Low sulphur fuel

[chengkp75]

And the ferries that run in and out of Circular Quay and around the harbour all day every day run on what????????? diesel I bet ..... lets get rid of them as well :mad::mad:

 

PS: Sorry Mr Jones that's ferries...not fairies.

 

While I feel your pain over this, the ferries most likely already run on diesel fuel, which while most likely not the low sulfur type that is proposed, is most likely 1% sulfur, while the residual fuel used by cruise and ocean-going ships is 3.5% sulfur.

[gbenjo]

While I feel your pain over this, the ferries most likely already run on diesel fuel, which while most likely not the low sulfur type that is proposed, is most likely 1% sulfur, while the residual fuel used by cruise and ocean-going ships is 3.5% sulfur.

 

Perhaps, but the sum of the total of ferries operating hours would far outweigh the the total of the cruise ships and the ferries operate all year round whereas the majority ofcruise ships are here basically for only six months of the year.

Edited March 12, 2015 by gbenjo

[chengkp75]

Perhaps, but the sum of the total of ferries operating hours would far outweigh the the total of the cruise ships and the ferries operate all year round whereas the majority ofcruise ships are here basically for only six months of the year.

 

I totally agree that singling out the cruise industry is mainly political rhetoric. From my skimming of some of the articles posted, it appears that they first wanted to limit the ECA to White Bay (does this harbor have any cargo ship operations?) but now want to extend it to all NSW ports. Again, I cannot believe that any scientific study would show that the emissions from cruise ships would be more than those from cargo ships, which appear to be exempt from the emissions limits. If my reading is correct, this is typical politician sleight of hand to "tax" a "luxury" industry, without applying the same standards to something that would affect the cost of living for most of their constituents.

 

The 0.1% sulfur diesel fuel costs about twice as much as 3.5% sulfur residual fuel oil.

Edited March 12, 2015 by chengkp75

[The_Big_M]

I totally agree that singling out the cruise industry is mainly political rhetoric. From my skimming of some of the articles posted, it appears that they first wanted to limit the ECA to White Bay (does this harbor have any cargo ship operations?) but now want to extend it to all NSW ports. Again, I cannot believe that any scientific study would show that the emissions from cruise ships would be more than those from cargo ships, which appear to be exempt from the emissions limits. If my reading is correct, this is typical politician sleight of hand to "tax" a "luxury" industry, without applying the same standards to something that would affect the cost of living for most of their constituents.

 

The 0.1% sulfur diesel fuel costs about twice as much as 3.5% sulfur residual fuel oil.

 

That specific wharf doesn't, but the harbour does have cargo ship operations.

 

The original motivation wasn't an environmental initiative, but that that wharf was recently built, right at the base of a residential area. Residents are up in arms about it, which has provoked some action after some time.

 

So the initiative has really come out of addressing a specific complaint, rather than trying for best practice or for environmental concerns (which our current governments aren't really that concerned about).

[gbenjo]

That specific wharf doesn't, but the harbour does have cargo ship operations.

 

The original motivation wasn't an environmental initiative, but that that wharf was recently built, right at the base of a residential area. Residents are up in arms about it, which has provoked some action after some time.

 

So the initiative has really come out of addressing a specific complaint, rather than trying for best practice or for environmental concerns (which our current governments aren't really that concerned about).

 

Not very many cargo ships use Sydney Harbour these days. The vast majority, in fact I think all, use Port Botany

[OzKiwiJJ]

The original motivation wasn't an environmental initiative, but that that wharf was recently built, right at the base of a residential area. Residents are up in arms about it, which has provoked some action after some time.

 

 

I thought White Bay was always a working wharf? Wasn't it where cars were shipped to? OK, I guess the freighters aren't as big as cruise ships but even so, it's not like they bulldozed a whole pile of houses to build the wharf.

[GUT2407]

I thought White Bay was always a working wharf? Wasn't it where cars were shipped to? OK, I guess the freighters aren't as big as cruise ships but even so, it's not like they bulldozed a whole pile of houses to build the wharf.

But those ships didn't need to run 24/7 they'd dock and unload.

[OzKiwiJJ]

But those ships didn't need to run 24/7 they'd dock and unload.

 

Most cruise ships don't run 24/7 at White Bay, they arrive around 6:30am and depart around 6:30pm, and not every day of the week except perhaps in peak times which is probably less than two months of the year.

Edited March 13, 2015 by OzKiwiJJ

[The_Big_M]

Not very many cargo ships use Sydney Harbour these days. The vast majority, in fact I think all, use Port Botany

 

Agreed, not many, but there's still a few.

 

There was one at the berths opposite White Bay last week.

[cruisine21]

A local member for Balmain commented on the news a few nights ago that a lot of the ships dock overnight. Which is rubbish especially at White Bay.

[The_Big_M]

I thought White Bay was always a working wharf? Wasn't it where cars were shipped to? OK, I guess the freighters aren't as big as cruise ships but even so, it's not like they bulldozed a whole pile of houses to build the wharf.

 

Yes, it had been a working area for many years.

 

There was probably a decade before the cruise terminal opened that it was used more for storage, without a lot of activity.

Edited March 13, 2015 by The_Big_M

[OzKiwiJJ]

A local member for Balmain commented on the news a few nights ago that a lot of the ships dock overnight. Which is rubbish especially at White Bay.

 

In the six months between 1st October 2015 and 31st March 2016 only about 13 ships will overnight in White Bay. In fact they appear to be all between mid-January and mid-March 2016.

[The_Big_M]

A local member for Balmain commented on the news a few nights ago that a lot of the ships dock overnight. Which is rubbish especially at White Bay.

 

Well, it's rubbish in terms of being "a lot." But like many things, there's a grain of truth that is extrapolated out, as a small number of ships do stay overnight, at both OPT and White Bay.

[chengkp75]

But those ships didn't need to run 24/7 they'd dock and unload.

 

Not following you. The cargo ships are still running diesels to provide electrical power for lighting and cargo gear. The propulsion diesel is stopped, but similarly the cruise ship only runs one diesel in port, while using 4-5 at sea. So all the ships are burning fuel 24/7.

 

I've seen this here in the states as well, where folks will use an environmental cover to attract support to push an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment.