Talk:Ship breaking

How can ship breaking be economically unattractive ?

How can ship breaking be economically unattractive ? Having seen that even in developing countries, ships that lay on the bottom of the sea are sometimes hauled up and repaired (see the endeavor from the Belgica genootschap to recover the sunk Belgica , I wonder how this is not so with even less degraded ships. Offcourse the man hours of work need to be imbedded into the price, yet as it is a ship it is possible to just ship it to low-labour countries as China, India, ... so that can't be a problem. In addition, ships that are merely 'decommissioned" are not necessairily so degraded so that they can no longer float, so they can (even without repairs) still be used as a mobile platforms (e.g. for abortion clinics, hospital ships, living boats, ...). Perhaps it is possible to include this information into the article. KVDP (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the relative merits and downsides of ship breaking (versus renovating) vary from ship to ship. In other words, it is still debatable whether ship breaking is a good idea in any particular case. While it's undoubtedly better than scuttling the ship in the middle of the ocean, I'd guess that ship breaking produces lots of pollution and waste. Look what it did to Fauzdarhat in Bangladesh. Fuzzform (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems the question is "why not just repair and relaunch the ship"? It can be cheaper to simply make a new one, after factoring the costs of removing major components such as engine, etc. Also, an old design may no longer fit the needs of modern shipping, with standardized cargo sizes and loading procedures. An older design might be less seaworthy for some reason, and old hulls may have too much metal fatigue. Regarding the question about shipbreaking being economically unattractive, the pollutants are quite unhealthy, with lead and asbestos poisoning of the workers and the environment being of primary concern. First world nations could break ships, but their health laws would require a great deal of safety equipment, slowing the task considerably. The toxic materials would have to be handled and disposed of in accordance with local regulations, and the cost of shipbreaking would escalate beyond normal business plan feasibility. Only in third world countries, where worker health is ignored, and environmental abatement procedures aren't funded, can shipbreaking be a viable activity. In my opinion, the total cost of the ship should be borne by its users, and its eventual demise should be factored in to its lifetime costs. If this were the case worldwide, shipbreaking would not be found solely in economically distressed countries.

All of this can go in the article if references are found. Some already is. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Stranded ships in developing world usable for shipwrecking

It should be noted in the article that hundreds of stranded ships lay at the shores in Africa (eg Angola, Mauritania, Somalia, ...). These are well usuble for shipwrecking and salvaging materials. Also, as most of these ships are still sturdy (made of iron) and fairly good, they may be fixed up and used again for sailing (dough decommissioned and or confiscated (pirate confiscated ships or regular ships) and military naval vessels may be even better and may be low-cost aswell; some of them are now merely sunk for making artificial reefs). Look to the 'Uknown Africa-Angola' documentairy and pictures from the Aral Sea for references.

Include in the article, as this is vital information for the green movements and appropriate technology organisations. Thanks. KVDP (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A large house made of iron is feasible compared to a tiny house made of wood.

In other words, a shipwreck may be inhabited like a makeshift tower block. Let's not make an enterprise around attmepts to evict Africans their homes. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Nancy ^talk 18:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs section on technique and technology, both present and historically

The article concentrates on the economic, ethical, and environmental aspects of ship breaking, but says little about the techniques employed. An encyclopedia article on ship breaking needs to explain how was it done in the past, and and how is it done now. Presumably ship breaking yards should be located in a somewhat sheltered location, a harbor, with a gently sloping sandy beach, and presumably it is best to beach ships at high tide and disassemble them at low tide. Is a big tidal range helpful, or a nuisance? What is the technique for deliberately beaching a ship? After an earlier unsuccessful attempt, the ferry Ostend Spirit was beached successfully at high speed into a gap between between two smaller, already beached ships, that may have been placed there to help hold the ferry upright, facilitating demolition. How are the large pieces of steel removed for scrap (presumably with acetylene torches), and how are they taken away? Are cranes and electromagnets used, as in scrap steel processing yards in developed countries?CharlesHBennett (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The article as it stands also fails to address the question of why wooden ships would be broken up in the age of sail, since there was no steel to recycle in the hull or masts, and the wood could probably not be (easily) reused in other ships. What was the point of breaking a wooden ship instead of repairing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.75.190 (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)