Used Oil - Large Ship Air Pollution

[Nyogtha]

Originally Posted by Rmay635703

It's kerosene that is the active fluid that gets pumped down and anything from jet fuel to drain oil depending on what is doing the pumping

Kerosene would be rated as #1 Fuel Oil typically. Highly refined kerosene fraction is the typical primary component of jet fuel. More polar climates need at kerosene / naphtha mixture for jet fuel to lower the fuel freeze point. #4 Fuel Oil typically has a considerable waxy fraction used to feed FCCU or hydrocracking units after vacuum distillation, and has to be heated somewhere around 120°F to 150°F to be pumpable. I haven't seen any real demand for #4 fuel oil since the mid-1980's personally. Used drain oil is typically blended into #6 Fuel Oil if not re-refined.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted by Rmay635703

Frac rigs burn 380,000 gallons of #4 every time they start an oil well and every time they need to restart an old one.

Nice but where does the electricity come from to charge the car?,

 

[Rmay635703]

Originally Posted by CT8

Originally Posted by Rmay635703

Frac rigs burn 380,000 gallons of #4 every time they start an oil well and every time they need to restart an old one.

Nice but where does the electricity come from to charge the car?,

100% of local electrical power is hydro from 11pm to about 5 am So if you charge the car on 6 cent electricity it's fueled by falling water. If you charge on 15 cent electricity it's natural gas, 5% nuclear, hydro (but less) wood waste and coal. Our area exports electricity to Canada and Minnesota, the locals get to pay more for that privilege of having unnecessary excess production that also pollutes our area. 90% of my electric bill is taxes and fees, the actual consumption part of my bill last month was $6 Every area is different though, rooftop solar is very common out west for example.

 

[CT8]

The solar out west is because of high power costs and rebates etc. Corruption on the 1 to 100 scale ,,,110.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by Shannow

Originally Posted by Rmay635703

Frac rigs burn 380,000 gallons of #4 every time they start an oil well and every time they need to restart an old one.

Coal Power takes about 50,000gal for a cold start, and burns about 900lb of fuel per MWh to charge those EVs. It take 7,000-10,000 cubic feet of Natural Gas t make that same MWh

And a plant can consume 15% of its output to "run the plant".

 

[Shannow]

Can...but I've only seen 5-7% in my state.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That was directly from a 20+ year power plant worker. Coal plants are the high end, gas turbines the lowest.

 

[Shannow]

30 years next January here...been doing the efficiency reporting for the last 5

 

[DONWATERS]

Doesn't Puerto Rico, Cuba and other countries burn this same stuff to make electricity?

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by gathermewool

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.

Merchant nuclear would be tempting for BAE Systems(who is already involved with civilian boats and hybrid city buses - they used to run the only ship repair center between San Diego and Seattle/Portland) and General Dynamics to enter as a line of business but will the major shipping lines like Maersk/Evergreen/Cosco/Hanjin want to take on such a risk, and with the rise of pirating off the coasts of Africa, the Philippines and in the Middle East a nuclear-powered ship is a tempting target for the terrorists to hijack. The next best thing to that would be have ships burn #1-2 oil and/or switch over to turbine engines but big ships use big, slow engines to move that load efficiently(if not dirty) - even if a modern high-trust aero engine like a GE90 or Rolls-Royce Trent 900/XWB was adapted for ship propulsion, that [censored] thing will scream its lungs out and not be a pleasant thing to be around.

 

[Shannow]

Was on a cruise, and the ship had multiple LM2500s...they scream on land, but on a cruise ship were very very benign (better than the diesels on a later cruise IMO). Clearly they switched fuel when on the ocean...not noticeable to the other passengers, I was paying attention. Honestly, I believe it's much ado about nothing. Although Nukes make perfect sense...in a world where it's more "efficient" (in a Keynsian sense) to make sheetrock in china and then float it over the ocean to another country half a world away. Real world, thermodynamic efficiency (I've been an efficiency engineer in my past), manufacturing would be distributed across a nation, and rail would move it between hubs. The only things shipped would be items of scarcity. Oz exports massive amounts of NG...So much so that we are about to start importing it at the same time as we are exporting it...surley some heads could get together and do contractual swaps for the benefit of us all...but that doesn't keep the moneygoround pumping.

 

[4WD]

Reading the original clip and seeing the picture … he's saying that's the consumption to treat the two wells side by side … (massive HP needed for high pressure/rate x duration of treatment) …

 

[john_pifer]

Originally Posted by 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.

On the one cruise our family went on, back in 2002, the ship was GTG (gas turbine generator) powered. Electric pod propulsion. Can't remember the name of the ship, but it was Celebrity Cruises. Doubt it burned bunker fuel, but it may also have burned something less refined than jet fuel.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by john_pifer

Originally Posted by 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.

On the one cruise our family went on, back in 2002, the ship was GTG (gas turbine generator) powered. Electric pod propulsion. Can't remember the name of the ship, but it was Celebrity Cruises. Doubt it burned bunker fuel, but it may also have burned something less refined than jet fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_Constellation

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

GTS Celebrity Constellation is a Millennium-class cruise ship of Celebrity Cruises. She was originally named Constellation, but renamed in May 2007.[2] Her three sister ships are the Celebrity Infinity, Summit, and Millennium. She was built at the Chantiers de l'Atlantique shipyard in St. Nazaire, France. The ship is powered by a COGAS power plant of gas turbines and a steam turbine providing up to 60 megawatts for the electric systems and two 19 MW Rolls-Royce/Alstom MerMaid azimuth thrusters for propulsion. In 2007, an additional diesel engine was fitted as a fuel-saving measure. The ship can run on any combination of the gas turbines or diesel. In port, she generates electrical power from the diesel.

 

[Nyogtha]

Certain distances from coasts in some areas, ships shift from marine diesel to bunker fuel or vice-versa depending on which direction they're headed. I don't think much of the developing world or Asia and Africa in general (including the Middle East) limits ships from burning bunker fuel near the coasts or in port. Not that long ago, nobody had such limits on where ships may burn bunker fuel.

 

[4WD]

0.1 in some ports of call …

 

[Purpfox]

The Bunker fuel i delt with was real nasty. We loaded ships main tanks with "tank bottoms" that would be transferred to fuel tanks once in international waters. State side they had to run a #2 blend. we unloaded railcars that had to be heated to 130 + to be able to pump them. I can only imagine the smoke from the stacks on anything burning that stuff.

 

[Exhaustgases]

Burn any fuel hot enough and there will be no pollution. Nuclear? Krypton 85 one of the most dangerous of all so called green house gases, makes anything an internal combustion engine puts out look like fresh air.

 

[Olas]

We dont need cruise ships or aircraft, we just need super strong catapults. that'll stop air pollution

 

[MolaKule]

Necro post getting off-topic so we'll close it.