Used Oil - Large Ship Air Pollution

[DeepFriar]

I hope this is the right area to bring this to the fore. If not just let me know. I conclude with a short article on the two stroke engines operation. With the discussion of used oil in the PCMO list I began looking at the sources and uses of "bunker oil", the fuel used in those massive diesels that drive the large ocean going ships that bring us 80% of our manufactured goods (and half our oil) from overseas. The information I find beggars belief. While we worry about low SAPS, Mid SAPS, etc. Just 16 major ships emit as much sulphur in one year as ALL THE CARS ON EARTH. And there is a fleet of over 1000 of those ships according to some of the articles. This is so massive I have trouble believing it is anywhere near true and yet the data looks pretty solid. And there is some effort to clean it up but it won't bear fruit till the 2020's apparently. Has it been discussed here before? Is this class of fuel also used in oil fired power plants around the world? How about all the small plants in smaller countries? Here we are, dutifully carrying our oil in for "recycling" and part of it is emitting hideous amounts of pollution. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/21/article-1229857-074F8F57000005DC-715_468x186.jpg "For 31 years, the IMO has operated a policy agreed by the 169 governments that make up the organisation which allows most ships to burn bunker fuel. Christian Eyde Moller, boss of the DK shipping company in Rotterdam, recently described this as ‘just waste oil, basically what is left over after all the cleaner fuels have been extracted from crude oil. It’s tar, the same as asphalt. It’s the cheapest and dirtiest fuel in the world’. Bunker fuel is also thick with sulphur. IMO rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur. That is 4,500 times more than is allowed in car fuel in the European Union. The sulphur comes out of ship funnels as tiny particles, and it is these that get deep into lungs. Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year. With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars." http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-big...-the-world/8182 "It sounds serious, but how bad could it be? Staggeringly, if a report by the UK’s Guardian newspaper is to be believed. According to their story, just one of the world’s largest container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars." http://mh-mechanicalengineering.blogspot.com/2012/06/two-stroke.html

 

[Brybo86]

great idea lets pass a law that the ship needs to put out the same exact emissions as a Prius. Lining the pockets of the "carbon credit" guys who by the way are all driving high end sports cars... go figure

 

[CT8]

It makes me wonder how much pollution volcanoes emit.

 

[raytseng]

There is some hope that with a large ship they can at least burn it efficiently. Where else are you going to use bunker fuel which is the leftovers from refining. You may think convert the bunker fuel to burn cleaner. But what about all the energy required to create the cleaner fuel. Overall you may have less sulfur but way more overall carbon and energy is needed to create the low sulfur fuel so its an environmental wash.

 

[Benito]

This is exactly the reason why pollution / emission causing activity should be taxed rather than having mandates that target various aspects of environmental concern eg CAFE. Taxing activities based on how much pollution / emissions they cause would enable the market to decide on what pollutes less. By extension this would also apply to imports including those from China which then helps create a more level playing field.

 

[HerrStig]

Tax tax tax. The end user pays the tax. Even if it's a phony "global warming" tax. In the end it's income redistribution. Call it that, don't weasel around it.

 

[BHopkins]

Why can't they put scrubbers on the exhaust of large ocean going ships, similar to what is used on electrical plant exhaust stacks?

 

[Shannow]

This has been kicking for 5/6 years here. It's absolutely ludicrous, and clearly legislated by people who have not even the slightest concept of what the issue IS let alone if it needs fixing. Green group (have seen this argument on the idjit box) comes up with an argument that "all the cars in the city need catalytic converters and Ultra Low Sulfur Fuel, how can this gross polluting ship (insert sly reference to the socioeconomics of the people boarding the ship) sail right into the middle of our city without these protections ?" Media grabs it, because they can beat it. Government mandates something stupid. Same people then have their win, and move onto SUVs in urban areas, charcoal grills, wood heating, coal mining.

 

[Danno]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar

With the discussion of used oil in the PCMO list I began looking at the sources and uses of "bunker oil", the fuel used in those massive diesels that drive the large ocean going ships that bring us 80% of our manufactured goods (and half our oil) from overseas.

You missed the floating hotels called cruise ships that burn enormous amounts of bunker fuel - - 500,000 gallons per cruise iirc. Main reason I have not and will not go on a cruise. Pretty sure most passengers are clueless and don't care - but will drive a Prius or Tesla to save the environment. Can't make this stuff up.

 

[Panzerman]

Your absolutely correct. I don't care about the fuel mileage of a cruise ship. For all you tax the bad guys, like it really effects them. I pay the extra for my cruise ticket. You pay extra for goods. The profit margin doesn't change.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

This makes me laugh. A few years ago I was listening to NPR and they interviewed some hippy dippy person who said ships were too polluting and that we should be air freighting everything

 

[DeepFriar]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Media grabs it, because they can beat it.

I guess that's the part that got me most - Media does NOT grab it and hold on to it. It only comes up sporadically at best (apparently beginning with either an article in The Guardian or The Daily Mirror in 2009). Where is that red meat attitude that the media show to the car manufacturers or to the local steel plant (so that it moves to Korea or wherever) or NIMBY project? If those ships had "Audi" on them 60 minutes would be doing the story six times a year, congress would be investigating, etc. I just find it very odd that this is not coming at us from every media outlet in Christendom. I'm guessing that it is because it would make the fight against automotive and other pollution seem less urgent to the audiences of those who write the news. In other words, hey, it may be true but it doesn't help, and indeed may hurt, our pet projects.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

The actual 2009 daily mail article is here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html It's an absurd inequity and has to be resolved. But I would imagine the particulate pollution effects are localized, hence, from the 2013 article: The good news is that pressure is building from various governments around the world, including the United States, which just recently introduced legislation to keep these ships at least 230 miles away from U.S. coastlines. But the long-term costs of CO2 contribution have to be rolled in as well and perhaps that will have the benefit of bringing some manufacturing back home.

 

[DeepFriar]

How do you unload a container ship 230 miles out to sea I wonder?

 

[DeepFriar]

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME

But the long-term costs of CO2 contribution have to be rolled in as well and perhaps that will have the benefit of bringing some manufacturing back home.

Now that is an interesting thought. But it occurs to me also that this is a different kind of NIMBY as well. "As long as it is not in my backyard I don't care", sort of a response. This is how they have gotten away with it up until now - mostly out of sight, out of mind. But these levels of pollution really do have a massive effect overall. I'm no tree hugger but this level of filth needs continual, forceful mediation.

 

[gathermewool]

This stuff is almost as viscous as tar. Large 2-stroke diesels actually need to start-up on a lighter fuel, a form of diesel of a quality between car diesel and bunker C. Once the engine gets going the switch is made to the heated bunker (it has to be heated to be pumped and injected.) It also needs to be heated for centrifugal purification and transfer from storage tanks to day tanks. A couple of thoughts: 1. Most of the time, these ships are very far out to sea, so wouldn't the particulates precipitate out...very far out to sea? 2. The large, bunker-burning ships are only doing so with the mains. In port, the mains are shut down and hotel loads are provided by either shore power or diesel generators. The SSDG's aren't burning very clean fuel -- IME, it's the same stuff that is used to start the mains -- but it's much better than bunker oil. 3. How else are we going to get these goods here and there? As one Miller88 insinuated, thinking that everything (or even a small fraction of everything) can be flown overseas is moronic. 4. It would be nice if something could be done about large ship emissions, but, as you quote how much bad fuel is being burned, think about how much better fuel would cost. A large portion of the cost for cargo ships is fuel. You think the things you buy now are expensive? Try to imagine what would happen if the cost of the fuel needed to meet stricter standards was quadruple, 10X, 20X, 50X the cost of bunker C. I believe there would be a resurgence in American manufacturing; that is, so long as every one here and in other societies are willing to pay substantially more for everyday luxury items. 5. Even if we made a lot of the things we want (and need,) do we have enough resources? If we need resources, how will we get it to our own manufacturers? Truck or rail it up from South America? Interesting topic - definitely a lot to think about.

 

[HerrStig]

Such ships could be powered with reactors at some cost over that of bunker C but what would the Nimbys say to that. I wonder if the Navy has a cost per mile figure for reactor powered surface ships.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig

Such ships could be powered with reactors at some cost over that of bunker C but what would the Nimbys say to that. I wonder if the Navy has a cost per mile figure for reactor powered surface ships.

Navy nuclear reactors use very highly enriched Uranium cores that would never be authorized (if nuclear power ever is for commercial propulsion,) let alone cost-effective for civilian shipping. Furthermore, Navy nukes are the creme de la creme, very highly trained operators and maintenance technicians. If you'd ever spent any time with either, you'd know that the difference in caliber between the personnel and required training is substantial. Add to the initial cost of the reactor plant and continued cost of the crew training and pay the cost of overhaul periods that would make running low-sulfur highway diesel look appealing! Maybe, since I'm just guessing.

 

[Nyogtha]

Here's some info from Chevron on marine fuels that some may find educational. It's a bit dated (2007) but the basics are sound and the "future" specifications have come to pass. Used lubricating oil blending is discussed to some degree, and it should be kept in mind the volumes of marine fuels produced greatly exceed the volumes of used lubricating oils generated. Chevron Marine Products Brochure Link I worked with marine fuel blending, transport, and loading from 1986 to 1990. The current generation of water and solids / sludge separators are pretty interesting IMO. FWIW, the organometallic compounds in the asphaltenes, containing vanadium and nickel, are essential for the reaction we call photosynthesis. They are legacy to petroleum having once been living matter, much of which depended on photosynthesis. The pour points and viscosities are much, much lower than asphalt (such as used for road paving, building shingles, etc.). Imagine if your roof's binder liquefied at 0°C, or the roads you drive on. Stating marine fuel oils are basically "tar" is a mis-statement. The metals in used lubricating oil are all added by man; refining into lube oil base stocks removes the organometallic compounds in those fractions by capture on catalysts (and they subsequently destroy the catalyst's activity as they accumulate). Or, using GTL as one example, the building blocks for the lube base stock lack organometallic compounds from the beginning. So zinc, phosphorous, moly, etc. in the ash in fuels containing used lubricating oil are all from man's addition to formulate the lubricating oils to do their job to start with.

 

[userfriendly]

The teacher maketh me read too much. Other than that, I have missed you.