Difference between revisions of "Green Ships: Alternative Solutions"

From Basel Action Network Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 13: Line 13:
  
 
== '''Scraping''' ==
 
== '''Scraping''' ==
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.
+
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.
  
 
== '''Alternate Paints''' ==
 
== '''Alternate Paints''' ==

Revision as of 22:43, 20 June 2015

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]

Dry Docking

Information could use updating Another alternative to ship-recycling is dry docking. Dry docking is closely related to mothballing in terms of process, potential environmental harm, and high cost ($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]

Relocate Toxic Sediments

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 Process

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.

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

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

  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 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