Difference between revisions of "Green Ships: Alternative Solutions"

From Basel Action Network Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== '''Mothballing''' ==
+
=='''Alternatives to Beach Shipbreaking'''==
 +
 
 +
=== '''Mothballing''' ===
 
Mothballing, a potential alternative to ship-breaking, is the practice of indefinitely storing a partially or fully decommissioned ship. The vessels are fully equipped for service, but are not currently needed. A negative aspect of mothballing is the expense required for ship upkeep. Likewise, the mothballing process may cause forms of environmental harm.<ref name="dodds">Dodds, D. (2007). Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Environmental Effects of Shipwrecking and Possible Solutions Under India’s Environmental Regime. ''20 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. and Dev. L.J., 207,'' 208-236.</ref>
 
Mothballing, a potential alternative to ship-breaking, is the practice of indefinitely storing a partially or fully decommissioned ship. The vessels are fully equipped for service, but are not currently needed. A negative aspect of mothballing is the expense required for ship upkeep. Likewise, the mothballing process may cause forms of environmental harm.<ref name="dodds">Dodds, D. (2007). Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Environmental Effects of Shipwrecking and Possible Solutions Under India’s Environmental Regime. ''20 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. and Dev. L.J., 207,'' 208-236.</ref>
  
== '''Dry Docking''' ==
+
=='''Improvements to the Shipbreaking Process'''==
An additional alternative solution to ship-recycling is dry docking. Dry docking is closely related to mothballing, in terms of process and high cost of $800,000 per vessel, the decommissioned ships can be sunk to form artificial reefs, though it is costly due to cleaning and all environmental hazards to be removed prior to sinking. (Dodds). Expensive costs and environmental concerns are closely tied with the solution of dry-docking, make it a less likely and less desirable solution. Shipyards and harbors, where vessels are dry-docked for repairing and repainting, risk of polluting water bodies is particularly high and demands high quality waste management. (Gipperth)
+
 
 +
=== '''Dry Docking''' ===
 +
'''update information'''
 +
The preferred alternative to beach ship-recycling is dry docking. Dry docking is closely related to mothballing in terms of process, potential environmental harm, and high cost (up to $800,000 per vessel).<ref name="dodds"/>  Ships are dry docked in shipyards and harbors; these locations demand high quality waste management due to the particularly high risk associated with polluting water bodies in these places.<ref name="gipperth">Gipperth, L. (2009). The legal design of the international and European Union ban on tributyltin antifouling paint: Direct and indirect effects. ''Journal of Environmental Management, 90,'' S86-S95.</ref> The decommissioned ships can also be sunk to form artificial reefs, although this option is costly due to the need for the removal of "all environmental hazards...prior to sinking."<ref name="dodds"/>
 +
 
 +
=== '''Toxic Sediments Relocation''' ===
 +
Removing and relocating toxic sediment from ships offers an alternate step in the ship-wrecking process.<ref name="stichnothe">Stichnothe, H., W. Calmano, E. Arevalo, A. Keller & J. Thöming. (2005). TBT-contaminated Sediments: Treatment in a Pilot Scale. ''Journal of Soils and Sediments, 5''(1), 21-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/jss2005.01.128</ref> Unfortunately, this process proves difficult on two fronts.  First, finding a way to collect the sediment and a site in which to deposit it pose a challenge.  A second dilemma comes with finding a way to decompose the sediment in an environmentally safe manner.
  
== '''Relocate Toxic Sediments''' ==
+
=== '''Electrochemical Removal of Tributyltin''' ===
In an attempt to completely remove the contaminated sediments, that for many years since the banning of TBT are still present, the solution of removing the sediment altogether has been suggested. The preferred method is to relocate the toxic sediments. (Stichnothe) This solution would be extensively difficult to collect the entire contaminated sediment as well as searching or creating a site to relocate the material and how to disintegrate the sediment in a environmentally safe procedure.
+
A recently explored alternative step in ship-recycling is an electrochemical process that attempts to decompose tributyltin ([http://wiki.ban.org/Green_Ships#TBT TBT]).<ref name="stichnothe"/> Rather than risk removing the sediment and possibly contaminating the site at which it is stored, the electrochemical process seeks to eliminate the toxins right away.
  
== '''Electrochemical Process''' ==
+
=== '''Paint Scraping''' ===
The more recent alternative solution to ship-recycling has turned to an electrochemical process. The aim of the electrochemical process is to decompose [http://wiki.ban.org/Green_Ships#TBT TBT]. (Stichnothe). Rather than risk removing the sediment and possibly endangering or contaminating other locations in the process and/or preserving the contaminated ships, the electrochemical process seeks to eliminate the toxins where they are present.
+
In response to bans on TBT, recyclers tried scraping paint from the hulls of ships to remove the toxic TBT-based anti-fouling paint. Unfortunately, this proved to be a dangerous solution. The "washing, scraping, and repainting of boat hulls" jeopardized the health of shipyard workers.<ref name="gipperth"/> Furthermore, the paint dust that entered the air as a result of scraping could easily find its way into the marine environment.
  
== '''Scraping''' ==
+
=== '''Alternate Paints''' ===
As an initial solution, in response to the TBT based anti-fouling paints applied on the majority of vessels, scraping the ship's hull to remove the paint was proposed. Washing, scraping, and repainting of boat hulls may also cause harmful health effects on shipyard workers. (Gipperth). The idea of scraping was a rapid response to the banning of TBT, in light of the extreme marine and environmental concerns, without further thoughts or investigation on the damaging environmental consequences as a results of scraping.
+
Over time, ship manufacturers have experimented with a variety of paints as a replacement for TBT-based anti-fouling paints. Unfortunately, the biocides in alternative paints are not as effective as TBT, and using other compounds or metals can be costly. In the end, these alternative paints are more expensive, shorter-lasting, and less effective than their TBT-based predecessors. Consequently, ships painted with alternative paints need more frequent repainting and hull cleanings; fuel consumption may increase, and "trading revenue [suffers] while ships are dry-docked."<ref name="gipperth"/>
  
== '''Alternate Paints''' ==
+
Ideally, an effective alternative paint could successfully break into the ship paint market - regardless of its initial cost. Providing precedent, TBT paints were actually very expensive when they first entered the market and became immediately popular. Their great effectiveness at keeping ship hulls devoid of organisms allowed ships to move faster, and in turn, to dump less fuel. This example offers hope that another kind of paint could experience similar success.<ref name="gipperth"/>
The accelerated popularity on the use of applying TBT based anti-fouling paints was largely due to the dramatic economic benefits created from the TBT paint. The economic benefits included less organisms attached to the ship's hull which allowed faster and increased movement of the ship, in turn decreasing the amount of fuel dumped into the ships eluding to the environmental benefits of less greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the TBT paints required less  re-painting than other paints, allowing the ship owners to increase their profit by maximizing the ships initial painting. Owners could use other paints, however, most still contain a biocide which makes it ineffective. Also, the cost of using other compounds or metals is considerably more expensive. (Gipperth). Ironically, the TBT based paints were also very expensive during its first revealing, though that did not discourage ship owners to apply the paint to their ships. The higher cost of using alternative paints is not only due to high cost of paint itself but less effective antifouling paint requires more frequent repainting and hull cleanings and may increase fuel consumption, followed by loss in trading revenue while ships are dry-docked. (Gipperth)
 
  
===References===
+
=='''References'''==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
 +
 +
=='''Further Information on Green Ships'''==
 +
 +
*[[Green Ships|'''Green Ships Main Page''']]
 +
 +
*[[Green Ships:Ship breaking Regulations|Shipbreaking Regulations]]
 +
 +
*[[Green Ships:Green Ship Countries|Shipbreaking Countries]]

Latest revision as of 22:48, 3 September 2015

Alternatives to Beach Shipbreaking

Mothballing

Mothballing, a potential alternative to ship-breaking, is the practice of indefinitely storing a partially or fully decommissioned ship. The vessels are fully equipped for service, but are not currently needed. A negative aspect of mothballing is the expense required for ship upkeep. Likewise, the mothballing process may cause forms of environmental harm.[1]

Improvements to the Shipbreaking Process

Dry Docking

update information The preferred alternative to beach ship-recycling is dry docking. Dry docking is closely related to mothballing in terms of process, potential environmental harm, and high cost (up to $800,000 per vessel).[1] Ships are dry docked in shipyards and harbors; these locations demand high quality waste management due to the particularly high risk associated with polluting water bodies in these places.[2] The decommissioned ships can also be sunk to form artificial reefs, although this option is costly due to the need for the removal of "all environmental hazards...prior to sinking."[1]

Toxic Sediments Relocation

Removing and relocating toxic sediment from ships offers an alternate step in the ship-wrecking process.[3] Unfortunately, this process proves difficult on two fronts. First, finding a way to collect the sediment and a site in which to deposit it pose a challenge. A second dilemma comes with finding a way to decompose the sediment in an environmentally safe manner.

Electrochemical Removal of Tributyltin

A recently explored alternative step in ship-recycling is an electrochemical process that attempts to decompose tributyltin (TBT).[3] Rather than risk removing the sediment and possibly contaminating the site at which it is stored, the electrochemical process seeks to eliminate the toxins right away.

Paint Scraping

In response to bans on TBT, recyclers tried scraping paint from the hulls of ships to remove the toxic TBT-based anti-fouling paint. Unfortunately, this proved to be a dangerous solution. The "washing, scraping, and repainting of boat hulls" jeopardized the health of shipyard workers.[2] Furthermore, the paint dust that entered the air as a result of scraping could easily find its way into the marine environment.

Alternate Paints

Over time, ship manufacturers have experimented with a variety of paints as a replacement for TBT-based anti-fouling paints. Unfortunately, the biocides in alternative paints are not as effective as TBT, and using other compounds or metals can be costly. In the end, these alternative paints are more expensive, shorter-lasting, and less effective than their TBT-based predecessors. Consequently, ships painted with alternative paints need more frequent repainting and hull cleanings; fuel consumption may increase, and "trading revenue [suffers] while ships are dry-docked."[2]

Ideally, an effective alternative paint could successfully break into the ship paint market - regardless of its initial cost. Providing precedent, TBT paints were actually very expensive when they first entered the market and became immediately popular. Their great effectiveness at keeping ship hulls devoid of organisms allowed ships to move faster, and in turn, to dump less fuel. This example offers hope that another kind of paint could experience similar success.[2]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Dodds, D. (2007). Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Environmental Effects of Shipwrecking and Possible Solutions Under India’s Environmental Regime. 20 Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. and Dev. L.J., 207, 208-236.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Gipperth, L. (2009). The legal design of the international and European Union ban on tributyltin antifouling paint: Direct and indirect effects. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, S86-S95.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Stichnothe, H., W. Calmano, E. Arevalo, A. Keller & J. Thöming. (2005). TBT-contaminated Sediments: Treatment in a Pilot Scale. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 5(1), 21-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/jss2005.01.128

Further Information on Green Ships