Reading Ian Urbina's Outlaw Ocean was an eye opener regarding what activities happen in effectively un-policed international waters.
Now, there are still ways to cheat that, but my gut feeling is that cheating would be more expensive than just following the agreement.
Graduate the port fees based on average speed for arrival.
You should be able to accurately estimate all ships's speeds, using basic high school physics, from a site like https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-12.0/cent...
Source: built an engine performance model at a maritime company.
It's the ships speed relative to the water what causes any fuel consumption. For the purposes of saving fuel, if you don't know the water surface speed, you know nothing.
There are steep contractual penalties for missing your time slot.
Also, it can be easily checked when the ship left/entered the port.
There is such as thing as unregistered ships. They are called almost always pirates up to no good: most navys will sink them on sight. Most ports will not allow an unregistered ship.
Together they have a blue water navy of 0 ships .
Even if these 2 countries would like to add relevant laws, they will not be able to enforce them.
If an Open Registry (the technical name for a "Flag of Convenience") doesn't enforce rules the Port States (mostly economically important countries with a coastline) care about that flag essentially labels you as likely non-compliant - and whether you are or not it's a world of pain because those Port States care.
So most of the famous Flags of Convenience cleaned their acts up. It just made too much financial sense.
You can try mumbling about how Port State Control isn't fair, but the people who think it is have guns and money and you don't. In this case (and many previously) this works in our favour.
Now if State Powerful wants to pean itself about how good and fair they are, I'll laugh at their faces. Again, no mumbling.
Of course the IF above is big. I don't know how to get Panama to care.
Then there are a lot of question marks regarding the jurisdiction of a destination country when the ship is flagged elsewhere. How or who enforces the penalty on this ship? And if such a penalty is applied, the ship owners simply change name and move to a different country's flag.
This is exactly the same problem with illegal fishing. Perpetrators are getting away with it because effective policing is not happening.
I also don't know that a blanket speed limit makes sense for all ships. The longer the waterline length of a ship (for a given weight) the easier it is for it to make a given speed.
I feel like a better metric could be used, like fining vessels for trips which consume more than X tonnes of fuel for a ton of cargo where X is designed to be met only by building highly efficient ships or by existing ships operating at reduced speed.
Older ships are being modified. All engine manufacturers advertise those kits/modifications and their benefits.
I think its still best to focus our political willpower on accelerating the transition to electric vehicles. There is the obvious human health benefit of not having hundreds of millions of tiny engines exhausting fumes at the ground level of cities.
Electric vehicles, for the near term, remain a toy of rich people. Apartments will NOT have electrified parking lots, outside of a select few spaces. Tesla's "Supercharger" requires 150 kW of power-delivery per parking space. (Average american household uses ~30 kW-hrs per day, or roughly 1.25 kW on the average).
The real solution is public transportation. Electrifying public transportation (ex: monorail, trams, electric busses, etc. etc.) forces the ENTIRE car-less class to go electric. We're talking about 20%+ of America will be "forced into electric" if public transit were upgraded.
Pushing more Americans onto public transit will only make those numbers better. Tax incentives to Amtrak / Busses and other such programs should make public transit more popular.
Why not? Are you sure that won't happen as demand increases? Is it too expensive? How much does it cost?
I was in London recently and they had electrified lamp posts. None of the houses had garages so this enabled the residents to buy electric.
I don't have the real numbers. But I can run some estimates in my head to see what is or isn't reasonable.
I'm thinking on the scale of my neighborhood. I have ~5000 housing units in my neighborhood (Mixed-housing development: single-family, townhomes, condos, and rental properties such as apartments). We have a bit over 12,000 humans living in my neighborhood.
The neighborhood design is currently scaled at maybe 20MW of power or less. I don't know for sure, but 6MW (average daily load), x3 because summer has higher loads (air conditioning)... just for a rough estimate for the power-infrastructure of my neighborhood.
Again, I don't have precise numbers. But 20MW capacity is probably the capacity of my neighborhood covering 12,000 people.
20MW will cover 133 Tesla Superchargers (150kW per). That is to say, to provide 3% of the homes in my neighborhood with a supercharger, the power-capacity needs to be doubled for the entire neighborhood.
A more reasonable estimate is for 22kW chargers (much slower, but 3-phase power and more easily supported for sure). In this case, roughly 900 chargers can be installed if my neighborhood doubles its electric capacity (18% of homes can have an electric vehicle).
And many homes are 2x or 3x car households. So really we're aiming at 200% or 300% cars-to-homes ratio if you want to go "all electric vehicles" across the whole neighborhood. To get there, my neighborhood needs to deploy something on the order of 200MW of power-capacity.
So now, ask yourself. What is approximately the cost of providing 10x more electricity to every single neighborhood in the country? Its not going to be cheap, that's for sure.
And mind you those cars charge at night, when people are not using as much electricity.
Tesla Model 3 has a range of 250 miles at 54kWh. Say you need a range of 50 miles every day. 50mi/250mi range * 54kWh = 10.8kWh per day. This can easily be charged overnight at ~3.5kW (220V * 16A) - will take a little over 3 hours.
5000-homes x 7kW charger == 35MW of capacity that needs to be added to my neighborhood. Still a lot of electricity, no matter how you cut it (upgrading from 20MW current capacity -> 55MW).
As I said, I don't have hard numbers. But we need a starting point that we agree upon for planning purposes. If you have better numbers, please share.
> Tesla Model 3 has a range of 250 miles at 54kWh. Say you need a range of 50 miles every day. 50mi/250mi range * 54kWh = 10.8kWh per day. This can easily be charged overnight at ~3.5kW (220V * 16A) - will take a little over 3 hours.
26 kWh/100 miles. EPA measures 13kW-hrs of charging every 50-miles. So my numbers are slightly different, but still within the magnitude of your result.
But that mileage will be different in the winter. This link suggests a drop of 33% efficiency... so 50-miles needs 20 kw-hrs of charging. https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/33-range-loss-in-col...
5000 * 1.8kW = 9MW when all cars are pulling the maximum load. Mind you, they will be pulling it at night, when there is excess capacity available due to lower energy use from other appliances.
That's 32-miles from home-to-work-and-back, not including grocery shopping or kids activities, or leisure activities (ball-games, bar, restaurants).
I think 50-miles is closer to reality. The average car is driving far, far, more than 16-miles per day in my experience.
32-miles just from work alone.
> max load of either (15A x 120V =) 1800W or (20A x 120V =) 2400W.
No sane person will be charging on 120V x 15A. Your 77kW-hr Tesla 3 will take 42-hours to charge on that circuit. 20A x 120V is going to take 32-hours to charge from empty. Similarly ridiculous.
Well, almost. I actually am a big proponent of hybrid-vehicles. A hybrid vehicle with 50-mile capacity will charge on a 120V x 15A circuit every night just fine (and use gasoline as a range-extender when necessary). Until power-infrastructure is better built out, I think the PHEV model is going to be friendlier to our cities and neighborhoods.
To put it another way: 120V x 15A circuits charge your car at 7-miles (of range) per hour (of charging). For small batteries such as PHEVs (Volt, Prius Prime), this might be sufficient (20-miles of electric charge, maybe 50). For a 220+ mile Tesla 3 (or any other high-range electric vehicle), that's too slow.
"Smart grid" doesn't exist yet however. For now, people will plug in their vehicles... maybe synchronized after 8pm (or whenever "night-time" energy kicks in, to save a bit of $$$), and charge at 7kW from their 3-phase power unit for the next 2 or 3 hours.
The energy companies will see this as a big spike at 8pm when the car-charger timers automatically go off, and then the energy usage will let off by 12-midnight or so.
8-hours of charging on 120V x 15A charger only charges 55 miles. You won't "recover" the 100-miles until 20-days later (-100-miles from a big-driving day, +55 miles of charge on Day1. -50 miles on the 2nd day, +55 miles on Day2, etc. etc).
Realistically speaking, the 120V x 15A charger is simply insufficient for people who actually drive 50-miles a day (and occasionally drives 100-miles).
Factor in the 33% loss of energy in the winter, factor in a mistake or two (ex: forgetting to plug in the vehicle), factor in a few nights without power (ex: hurricane or California Fires), and you're completely sunk.
If you're buying electric, you need the 7kW charger (or faster), to ensure that your vehicle is fully topped off every night. That way, on your "emergency" days when two or three things happen (hurricane + visiting the cousins), you'll have enough charge to actually make it through the day.
Alternatively, buy a PHEV so that you can always leverage gasoline in those high-milage or power-outage situations.
Which will most probably cause the producers to want to reduce that inventory by not producing that much anymore, which will further ease the pressure on the environment. Yeah, that will most probably raise some prices, but as a species we can't have our cake and eat it at the same time, at some point we do have to price in the externalities.
I don't think that's how that works. I'm pretty sure producers produce because there is demand and they are selling their product. They aren't producing for the fun of it.
I agree with this, but reducing the ships' speed will reduce the rate and the price at which you can potentially deliver said products to the consumers, which in effect will reduce the effective demand.
As an example, I bet there's lots of people that would want to have rocks delivered to them from the Moon, i.e. there is a notional demand for Moon rocks, but because transporting rocks from the Moon to said customers is prohibitively expensive the effective demand for such an item is close to 0. Making trans-oceanic transport more expensive works the same way.
>but reducing the ships' speed will reduce the rate and the price at which you can potentially deliver said products
The moon rock argument would be solid if the prices were to rise, but by your own admission, it would lower them. The regulation just bans "high-speed" expensive shipping.
As another commenter has stated, this will just make time-sensitive shipments to switch to the cheapest alternative, and for non-time-sensitive items like consumer goods, this will just mean higher stockpiling in origin.
As anyone who has work on In-demand manufacturing will tell you, the slower the transport the higher the waste.
If anything they will increase it, since the feedback loop that tells them when to cut back is now way slower, and most consumer facing would rather overproduce than lose sales.
An output that just sits as additional inventory doesn't actually produce any revenues, at some point it becomes economically rational to reduce said output to levels that make sense again (i.e. that don't sit in deposits collecting dust instead of being in customers' hands half a world away).
The fast ships are likely operating at inefficient speeds, which is only made possible by transporting premium cargo where the increased costs are absorbed by the ultimate higher prices of the goods. In a real sense, the world is paying too much by a psychological need for instant gratification.
Note that cargo ships have all sorts of negative externalities beyond CO2 emissions. For example, the studies that are coming out now on the impact of fine particulates... well, I’d short the Diesel engine all the way to $0. So while a carbon tax might be the best global win for all industries, this sounds like one that could be implemented tomorrow and have a real impact.
Check out the the number of commercial ships on this map - tell me slowing them all down is a good idea for world trade. 
When the order was given to slow down many cruise ships opted to just not come here. But now it seems they understand the problem and follow the rules.
It's become so bad recently that even a Coast Guard ship hit a right whale.
Sightseeing expeditions encouraging whales to approach boats doesn't help either.
Then again they're fairly smart, so they might figure out strategies.
I expect we'll also make ships easier for them to spot.
As a nation, where would we be today (compared to where we are) if a policy like that had actually been adopted?
But off-topic: I wonder what computers would look like if there _were_ arbitrary restrictions like that. What directions would we have pursued in microarchitecture, distributed systems, etc etc if there was a regulation capping clock speed or number of transistors, or a rule that made it illegal to have asymmetric network connections?
In fact that probably would have already made the case for speed restrictions, as every multi-thousand-knot container ship created its own tsunami. There have long been speed restrictions on canals at a few miles an hour to avoid erosion.
There is still room to improve:
* scrubbers or cleaner fuels can reduce pollutants other than co2.
* slower & thinner ships improve fuel efficiency
* rotor sail can improve energy efficiency another 10 percent.
So it is possible that the future will be significantly slower because we are currently like to run well above the most efficient speed for things.
A car travelling 70mph gets to its' destination twice as quickly as a car travelling 35mph.
Now as it happens the Reynolds number for a large cargo ship is almost certainly quite large, because it involves the product of the ship's velocity and some linear measure of its size, and container ships are huge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number#Similarity_of_... lists ~5e9 for a large passenger ship, and the quadratic behavior sets in somewhere in the 1e3-1e7 range depending on how streamlined you are. So we're well into the quadratic regime in this specific case. But assuming that you're there in all cases is not a great idea. For example, it's not clear to me that a walking human is in the quadratic regime (though I am pretty sure a running human typically is).
Small fish are typically _not_ in the quadratic regime, I expect.
How do we enact an effective tax to manage the pending extinction of various animals? Is the cost to transit at high speed going to be in the thousands or millions to account for that? Here in the Northwest there are only 70ish orcas left of the local variety (southern resident) and boat noise is a major cause of their dwindling health and numbers. A voluntary speed limit reduction in their main grounds was respected by 61% of boats as part of a trial (https://phys.org/news/2017-09-ships-busy-channel-endangered-...) but we need broader ocean-wide solution to noise.
I can’t see our culture of instant gratification being worth the permanent loss of flora and fauna.
Owners care about none of these things. Slowing down has to help their bottom line, or they won't do it.
Of course, people need to value this rule changes enough to enact it.
The easiest way to accomplish this would be to utilize existing AIS signals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_identification_syste...). But doing so could create an incentive for captains to switch off their transponders, which would lead to safety issues.
The trouble is corruption gets in the way, by that I mean carbon based industries lobbying against such taxes.
The oceans and atmosphere get polluted because societies don't have robust enough property rights. Markets are really good at efficiently allocating scarce resources, so we need to figure out how to define strong property rights to allow damaged parties to hold shipping companies liable. As I see it, citizens, companies, and smaller governments (cities, counties, small countries) are powerless to hold large polluters accountable, either because there's not an adequate property-rights based legal framework, or the litigation costs too much.
Edit: what I mean: I can imagine a speed reduction reduces emission by 20%. But when travel times will be over 20% longer nothing is gained.
And is there any chance the operators of the new China-to-Europe railway has a sponsorship role in this report?
There is 19 other ship classes that produce the other half. fast roro, reefers, ferries, , etc.
Because, one thought comes to my mind: If speed of ships go down, then airplane cargo industry would probably benefit. So, I am not sure if this move would be beneficial for environment at the end of day.
Neither proposal sounds very practical. Maybe it's more realistic to focus on cleaner propulsion systems like electric.