europe - australia by ship

hi
i wanna go from europe (germany, italy, denmark or france) by ship to australia, i dont wanna fly cause of climate change.
i have plenty of time, but i have no idea if this is possible.
does anyone have any tipps for me?
thanks
sven.

Ships actually contribute more to climate change than 'planes do.

And there are no passenger ships from Europe to Australia.

Very difficult. Check out this blog for someone who nearly did it.

Climate change is a fact of the earths history -

If you mean you want not to polute - buy a bike

no offence intended

i dont wanna take a cruise ship, but a cargo ship or so.

"Ships actually contribute more to climate change than 'planes do"

that is totally wrong. a flight from e.g. berlin to sydney and back causes about 12.000 kg of CO2.
going by ship (i dont mean cruis ships but ferrys of cargo ships) is much more environmentally friendly.

12.000kg per person, of course.

Some freight ships carry a few passengers, see website below. Have only seen a couple of newspaper articles so don't know much about them. I would think the extra greenhouse gas generated by a passenger on a freight ship would be close to zero!

http://www.freightertravel.com.au/index.jsp

amazing @ 5 - Read this thread, don't get them started again please.

hmm - link doesn't work. Search for "boat to oz"

Try this one

According to this emission calculator, a flight from London to Sydney via Singapore would emit about 1,200 kg of CO2 per passenger. -- Seems to be a mis-placed decimal point at #6.

ColinP - are you as astounded as I am at what you can find on the web?? An emission calculator no less.

Ahh... the modern world - it never ceases to amaze me.

(Im glad you sorted out the numbers - I multiplied 12,000 by 400 and almost fell of my chair...)

Indeed! How did we ever survive before Google?

Britannica...

You've missed the boat by about 35 years, pud. And, bearing in mind that ship emissions (per passemger) are little different to those of aircraft you really have missed something.

We weren't rich enough for Britannica - we had to settle for Funk & Wagnalls.... :-(

It's not just the CO2 emissions that you need to consider. Shipping might account for twice as much global CO2 emission as flying but it's emmission of "traditional pollution" is much higher due to the heavy fuel oil most ships use, especially nitrates and sulphates (acid rain) and particulates details. Also consider the water pollution they can cause with pumping out oil contaminated bilge water, rubbish and sewerage disposed of overboard and the transfer of invasive species in bilge water .example. The longer transit time also means that the extra food and water that has to be transported needs to be included in the calculation as well.

Flying on the other hand is quick so there is little waste involved in transporting food and water, it's fuel burns relatively cleanly, and you pay a carbon tax on your ticket, not something that you'll pay on a shipboard fare.

World Book Encyclopaedia in our house when I was a kid. I think me old Mum's still got all 26 volumes of the 1961 edition in her bookcase.

Also note that while flying is pretty much direct, any surface route (sea or land) will travel a longer distance to arrive at the same location.

For example Babs to Brisbane (mentioned above) calculated that it would take her around 26,000 km to get to Brisbane whereas the direct route would be 16,500 km. She also calculated she would use 1.65 tonnes of CO2 (including the benefit of the non-existant Singapore to Darwin Ferry) while the same flight would only produce 1.2 tonnes of CO2.

What about the fact that the ships fuel is less refined, therefore requiring less energy to produce. The ship also has a dual purpose in carrying cargo AND passengers, where as passenger planes generally stick to passengers and the odd mail bag or similar. The net benefit of a ship carrying cargo, as opposed to a plane carrying passengers, would be an interesting economomics case study.
There are gargo ships travelling from Germany to Australia, Russia-Hong Kong-Japan to Australia (FESCO).
I hope you dont get seasick mate, try these guys as well.

This site gives some insight into emissions produced by cargo ships.

#12: i did not mis-place a decimal point.
according to www.atmosfair.de, a german website, it is about 12.000 (twelve thousand) kg!

and another thing you have to consider: emissions caused by airplanes are much more harmful than emissions from ships, cars etc., cause they are let off (sorry, i dont know how to correctly in english) at much higher altitudes and thus directly cause harm in the atmosphere.

What about the fact that the ships fuel is less refined
Our resident petrochemical engineer would have a better idea but from what I understand diesel is part of the same fractional distillation process that produces aviation kerosene and so has much the same energy input. If you didn't produce kerosene then you could lower your distillation temperatures to only produce diesel but that isn't what happens.

The ship also has a dual purpose in carrying cargo AND passengers
The ships to OZ don't really have a dual purpose, the passengers they carry are more like your mailbag example, an add on. I don't deny that, as your last link mentioned, those passengers are freeloading on CO2 that would have been generated anyway but the more people that chose this method the more demand for passenger space on cargo ships there will be until you loose the benefit of freeloading on a cargo ship.

The more you can stack things the more efficient your chosen mode of transport is. Slow cargo ships are great for heavy cargo that doesn't need to get anywhere fast. The cargo can be stacked and forgotten about. Planes are great for people because of the short journey time you can pack them relatively tightly and gain efficiencies, this is the premise of the A380. If you put the same amount of people on a ship you need to give them more room and so loose efficiency because you now have a lot more things you need to move around for them. You end up with a cruise ship which as already mentioned are worse for CO2 than long haul flights.

Good points about cargo stacking. Planes generally have a pre-defined route, and therefore travel that route wether full, half full or empty. the emissions people are talking about are of the presumption the plane is full, which quite often isnt the case. So your ratio for fuel burnt per customer obviously goes up when less passengers are flying.
Ships, especially Tramps and Container vessels, will go from port to port in order to ensure a full load. If we stick to the cargo ship carrying passengers debate, the life of a ship and plane are about the same, give or take 5 years. A ship goes into dry dock maybe once each 4 years, for around 4 to 6 weeks. A plane goes in for a D check maybe once every 2 or 3 years, depending on hours flown. A host of variables now present themselves, such as operating costs beyond just fuel, maintenance costs, infrastructure required for efficient operations etc. I have a headache just thinking of which could be deemed the less environmentally damaging mode of transport.

Plus the plane will take off anyway more than likely with someone in your place.

Going by ship from Europe would be an almighty task, but travelling on the Trans-Siberian railway into SE Asia and getting a ride on a cargo ship is entirely possible. It'll take at least a month, but it's something I plan to do next year because it's such an awesome journey.

This site will get you started: Seat 61

[<blockquote>Quote
<hr>So your ratio for fuel burnt per customer obviously goes up when less passengers are flying. <hr></blockquote>

So there is an argument for flying, in a convoluted way.

A convoluted argument I mean, not for flying convolutedly.

Plane emmisions are worse than many emmisions, due to the fact that they hang out up in the higher part of the atmospehre ( I did read that, it must be true).

But a plane will fly with or without you, ditto the ship. Of course if no one travelled, this would not be true- but I am trying to keep the argument realistic.

I think if you want to be environmentally correct and stil travel either a) take a sailing ( wind ) ship or b ) buy those carbon offset thingies.

I've found the answer.
We can travel by kite and save the universe.

And before the pedants jump on me.--- Yes, I know it only saves 10 -35% fuel but hey! it looks pretty cool.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>walk, sail or cycle.<hr></blockquote>
Does one need to factor time taken into the equation? Let us compare a short trip - Melbourne to Sydney (why anyone would choose to go in that direction is another issue altogether). By air it takes about an hour of flying time plus about 15-20 minutes taxiing - walking would take about 3 weeks. Do we need to factor in the resources required to support a person for 3 weeks, and the CO2 expired in that time when comparing the 2 modes of transport?

And don't mention carbon credits or carbon trading - just a scheme for carbon brokers and carbon credit bankers to make a buck imho.

And just think of the output if he were to herd a mob of cattle all the way via the long paddock.

The emission would be horrendous.

#17 My folks have got a late 70s set of Funk & Wagnalls on the shelf too. Fascinating reading - so much that was that now isn't.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>However, nothing can jutsify a cruise ship in enviornmental terms, surely? Give your average cruise ship take 2-3 jumbos, but uses a massive amount of fuel, that would have to be the most wasteful?<hr></blockquote>Im going to do some maths on this, to see how it works out. Lets say a cruise ship takes 1200 people, thats 3x747s or A340s. A cruise ship would plow the coast for 7 days, at sea for about 4. Thats 96 hours of fuel burning travel. For the same comparison, lets say, for the exercise, a long haul from Melbourne to London takes 24 hours. For 1200 aircraft passengers to accumulate 96 hours of travel, is the equivalent of 3 long haul aircraft fully loaded (400 passengers), doing a return Melbourne to london trip 3 times. Thats 96 hours of travel for 1200 people.
Now if the argument revolves around the most EFFICIENT form of transport, then air travell wins hands down, comparing distance covered over time. Cost effective I would say the same. But in terms of environmentally efficient modes of transport, I think we need to examine this further. Stay tuned.

<blockquote>Quote
<hr>doing a return Melbourne to london trip 3 times.<hr></blockquote>That should be twice. 48 hours return x2.
So fuel burnt per passenger per hour of travel is what we need to look at, discounting other environmental issues and other net gains such as kilometres covered.

In terms of fuel burning - what I find MOST offensive (so much so that my hackles rise to heights way above the carbon emissions of high flying jumbos) are those disgusting and obnoxious mobile advertising signs in Sydney (DO you folk in other countries have these %#!%##^* things as well??)

By which I mean cars, trucks and motorcycles with advertising trailers whose SOLE purpose is to drive around the streets advertising something or other. VISUAL and ENVIRONMENTAL pollution - double whammy.

Sometimes I have seen three motorbikes towing trailers following each other around the streets, one after the other.
Whatever lowlife advertising executive thought this little gem up needs a large rusty billboard shoved up his jacksy.

Its a shame there is not a grass roots group who actively encourage people to boycott products that advertise this way.

(Grrrr....I'm getting angry just thinking about it!)

Think I better head out for coffee and cake...

#20 -- The most direct surface route from England to Brisbane would be straight across the Atlantic to the Panama Canal, then straight across the Pacific to Brisbane. I can't be bothered working out what that is, but it's not much longer than the shortest air route, and certainly not 26,000 km. (Of course, there aren't passenger ship going on those routes regularly, but if we ever gave up air travel, there would be).

The net extra CO2 generated by taking a cargo ship to Oz is zero. Of course, the net CO2 saved by not flying is also zero. it's a big world, and Mr Pudding is only one person. So if it makes him feel better, go for it.

I believe though that taking the trans-siberian is much more reliable than trying to ship all the way. There's a hell of a lot of trade between Australia and China and you'd be sure to find something.

Also, cargo-ships aren't set up for passengers so a) you'll be extreeemly bored, and b) it's extreeemly expensive, and c) it may well be extreeemly slow.
But plenty of links have been provided so good luck and enjoy!

London - Panama - Brisbane by ship= 22,550 km

London - Singapore - Brisbane by air = 17,050 km

#41 -- That's looks right: so it's longer by surface transport, but it's not 26,000 km.

What about all the shitting people do on ships over six weeks, as opposed to 24 hrs on a plane? What about the gennies, pumps, aircon, heaters, nav systems, fridges, washing machines etc running all the time, and discharging waste, as well as the propulsion? Never mind the atmospheric pollution, what about the ever-present diesel slick on the water that accompanies 90% of the world's sea traffic? What if the cargo is oil or coal or gas, and you're helping offset the transport costs as a passenger, thus making it cheaper for the client to burn?

And why oh why do people think long haul cargo ships - essentially industrial workplaces, where bedspace - any space - is at a premium, where liability insurances apply, and will shoot through the roof if passengers are taken on, where crew numbers must be kept at a minimum to ensure competitiveness, where extra passengers means having to keep more staff to look after them , would readily accept passengers, and the only reason that it's not being done more often is wow like no-one's ever thought of it before? Sure, some purpose built dual-function vessels do, but have you seen what they charge?

well, you need food, air con, washing machines etc. all day, even when you are at home and not on a ship.

So, adding to #36 & 37.
Specs for a 747-400 give us a fuel payload of approx. 215000 US Litres. We can travell roughly 13000km on this, so from London to Brisbane would use up approx 280000 US Litres of fuel. 400 passengers on board would amount to 700 US Litres of fuel burnt per passenger. If we are comparing this to a cruise ship as per post #36, then 4 days sailing is roughly comparable to 2 return trips to London, or 96 hours of flying time (4 days). So we have 2800 US Litres of fuel per passenger, for 4 days of travel.

A cruise ship of similar size (1200 persons capacity) would use god knows how much. Ive searched and searched but have been unable to find any data.

Queen Mary 2 - 19.7 mpg per passenger source (12 tonnes of fuel an hour at 25 knots with 2620 passengers)
Concorde - 17 mpg per passenger source
747 - 100 mpg per passenger source

i was not talking about taking the queen mary 2, but an ordinary container ship

The whole point pudding is that both the plane and the ship are going to travel whether you are on them or not. You are not saving any CO2 by taking the ship and if anything by creating a demand for long haul sea borne travel you are actually supporting an unsustainable industry. The more people that have a mistaken belief that travelling by sea is greener than by plane the more demand there will be for liners like the QM2.

I suspect that, although QM 2 is capable of 25 knots, she does not cruise at this speed but at a significantly more economical cruising speed.

Actually the QM2 has a top speed of nearly 30 knots, to maintain that she uses 2 gas turbine engines on top of the four diesels. These two engines use as much fuel per hour as the four diesels. I didn't include these engines as they aren't used routinely but only as neccessery to get underway or in heavy seas.

Yes the QM2 could save more fuel by running slower however she is a liner, that is she runs regularly scheduled services between Southampton and New York and that is the speed she travels at on this service (published speed is 24-26 knots). IF you want to compare apples with apples then this is long haul sea borne passenger transport.

Well bugger me. I thought that the Blue Ribband days were over and the shipowners were now concentrating on cruising and economical steaming.

Mostly they are. It's only Cunard that maintains a liner which was the QE2 until the QM2 took over the run a couple of years ago. The QE2 now concentrates on cruises.

Ah kurgan. Do you, like me, lament the passing of steam? A quartet of diesel thumpers and a couple of aero engines! Egad! Nature turned upside down!
Then again I suppose 100 years ago people were saying the same thing about the demise of sail. What's worse, I agree with them too.

Actually I lament the passing of the airship, although there are a few designs in the offing however they are designed for cargo rather than passengers. like this although these guys have gone bust Lockheed have nicked their ideas for the P-791 A solar powered airship would take about 3-4 days to do UK- Australia travelling nearly 200 km/h non stop.

Interestingly the east bound blue riband is actually held by an Australian built ship CatLink V with an average speed of 41 knots details the previous two holders were also Incat built catamarans. more details

I think we should all go and plant a few trees to offset the emissions created just by reading this post :)