I think everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room.

This is a long story, but I'll try to keep it very short. Anyone interested contact me off-list for far more details and an unfinished paper with some of my research.

A couple of years ago my son and I were watching a documentary on the subject of concrete. It was very interesting. They covered a wide range of topics but one of them really started to trigger my curiosity: The Panama Canal.

I don't know why, but I became very interested in the financial metrics surrounding the canal. How much does it cost to cross it? How long does it take? How many ships cross it per year? Where do they come from? Where do they go?

The more I learned the more the reality of the Canal horrified me. Why?

The bulk of the commercial traffic through the Canal are container ships. And these ships burn something very nasty: Bunker Fuel. This is, by almost any measure, the dirtiest fuel you could burn. it's horrible stuff.

When I started to do the math I started to realize the magnitude of the problem. These ships move at about 20 miles per hour. They could go faster but there's a balance between the high cost of hydrodynamic drag and fuel costs. A trip from Shanghai to Long Beach takes about 18 days and will burn somewhere in the range of 3,600 to 7,200 metric tons of fuel. For those not comfortable visualizing units in the metric system, that's from 7,936,560 to 15,873,120 pounds. Yes, fifteen million pounds of the nastiest crap you could burn is used to bring your iPhones (conjecture) and other stuff from Shanghai to Long Beach.

If my research is correct, the fleet of about 100,000 cargo ships (Yes, 100,000!!!) burns over a million metric tons of bunker fuel PER DAY.

400 million metric tons of bunker fuel per year, which is equivalent to 120 billion gallons.

Can't relate to that number?

Here's an interesting comparison:

To get a better sense of how large this number is we can try to relate it to how many cars one could fill-up with fuel and for how long. 120 billion gallons would provide enough fuel to supply 100,000 cars (assuming a 20 gallon tank) with a full tank of gas every week...for over 1,000 years.

100,000 cars.
20 gallons per week.
For a THOUSAND years.

And our fleet of container ships use this in ONE YEAR.

The evil, when it comes to pollution and energy dependence, isn't the much-abused light bulb; it's the elephant in the room: Ocean-going cargo ships.

While our mass media chooses to focus its attention on an oil spill (because it is sensational and it serves political purposes), what is really killing our planet slowly is the transportation of iPhones, Blackberries, TV's, blenders, washers, cars, widgets and gadgets on inefficient and highly-polluting ocean-going vessels. Even the latest Gulf spill is insignificant in terms of environmental impact when compared to what 100,000 ships are doing to our environment each and every year.

It is estimated that the fleet of nearly 100,000 cargo ships in the world produces over 20 million tons of Sulfur Oxides (SOx) per year. For comparison, the entire fleet of automobiles in the world (about 800 million cars) produces about 80,000 tons of the same contaminant.

How about the Canal?

A container ship traveling from Los Angeles to NYC through the Canal will burn about 4,500 metric tons of buker-C fuel. This amount of fuel costs approximately US $1.8 million. Canal fees would run somewhere around $300K. The trip from L.A. to NYC through the Canal runs well over two million dollars, without including handling, insurance, crew costs, amortization, maintenance, etc. That's quite a chunk of change, however, when divided by the thousands of containers a ship can move it becomes a few hundred dollars per container.

How many ships go through the Canal per year?

Approximately 15,000.

I'll leave you to do the math. I have far more detail in my notes. What these ships are doing to our environment is simply horrific. The pollution doesn't stop at the act of burning fuel.

Cargo ships are also the source of an unusual form of pollution. Ships use huge ballast tanks to stabilize themselves. These ballast tanks are filled and emptied of sea water during loading and unloading operations at port. It is through this mechanism that cargo ships are responsible for transporting harmful organisms across the world into ecosystems that cannot handle them. The introduction of non-native species into a new ecosystem can have devastating consequences.

And so, from watching a simple documentary I came to the realization that, for some strange reason, we have been ignoring the most significant source of environmental pollution on our planet. And, beyond that, one of the largest --if not the largest-- consumer of petroleum products.

I didn't stop at just identifying the problem. I also wanted to take a stab at a solution. I came up with something I called "The American High Speed Cargo System" (AHSCS) as a loose proposal. This would be a cargo-only, electric powered, high speed rail system. It would connect --at the very least-- both coasts and, ideally, other major US ports. The idea would be to move cargo over land from port to port at 200 miles per hour. High speed passenger trains in the US are a waste of money and that's particularly true in California (don't get me started there). Not so for high-speed cargo.

The numbers are there to support it: A cargo ship spends over two million dollars to get from L.A. to NYC. Probably closer to three. Those same containers could be moved far more efficiently over land, at similar or lower costs and pollute far, far less. You are exchanging aerodynamic drag for hydrodynamic drag. Huge difference.

In terms of energy costs (just the electricity), I came up with numbers in the order of $10K for a trip from L.A. to NYC. I further estimated that the system would require around 700MW of power, let's call it 1,000MW. We have 53 nuclear plants that can source 1GW each. This is a case where nuclear power might be a really good option.

However, the scope of the project needs to be realized. Developing and building such a systems has the potential to generate hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not millions. It should be revenue neutral if not positive (sorry Panama). It would allow for the installation of upgraded communications and power backbones that would be synergistic to the process of building the rail system. It would also allow for the potential to install huge solar and wind-power farms to fully or partially power the system.

I have not explored every angle but would like to think that, if my numbers and assumptions are right, this could be the most important project this nation could embark on. You have to think in terms of a hundred or two-hundred year scale. These ships are not going to go away unless something very significant changes. Of course, the same concept ought to be replicated across the planet. Again, if I am right, we should strive to eliminate most, if not all, container ships traversing our oceans. We are making an absolute mess out of our planet.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/shipping-network-map.html

Like I said, there's more. If interested email me off list and I can send you a copy of my notes so far. It'd be interesting to have someone go over my notes and verify my assumptions and calculations. I tried to raise the issue with politicians but, what can I say, I only have so much time to deal with morons.

NOTE:

I thank you for your comments. I have to ask that you do me a favor. Please refrain from making categorical statements about the relative efficiency of ships vs. a proposed high-speed electric train without having done the math yourself. Please drop me an email and I'll be more than happy to provide you with a copy of my calcs, an unfinished paper as well as links, PDF's and references. Then we can talk about the merits of the concept. I am actually very interested in having the concept, calculations and assumptions criticized. Arguing outside of a common frame of reference is rather difficult.