|
BrandorKP posted:So here's basically how grain moves for export in the US. It starts in silos after it's been harvested. Normally it moves from silos by truck to grain elevators. At the first set of elevators it can be transferred to other modes. It could be loaded onto the rail, into barges, or directly onto a ship (often the case on the Great Lakes). From the mid west there are a couple of typical paths for the grain to take. The most common path is for it to be loaded onto barges to be sent down the Mississippi to New Orleans. Once in New Orleans it's loaded back into elevators then into ships or transferred directly from barges to ships. New Orleans is the largest grain port in the US for this reason. Alternately it gets loaded onto trains and which then go to a variety coastal ports: Portland, Corpus Christie, Sacremento, Norfolk, Brunswick, Seattle etc. Once it arrives it's re elevated and then loaded onto the ships at grain terminals. The third route is that is goes from truck directly to a grain elevator on the Great Lakes, where it is loaded directly onto ships. The competitiveness of these routes varies from year to year. When the Mississippi floods more grain moves by rail, especially to the West Coast. When tar sands oil trains take up rail capacity, more goes down the Mississippi. When grain gets very expensive because of a natural disaster some where else in the world (think like fires in Russia) suddenly all the elevators on the Lakes start running. The generally trend is towards more moving by rail to the West Coast to head to Asia. Another way grain moves for export is by being loaded into food grade shipping containers. This was a growing trend for many years, but recently the shipping lines have been reluctant to relocate food grade empties to the in land US for this purpose. This is really interesting. I never knew that apples had a special method of being transported, but I guess it makes sense. When you say inerted holds do you mean they pump the holds full of inert gas and force the oxygen out? What keeps the pests low in US grain? Do they have regular inspections of silos or something for that? I always thought the regulations for food didn't really kick in on grain products until they reached the mill. Also do you find yourself often tempted to stick barley in your mouth from cargo holds?
|
# ¿ Jun 15, 2016 12:33 |
|
|
# ¿ May 14, 2024 17:09 |
|
Thanks for the answers! As to nuclear ships, there are a few things to consider. One, piracy on the ocean is a problem, and we don't want pirates capturing entire reactors, it'd probably be a political mess. Two, most ships aren't going to be flagged and inspected by countries with high standards, like if I recall, hardly any ships fly american flags, so inspection safety won't happen as it should. On the upside though, the bottom of the ocean is probably the best place for a sunken damaged nuclear reactor, and much less devastating then an oil spill where the oil from a spill collects on the surface and causes all kinds of problems. There's also a lot less material involved in a reactor. I suppose those made in a factory, small reactors for generating thermal heat would work well in a situation like this. The unit would be sold as is and sealed, and the people on the ship wouldn't touch it. After a few decades they'd swap out the entire reactor instead of doing any refueling. Still, in the end, the pollution from oil from ships is so minor compared to cars and other industries that it's probably the last place we need to worry about putting reactors in, or worrying about fuel costs. Maybe in 60 years we'll feel differently, but right now it seems like a headache to try and push a nuclear merchant fleet, even if nuclear ships are amazing and cool.
|
# ¿ Jun 16, 2016 04:21 |
|
4.5% of all emissions isn't that much considering just how much cargo we move, and grain shipments are a fraction of that. Even the article says it will become the biggest source after cars, agriculture, housing, and industry, which are all areas that could stand to see a lot of improvement in efficiency. Take the numbers, for instance. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html Electricity production is a quarter of our greenhouse gas emissions. It's needlessly wasteful, and we should probably do a lot more to drop coal. If the political will and the money was there then we could provide all the electricity we could ever need from nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar. Agriculture is the next biggest cause of greenhouse gas. Why? Well, one of the main issues with agriculture is that we cut down trees to do it. This is what local farming does. This is why shipping is important. Food shipping is just a small part of global shipping, which itself is only a piece of the global transportation emissions, which is 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The best thing for the planet is to grow food where it is most efficient, places with good soil, long seasons, and hopefully good regulations of the efficiency of agricultural equipment. It's far far better for the environment to let forests around cities return to being forests so they can soak up CO2, rather then trying to grow locally just to eliminate shipping. All of that said, we could burn more efficient fuels, like say, removing the sulfur from heavy fuel oil, or just switching to something lighter, but you'd have a hard time enforcing that globally. edit: Also, in the time since those UN reports, the US has done a lot of work with the EPA to reduce the sulfur content of fuel used by ships in the US's area of control. You can read about a lot of it here: https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm Killer-of-Lawyers fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Jun 16, 2016 |
# ¿ Jun 16, 2016 14:35 |
|
The US does it for more then just in port. If you're with in 250 miles of the coast of the US or Puerto Rico you have to burn low sulfur fuel. In fact, I think it's going to go to ultra low sulfur soon.
|
# ¿ Jun 17, 2016 04:22 |