Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 69
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    East coast UK. Mostly. Sometimes the Philippines
    Posts
    9,810

    Default Re: Biggest polluter of our seas

    Returning gently towards the topic, my objection to “open loop scrubbers” has been that they are pointless. They wash the sulphur oxides in the exhaust into the sea, but that is where the sulphur oxides in the exhaust were going anyway because they were always washed into the sea by the rain. And they are easy to cheat with.

    And then there is all this:

    https://youtu.be/klgcGtbpFs0

    and this:

    https://mobile.worldmaritimenews.com...-in-singapore/
    Last edited by Kukri; 02-10-19 at 07:53.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlantic
    Posts
    21,369

    Default Re: Biggest polluter of our seas

    Poor boat owner maintenence again.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    East coast UK. Mostly. Sometimes the Philippines
    Posts
    9,810

    Default Re: Biggest polluter of our seas

    Quote Originally Posted by capnsensible View Post
    Poor boat owner maintenence again.
    The installation was six months old.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    406

    Default Re: Biggest polluter of our seas

    Quote Originally Posted by capnsensible View Post

    You see I really want it to be wrong and the shipping industry seen to be doing some self inspection.
    The maritime sector is going through a massive period of environmental self-inspection at the moment. IMO has forced through the low-sulphur regs, which no one initially believed could be done. Its new aim is to reduce carbon emissions by half by 2050 c.f. 2008 figures.
    The sector itself is looking to go even further than that, and is aiming to get to zero carbon by then. That means coming up with new fuels within the next 10 years so that any ships operating in 2050 will be using low/zero carbon fuel.
    https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/press/1561
    Yes, there's a certain amount of greenwashing in it, but the industry can see which way the wind is blowing both from a regulatory perspective and customer demand (big cargo owners want to show that their tat is being transported environmentally). And I spoke to the chief operating officer at Maersk last year who pointed out that "we all have children too". CMA CGM just launched its first ultra-large LNG fuelled box ship, spending more than it could have got away with to use a low-sulphur/carbon fuel.
    They won't get it right all of the time or immediately, but the idea that shipping is some evil empire trying to sneak out of its environmental responsibilities by using open-loop scrubbers is tosh. IMO only said they had to mitigate air emissions, the science regarding open-loops is still being debated (although regulators are closing in on them), and low-sulphur fuel costs are going to make many ships uneconomic to run. Scrubbers may be a less than ideal solution, but they are likely to be a transitional phase on a journey in the right direction.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,550

    Default Re: Biggest polluter of our seas

    Quote Originally Posted by Minn View Post
    And then there is all this:

    https://youtu.be/klgcGtbpFs0

    They're good those open loop engine scrubbers - very effective

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    East coast UK. Mostly. Sometimes the Philippines
    Posts
    9,810

    Default Re: Biggest polluter of our seas

    Quote Originally Posted by newtothis View Post
    The maritime sector is going through a massive period of environmental self-inspection at the moment. IMO has forced through the low-sulphur regs, which no one initially believed could be done. Its new aim is to reduce carbon emissions by half by 2050 c.f. 2008 figures.
    The sector itself is looking to go even further than that, and is aiming to get to zero carbon by then. That means coming up with new fuels within the next 10 years so that any ships operating in 2050 will be using low/zero carbon fuel.
    https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/press/1561
    Yes, there's a certain amount of greenwashing in it, but the industry can see which way the wind is blowing both from a regulatory perspective and customer demand (big cargo owners want to show that their tat is being transported environmentally). And I spoke to the chief operating officer at Maersk last year who pointed out that "we all have children too". CMA CGM just launched its first ultra-large LNG fuelled box ship, spending more than it could have got away with to use a low-sulphur/carbon fuel.
    They won't get it right all of the time or immediately, but the idea that shipping is some evil empire trying to sneak out of its environmental responsibilities by using open-loop scrubbers is tosh. IMO only said they had to mitigate air emissions, the science regarding open-loops is still being debated (although regulators are closing in on them), and low-sulphur fuel costs are going to make many ships uneconomic to run. Scrubbers may be a less than ideal solution, but they are likely to be a transitional phase on a journey in the right direction.
    We are on the same page but reading different paragraphs!

    The 2008 figure used as the base line by the IMO is a fiddle factor; in 2008 we were still in the super boom until August and every ship afloat was making full speed. I run some ships which were burning 167 tons a day for 24.5knots in 2008 and which are now burning 57 tons a day for 13 knots. Am I an environmental hero?

    I am deeply underwhelmed by LNG as a fuel. I have heard the by pass rate stated as 8% for a diesel and methane as we all know is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. From an economic perspective it is fairly useless stuff as it has a much lower energy density than heavy fuel, so you need twice as much of it.

    I am completely un-worried by the higher costs of LSFO; it’s the old level playing field and once we are all burning it there is no issue, but those owners who have gone in for the so called eco ship types with smaller engines and better thermal efficiency will gain the most.

    I can see nuclear for the big stuff and some versions of hydrogen ( possibly ammonia) and even batteries for the small ships but ultimately I think we will be back to wind and solar.
    Last edited by Kukri; 02-10-19 at 09:25.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Atlantic
    Posts
    21,369

    Default Re: Biggest polluter of our seas

    Quote Originally Posted by newtothis View Post
    The maritime sector is going through a massive period of environmental self-inspection at the moment. IMO has forced through the low-sulphur regs, which no one initially believed could be done. Its new aim is to reduce carbon emissions by half by 2050 c.f. 2008 figures.
    The sector itself is looking to go even further than that, and is aiming to get to zero carbon by then. That means coming up with new fuels within the next 10 years so that any ships operating in 2050 will be using low/zero carbon fuel.
    https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/press/1561
    Yes, there's a certain amount of greenwashing in it, but the industry can see which way the wind is blowing both from a regulatory perspective and customer demand (big cargo owners want to show that their tat is being transported environmentally). And I spoke to the chief operating officer at Maersk last year who pointed out that "we all have children too". CMA CGM just launched its first ultra-large LNG fuelled box ship, spending more than it could have got away with to use a low-sulphur/carbon fuel.
    They won't get it right all of the time or immediately, but the idea that shipping is some evil empire trying to sneak out of its environmental responsibilities by using open-loop scrubbers is tosh. IMO only said they had to mitigate air emissions, the science regarding open-loops is still being debated (although regulators are closing in on them), and low-sulphur fuel costs are going to make many ships uneconomic to run. Scrubbers may be a less than ideal solution, but they are likely to be a transitional phase on a journey in the right direction.
    Thanks for that answer. Kinda what I was hoping for in the grand scheme and a nice quote from the Maersk guy.

    Its also problematic that things take a progressive path to get right, isnt it? And things sometimes have unintended consequenses.

    An example from Gib, that I know and mebbe happening elsewhere. A friend of mine owns a service launch company there. His services include hull bottom scrubbing with divers using powered scrubbers, not a very inviting job. But cleaning a supertanker improves fuel efficiency and as I understand it, removes invasive species of marine growth prohibited in other countries? My own limited experience of that was arriving by yacht in the Galapagos. However, they are doin a lot of work and only recently groups are starting to get agitated about what happens to the arisings? Clouds of crud and anti fouling paint. Is that damaging the marine environment in the Bay?

    A slight drift, but another example of perhaps people not thinking things through.

    Personally, any attempt to reduce pollution has got to be good and the whole of life is trial and error after all.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,922

    Default Re: Biggest polluter of our seas

    In fairness, the international airline sector also escaped due attention for a time, too, because GHG accounting was done on a national basis and both ‘fell into the cracks’. I believe that together their global GHG emissions are about on a par with Germany’s total emissions - but growing very fast. We inevitably tend - in all areas - to get to a point environmentally where the easy fixes get done and further reducing impacts produces others, unforeseen and unintended. I’m not convinced that technological changes will allow us (and our descendants, particularly) to avoid actually reversing to some extent the trends to ever-greater international tourism and trade, but perhaps I’m too pessimistic.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    East coast UK. Mostly. Sometimes the Philippines
    Posts
    9,810

    Default Re: Biggest polluter of our seas

    Antifouling paint particles are not going to do the local sea water creatures any good. When dry docking we collect the residue for reprocessing. If your friend’s customers include Inchcapes Gib office I’m probably a customer at one remove but not for scrubbing antifouling.
    Last edited by Kukri; 02-10-19 at 09:40.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,550

    Default Re: Biggest polluter of our seas

    Quote Originally Posted by Minn View Post
    I can see nuclear for the big stuff and some versions of hydrogen ( possibly ammonia) and even batteries for the small ships but ultimately I think we will be back to wind and solar.
    May I ask for a quick view on a couple of points as and when you have time:

    1. What contribution to you think the AP Moller Maersk bio boats make to this debate? (the so-called Triple-E ocean vessels)
    https://twitter.com/Maersk/status/11...961408/video/1

    2. You mention nuclear, and the US Navy has long been looking for ways to extract CO2 from seawater and then connect the carbon into longer hydrocarbon chains to fuel its jets, fast patrol vessels, etc. The goal is autonomy, not cheap fuel.

    At the moment the cost of such artificially created hydrocarbon chains is (I think) about 2x the cost of mineral oil based fuel, but it's falling slowly.

    The potential for these industries seems vast, or maybe not?
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...tch-180953623/

    Edit: and IF fusion power is ever commercialised, this type of activity opens the door to active carbon reversal?
    Last edited by dom; 02-10-19 at 09:48.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest YBW News

Find Boats For Sale

to
to