 Emission ( MT ):
6674.2475
Total Distance ( km ):
8250
OOCL CO2 Index ( kg CO2/TON-km ):
Vessel: 0.0041

So they reckon 0.033g of CO2 per Tonne.

And..... a 747-8F operator also has a calculator
https://www.cargolux.com/eservices/Emissions-Calculator

but it seems you have to go through Luxembourg...

Code: [Select]
John F Kennedy Intl
Luxembourg
447000Kg
6162 Km
1338.64 Tonnes

Oddly shorter
So... apparently that's
6 674 247.5Kg of CO2 for 1 massive ships maximum loading
Vs 133 864Kg of CO2 for each of 441 massive aircraft (and also apparently the least dirty) at maximum load = ‭59,034,024‬

I must have something wrong there or the protesters that keep trying to block quay sides really should be closing freight airports instead.


Although looking at that guardian article which says
Code: [Select]
Carbon emissions (according to weight of passenger)
Flight Frankfurt-Vancouver: 1.3 tonnes*
Cargo ship Hamburg-Halifax (via Antwerp & Liverpool): 5.3kg**
Trains Halifax-Vancouver: 204.2kg***
Total CO2 Hamburg to Vancouver: 209.5kg


Cudzoziemiec

  • Waking up now, put the kettle on!
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #116 on: January 07, 2020, 07:25:26 pm »
Are there really protesters blocking quay sides on anything more than a very sporadic basis? If so, they're not getting publicity.
I do not ride a great big Mercian, gangster tanwalls, fixed cog in the back.

FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #117 on: January 07, 2020, 07:27:58 pm »
Are there really protesters blocking quay sides on anything more than a very sporadic basis? If so, they're not getting publicity.

No more than sporadic but they do seem to turn out for first visits of really big ships from what I remember.
Maybe they're just anti-global trade though as given those figures...

Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #118 on: January 07, 2020, 07:33:21 pm »
Interfering with airports tends to put you on the wrong side of draconian anti-terrorism laws, which is why protests at them have rarely gone ahead.

(At least in this country. I imagine others are similar)

fuaran

  • rothair gasta
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #119 on: January 07, 2020, 07:36:50 pm »
Not just CO2. Plenty of other emissions from the heavy fuel oil used by container ships. ie NOx, sulphur, particulates.

FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #120 on: January 07, 2020, 07:42:29 pm »
Not just CO2. Plenty of other emissions from the heavy fuel oil used by container ships. ie NOx, sulphur, particulates.

True, but Aircraft engines aren't immune from those outputs either, it's just everyone's been CO2 obsessed long enough for that data to be relatively easy to find.

The IMO have been interested in the others long enough for new ships to have Exhaust Scrubbers dealing with the sulphur to an extent.

Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #121 on: January 07, 2020, 10:37:51 pm »
Digging in:
The OOCL Hong Kong has a capacity of 21,413 TEU (plus 12 passengers) and a Deadweight of 197,317 Tonnes.
Where as a 747-8F has a lift off weight (probably the closest) 447.7Tonnes

So roughly 441 747-8 freighters to the worlds highest capacity cargo ship.

I haven't read any further, but I think air freight is far worse than you've calculated, you won't get the goods out of fifty 20' containers onto a 747. 
Payload of that container ship is going to be around 150,000 tons, the empty 20' container weighs around 2 ton, though most of the load will be 40''s which don't weigh twice as much.
Payload of a 747 is around 140 ton = 1070 planes
There is a plane with a 250 ton payload, but that's still 600.
It's shocking how much is flown and nearly all of it completely unnecessary. I don't think people realise the scale, Fedex for example have more planes than British Airways.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #122 on: January 07, 2020, 11:23:11 pm »
The IMO have been interested in the others long enough for new ships to have Exhaust Scrubbers dealing with the sulphur to an extent.

...sometimes by dumping it in the sea.
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

CrazyEnglishTriathlete

  • Miles eaten don't satisfy hunger
  • Chartered accountant in 5 different decades
    • CET Ride Reports and Blogs
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #123 on: January 08, 2020, 02:59:52 pm »
My father was in the cement industry.  One of the main reasons why there aren't any cement works near London these days (to his explanation) was that the cost of shipping cement by sea from Greece (where there are ample supplies of limestone on deep water coastlines) to London per ton, is about the same as a truck taking that ton of cement 20 miles.  At the time cement (a manufactured product) was cheaper per ton than coal.  So from this I would guess that large scale container shipping is relatively cheap.

Conversely - from what I have seen of cruise ships - they might be a little less efficient per mile.
Eddington Numbers 125 (imperial), 168 (metric) 518 (furlongs)  111 (nautical miles)

bludger

  • Randonneur and bargain hunter
Re: Southend to Melbourne without flying...
« Reply #124 on: January 08, 2020, 03:08:46 pm »
It'd be very unfair to look at a cruise ship's energy voracious appetite as a benchmark for marine travel. Cruise ships are accommodating water slides, cinemas, hot showers in every room, lighting, air conditioning, etc. They're basically floating theme parks. If they were to have the comparatively austere furnishings of the Stenaline service from Harwich to Hook of Holland then their energy footprints would be very different.
YACF touring/audax bargain basement:
https://bit.ly/2Xg8pRD