Environmental impact of cruising and tourism

[cruisemom42]

53 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

I was recently driving in Manhattan (New York) and the truly amazing unscientific fact was that the wheels of my gas guzzling car were griping the dry streets.  Not many years ago there were numerous scientific predictions that the city would be under water by now.  I seem to recall that claim was led by James Hansen, a very respected climatologist who used to head up NASA's climate arm.  But modern science has become quite interesting (not much different then old science) in that most "scientific" predictions that fail to happen are discarded (and forgotten by the very same folks that made the prediction) as they move on to new predictions....that generate more funding so they can pat each other on the back and make even more predictions that do not come true.  

 

It is similar to the child who cries wolf.  Perhaps one day a "scientific" prediction about climate will actually come true.  But the world trying to chase scientific predictions is similar to a cat chasing its tail.  But in this case the cat is chasing huge grants that are on the edge of that tail.  If I announced $10 Billion in grants for studies that "prove" that sea levels are falling, the ice pack is increasing, and the earth is heading to another ice age (we have heard this one before), there would quickly be lots of papers to support all these claims and some publications claiming it is the new "scientific consensus."  These days science is driven by money and those who are brave enough to use real science to counter the "consensus" are quickly dismissed as idiots.  It is kind of like Pythagoras who was dismissed for having the gall to suggest that the earth was not flat.     

 

Hank

 

Science is not an "all or nothing" game. Everyone wants things to be 100% black or 100% white these days, but good science depends upon an aggregation of data over many trials, experiments and observations, leading to refinements of original hypotheses, etc.. (Which is why it is just as important to publish negative results as positive ones, but that's another ball of wax...)

 

Imagine if we gave up trying to do heart transplants because the first ones did not work out so well? Climate change is still something we are learning about.

 

As someone who prefers to think in more moderate terms, I could point out that many of Hansen's predictions have indeed come to pass. And if you want to bring up flooding in NYC, it isn't hard to find the data on more frequent and more severe flooding in lower Manhattan over the past decade or two. Following "superstorm" Sandy, parts of Manhattan were flooded by 10 feet of water in some areas. And the city is concerned enough about this to propose a number of projects to shore up protections against future flooding, including funding of nearly $1.5 billion for the so-called East Side Coastal Resiliency Project which calls for adding soil and flood walls to the existing esplanade. And that's in addition to a separate Lower Manhattan Coastal Resiliency Project.

 

So perhaps NYC isn't underwater, but on the other hand, problems are certainly manifesting that suggest there is some reason for concern and preventive action....  

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, rafinmd said:

A question for chengkp75.  I think it's pretty clear that larger ships are more fuel efficient than smaller ones, and that new ships are more efficient than old ones.  Have you seen any studies about the total environmental costs of continuing to run an older, smaller ship vs the environmental cost of building a new ship and scrapping an old one?

 

Roy

Newer ships may be more fuel efficient than older ships, that depends on a lot of design factors, like hull design, hull paint, and power generation type and distribution systems.

 

I can't say that larger ships are more fuel efficient than smaller ships.   What makes larger ships desirable is the economy of scale, not necessarily fuel cost savings through efficiency.  What this means is that the difference between two 2500 pax ships and one 5000 pax ship is that you are only building one thing, albeit larger.  Example, two small ships would have 5-6 diesel engines each, for a total of 10-12 engines, each costing an amount of money, and each requiring its own associated auxiliary systems for redundancy.  That one larger ship only needs 5-6 larger engines, with less redundant systems, so even though the larger engines cost more, they cost less than 2 smaller engines.  And so on through all of the construction items needed to build a ship.

 

As for studies or environmental costs, I don't think there are any with regards to comparison to newer tonnage.  Each line makes these kinds of decisions at a corporate level each time someone feels the need to increase capacity.  Now, older tonnage is known to cost more to maintain, simply because it is older, and the rules of the class societies change when a ship becomes 15 years old, requiring more frequent, more intense, and more detailed inspections be done.  Pretty much at the 15 year point in a ship's life, the maintenance costs reach the "shoulder" of a parabolic curve, and start to increase exponentially.

[HappyInVan]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I was recently driving in Manhattan (New York) and the truly amazing unscientific fact was that the wheels of my gas guzzling car were griping the dry streets.  Not many years ago there were numerous scientific predictions that the city would be under water by now.  I seem to recall that claim was led by James Hansen, a very respected climatologist who used to head up NASA's climate arm.  

 

Where is the exact source of your remarks? Is it the recollection of your interpretation of media reports? What is that worth?

 

Meanwhile, do you recall this?

 

https://grist.org/article/terrifying-map-shows-all-the-parts-of-america-that-might-soon-flood/

 

or this

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River_Floods_of_2019

 

Apparently, the experts at the insurance companies are working on education to limit flood damage...

 

"Climate change will crush real estate values for investors who don’t prepare, new report says"

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/climate-change-will-crush-real-estate-values-for-unprepared-investors-report.html

 

 

[HappyInVan]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Sigh, just stating that an opacity meter is used for detecting SOX emissions shows how much is needed to be learned.  SOX emissions can be present in clear stack gases, and needs a laser flourescent spectrometer.

 

Yes, Carnival Corp has been found guilty of environmental violations, has been punished, has been required to meet stricter standards during the remaining probation period, and is faced with additional fines, up to $10 million/day, for not meeting set benchmarks in creating an environmental compliance program going forward.

 

 

 

You're a 45-year industry veteran. You know the truth. The vast majority of ships will not be using EGCS. That's because a truly effective retrofitted EGCS is very expensive. Carnival has gone the cheap route, and it's not reliable. 

 

Now, the judge has revealed the truth. The customers should know the truth. The residents of Southampton etc must be cheering. I wonder if there will be able to mount lawsuits? Like the lawsuits against big tobacco and opioid manufacturers. There'll be well-funded proper research on air-pollution in ports etc.

 

Yes, doing things right will be more expensive. But, customers will be willing to pay if they knew the real costs of things, and cruises. I don't suppose you're willing to do that? Then, I don't have to do the big reveal.

 

Now that the DOJ understands the nature of the corruption at Carnival, the company will be subject to much more scrutiny. In the past, the company has blamed rogue employees, and a few rotten apples. In the future, I hope that the governments will charge officers and management.

 

I'm a simple finance guy. I prefer to tell the truth. I don't trust anyone once they lied and cheated, while collecting bonuses. I don't suppose that CEO Donald will return his bonuses?

 

I have zero trust in Carnival. If they can tamper with the opacity monitors (to measure particle emission from dirty fuel), then any measuring  device is unsafe. That's why tamper-proof data recorders need to be installed on all Carnival ships.

 

This discussion has been very enlightening. What do you do in your day job? I don't think that you're a deck officer.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by HappyInVan

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

 

You're a 45-year industry veteran. You know the truth. The vast majority of ships will not be using EGCS. That's because a truly effective retrofitted EGCS is very expensive. Carnival has gone the cheap route, and it's not reliable. 

 

Now, the judge has revealed the truth. The customers should know the truth. The residents of Southampton etc must be cheering. I wonder if there will be able to mount lawsuits? Like the lawsuits against big tobacco and opioid manufacturers.

 

Yes, doing things right will be more expensive. But, customers will be willing to pay if they knew the real costs of things, and cruises. I don't suppose you're willing to do that? Then, I don't have to do the big reveal.

 

Now that the DOJ understands the nature of the corruption at Carnival, the company will be subject to much more scrutiny. In the past, the company has blamed rogue employees, and a few rotten apples. In the future, I hope that the governments will charge officers and management.

 

I'm a simple finance guy. I prefer to tell the truth. I don't trust anyone once they lied and cheated, while collecting bonuses. I don't suppose that CEO Donald will return his bonuses?

 

I have zero trust in Carnival. If they can tamper with the opacity monitors (to measure particle emission from dirty fuel), then any measuring  device is unsafe. That's why tamper-proof data recorders need to be installed on all Carnival ships.

 

This discussion has been very enlightening. What do you do in your day job? I don't think that you're a deck officer.

 

Let's dissect this, and then I will concede the doctoral thesis battle to you, and welcome to it:

 

You say "the vast majority of ships will not be using EGCS.  Where is the basis of this statement?  You ask me for sources, what is yours.  The IMO fuel sulfur limits apply to every ship, of every flag, everywhere in the world next year.  Further, if ships purchase residual fuel with 0.5% sulfur (and it is currently available, but pricey, and production increases are possible), then they don't need a scrubber to meet the sulfur limits outside the ECA's.  Within the ECA's, all ships, of every age, of every flag, of every type, will need to either have a scrubber or burn low sulfur diesel fuel (note, diesel fuel not residual fuel, at 0.1% sulfur).  Who ensures this?  Port State Control agencies like the USCG, and third party auditors, are tasked with checking ship's fuel records (that's how the Carnival ships were found).  Ships can face fines, or detention for improper records (like Carnival).

 

 

Please tell me how expensive a scrubber is, since you claim it is "very expensive".  I have a friend who works for a cruise line as the superintendent engineer for scrubber installations, and I have studied scrubbers myself.  A typical scrubber for an engine the size of the largest engines in Oasis of the Seas is about $1-1.5 million per engine, depending on type.  The difference in fuel cost between using high sulfur residual fuel or low sulfur diesel fuel makes the payback period on the scrubber, about 5-7 years, if the ship spends half of the year in the ECA, shorter if in the ECA longer.

 

You make it sound like Carnival routinely burned high sulfur fuel in the ECA, but in fact the instances were either caused by failure of equipment (guess that never happens to your car or appliances), or by poor record keeping.  I have switched fuels on ships when entering ECA's, and it isn't a flick of the switch.  On many ships it requires decisions be made 72 hours prior to entering the ECA to ensure the fuel is all switched over.  Yes, Carnival failed in their training of crew, and yes, they failed in implementing their environmental compliance culture.  You still haven't answered a finance question as to how you know the profit "pressure" is less at Ponant, when you can't see their financials.  Also, since there is no international database for environmental violations, there is little way to research whether Ponant has been fined in the past for violations.

 

For the studies of particulate matter, there is no "particle size" or "particle count" regulation, even from the US EPA for diesel engines, it is a total grams/kilowatt-hour weight of emissions.  If the scientists doing these studies were looking for violations they would know this, and measure it accordingly.  If they are looking for stricter regulations, then it has nothing to do with the cruise ships, but everything to do with national governments, and international agencies like the IMO.

 

Day job?  Been a ship's engineer for 45 years, Chief for over 35.

[kazu]

2 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

This discussion has been very enlightening. What do you do in your day job? I don't think that you're a deck officer.

 

 

I’ve stayed out of this until now

 

But now, you’ve really shown how little you know or appreciate some of our CC members.

 

You don’t like being challenged - I get it.  You want to be right - I get it.

 

Bottom line - the person’s posts that you are challenging has more credibility than your own long winded ones.

[*Miss G*]

The screen name is pretty much a dead giveaway.

[HappyInVan]

8 hours ago, Hlitner said:

These days science is driven by money and those who are brave enough to use real science to counter the "consensus" are quickly dismissed as idiots.  It is kind of like Pythagoras who was dismissed for having the gall to suggest that the earth was not flat.     

 

Hank

 

Your understanding of how science is conducted is inaccurate.

 

Anyway, I apologise for my angry reply to you. My head exploded when you compared yourself to Pythagoras who was a philosopher (not a scientist). Read about his religious and metaphysical beliefs.

 

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

 

The man (not clear if he is mythical) proposed that the earth was spherical. We now know that it is an ellipsoid. There is no evidence about how he came to this conclusion. Do note that the man and his Greek compatriots had many interesting and imaginative beliefs. Most of which were wrong or 'unproveable'.

 

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

 

One eminent scientific rebel was Galileo. Using new optical instruments, he came to conclusions based on observation and deduction. Very different from the religious dogma of the day. Gallileo is the model for the modern day scientists. Building hypothesis that can be experimentally verified. Building and deploying new technology. A key analytical tool is statistics.

 

You are not Galileo who was part of a broad movement in transition from the renaissance to the Enlightenment. Scientists do not pull ideas out of the air. They agree that their hypothesis is wrong when the null hypothesis is proven. They work hard.

[kazu]

<sigh>. 
 

HappyInVan (I guess you burn energy of some sort in your van), your horse died a while ago.  Stop beating it.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Your understanding of how science is conducted is inaccurate.

 

Anyway, I apologise for my angry reply to you. My head exploded when you compared yourself to Pythagoras who was a philosopher (not a scientist). Read about his religious and metaphysical beliefs.

 

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

 

The man (not clear if he is mythical) proposed that the earth was spherical. We now know that it is an ellipsoid. There is no evidence about how he came to this conclusion. Do note that the man and his Greek compatriots had many interesting and imaginative beliefs. Most of which were wrong or 'unproveable'.

 

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

 

One eminent scientific rebel was Galileo. Using new optical instruments, he came to conclusions based on observation and deduction. Very different from the religious dogma of the day. Gallileo is the model for the modern day scientists. Building hypothesis that can be experimentally verified. Building and deploying new technology. A key analytical tool is statistics.

 

You are not Galileo who was part of a broad movement in transition from the renaissance to the Enlightenment. Scientists do not pull ideas out of the air. They agree that their hypothesis is wrong when the null hypothesis is proven. They work hard.

You do wax tiresome — quoting so much, yet offering so little.

 

 On just one point - yes, Earth is an ellipsoid - but why use a term with such broad meaning - a football is also an ellipsoid.  Why not consider “oblate spheroid” 

[HappyInVan]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

 On just one point - yes, Earth is an ellipsoid - but why use a term with such broad meaning - a football is also an ellipsoid.  Why not consider “oblate spheroid” 

 

Thanks for adding nichto!

[HappyInVan]

3 hours ago, kazu said:

<sigh>. 
 

HappyInVan (I guess you burn energy of some sort in your van), your horse died a while ago.  Stop beating it.

 

😵

 

Really? You, Kazu? 

 

50k posts in 10 years. How much hot air? How many more posts in this thread?

[navybankerteacher]

9 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Thanks for adding nichto!

Por nada.

[rafinmd]

On 6/12/2019 at 11:09 PM, HappyInVan said:

I spend the 2000s home-bound because of greenhouse gas climate change. In 2010, I realized that it wasn't going to work. That we wouldn't be able to hold the global temperature rise to 2 degrees (the tipping point).

 

So, I've been travelling a lot since then. It's not my problem. I have no children, and I'll be out of here in another 10-20 years. It's your problem if you have children, or if you're around in 2050.

 

The most recent analysis suggest that we will be at the 2 degree tipping point by 2050. Then, the desperate struggle will be to hold the rise to 5 degrees. Lots of fun.

 

FYI, this is a report 4-years ago of the revised estimates...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/09/global-warming-set-to-speed-up-to-rates-not-seen-for-1000-years

 

Good luck.

Your original post in this thread.  You travel a lot because it's "not my problem" but you feel very free to criticize others.

 

8 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

😵

 

Really? You, Kazu? 

 

50k posts in 10 years. How much hot air? How many more posts in this thread?

Really!

Kazu- 4 posts total in the thread

HappyInVan about 25 including 5 just on this page.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Roy

[HappyInVan]

2 hours ago, rafinmd said:

Your original post in this thread.  You travel a lot because it's "not my problem" but you feel very free to criticize others.

 

 

 

That's right! I criticize Carnival for criminal behaviour. That's why I cancelled the Mediterranean cruise in October. Hello Ponant.

 

Yes, I've pointed out that kuzu has 50k posts, and he has added nothing material here. BTW, what ae your solutions?

Edited July 7, 2019 by HappyInVan

[KroozNut]

26 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

...and he has added nothing material here.

 

And I would say that you have added nothing material here either, except a bunch of hot air. 🙄 Agree with kazu that your horse died a while ago, so perhaps you should consider not beating it anymore. 

[HappyInVan]

15 minutes ago, KroozNut said:

 

And I would say that you have added nothing material here either, except a bunch of hot air. 🙄 Agree with kazu that your horse died a while ago, so perhaps you should consider not beating it anymore. 

 

That's soooo wrong. I've criticized Carnival, tried to identify the scope of the problem, and I'm walking way. Others can do the same if they know the whole truth. What are you doing about it? 🤣

Edited July 7, 2019 by HappyInVan

[RocketMan275]

34 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

BTW, what ae your solutions?

What are your solutions?  Lay out a plan that would limit the temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius.  Be specific.  Exactly what changes would have to be made to life styles?  Changes in transportation.  Need to ban air travel?  Changes in housing?  Would we all need to move into high rise apartments?  How much square footage per person allowed?  How about meat production?  How much will this plan cost?   How will it be financed?  Taxes?   

 

How would your plan deal with equity in life styles?  Would life styles have to be limited to the same living standard in all countries world wide?    Will everyone, world wide, be given a carbon budget limiting their GHG annually?  In the interest of fairness, why should the residents of one country have a different life style than those of another country? How about population control?  What will the role of global organizations be in enforcing this plan?  Will the UN, for example, decide these questions? Do we need a global government to manage this global plan?

 

BTW, buying carbon offsets isn't a plan.

[HappyInVan]

On 7/6/2019 at 8:50 AM, chengkp75 said:

Yes, Carnival Corp has been found guilty of environmental violations, has been punished, has been required to meet stricter standards during the remaining probation period, and is faced with additional fines, up to $10 million/day, for not meeting set benchmarks in creating an environmental compliance program going forward.

 

 

 

 

Sigh! 😏

 

Correction: Carnival has been tasked with creating a management system that properly handles pollution issues in compliance with legal requirements FOR ALL TIME. Not just for the probation period. I'm sure that this is just a slip of the pen of the chief engineer.

 

Correction: The potential fine is for meeting a dateline set by the court. It's management's job to set benchmarks in the program. Yes, all this management and legalese stuff is very confusing. 👶

 

Darn, I really admire that Princess whistleblower who started this ball rolling in 2013. Anyone know his name?

Edited July 7, 2019 by HappyInVan

[HappyInVan]

On 7/6/2019 at 12:12 PM, chengkp75 said:

 

Day job?  Been a ship's engineer for 45 years, Chief for over 35.

 

Thanks!!!!!

 

I was listening to the chatter. Looks like most folks are going with 0.5% fuel. Some concerns about the availability of that fuel in 2020. Some negative comments about EGCS. Number of ships fitted with EGCA by January 1^st 2020 ...

 

https://shipinsight.com/articles/egcsa-database-to-eliminate-scrubber-uncertainty

 

 

Just questions on two topics for the chief engineer.

 

Can you comment on the problems reported by Carnival's court appointed monitor. To repeat the except from StandEarth's letter to the IMO...

 

https://www.stand.earth/blog/markets-vs-climate/carnivals-cruise-pollution/open-letter-international-maritime-organization

 

“The CAM Team identified over thirty reported incidents on Covered [Carnival Corporation & plc] Vessels related to EGCSs during ECP Year One. Many of these incidents relate to unexpected EGCS shutdowns resulting in violations of air emission requirements. For example, the Carnival Ecstasy experienced multiple ECGS shutdowns in May, July, and October 2017 due to equipment malfunctions. See Carnival Corporation & plc HESS Weekly Flash Reports (June 23, 2017, July 27, 2017, and Oct. 18, 2017). As a result, the ship impermissibly burned heavy fuel oil in Emission Control Areas without an EGCS online.”

 

Plus, this comment from the StandEarth letter.

 

“The report documents air pollution violations occurring across Carnival’s brands and locations, with failures noted in multiple vessels of the Holland America Line, Carnival Cruise Line, P&O Cruises, Princess Cruises, and Cunard. They occurred in the North American, U.S. Caribbean, and North Sea Emissions Control Areas.”

 

Is this level of reliability worrisome? Should the ship stay at sea until the ECGS is online? Could the reliability get worse with time? Are your ships burning 0.5% fuel in 2020, if it is not a secret?

 

Second, you've been a mariner for 45 years. It covers the go-go days when it wasn't illegal to dump waste in the wilderness and oceans. Would it be simplistic to require ships to transfer their waste to proper shore facilities for sorting/disposal?

 

You pointed out that it would add costs to freight. How much? Shouldn't the customers be told and allowed to make the choice? Ditto for cruise ships. As MARPOL continues to tighten standards, the easiest solution for mariners would be to pass the problem to shore-side? After all, the waste from close loop BC scrubbers cannot be disposed at sea or incinerated.

 

[HappyInVan]

On 7/7/2019 at 9:30 AM, RocketMan275 said:

What are your solutions?  Lay out a plan that would limit the temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius.  Be specific.  Exactly what changes would have to be made to life styles?  …..  What will the role of global organizations be in enforcing this plan?  Will the UN, for example, decide these questions? Do we need a global government to manage this global plan?

 

BTW, buying carbon offsets isn't a plan.

 

Don't direct your righteous anger at me. Look in the mirror.

 

There's no practical option that doesn't involve taxes and fines at some point. Solar power is the logical substitute for fossil fuel. Convert excess solar radiation into energy, and give it a kick-start by taxing users of fossil fuel.

 

Build flood defences. Gotta fund the projects. The public sector has to lead the way. Then, the private sector has its choices from the incentives and disincentives; including the carbon tax.

 

Think you can capture and store carbon. Give it a try!

 

Like I said. Its too little too late. The Chinese and EU and fully committed. Canada and Japan will follow. The big obstacle is that large consumer society whose freedom is 'precious'.

 

(49,641 posts to go)

 

[old mike]

42 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

There's no practical option that doesn't involve taxes and fines at some point. Solar power is the logical substitute for fossil fuel. Convert excess solar radiation into energy, and give it a kick-start by taxing users of fossil fuel.

 

Complete rubbish, you clearly did not read the link I gave you several pages ago on the realities of alternate energy.

 

I have some unicorns for sale, Perhaps you would like to buy one, you do have to supply your own rainbow though.

 

 

[KirkNC]

On 7/7/2019 at 11:41 AM, HappyInVan said:

 

That's right! I criticize Carnival for criminal behaviour. That's why I cancelled the Mediterranean cruise in October. Hello Ponant.

 

Yes, I've pointed out that kuzu has 50k posts, and he has added nothing material here. BTW, what ae your solutions?

 

Fyi, Kuzu is a lady.....

[chengkp75]

On 7/8/2019 at 2:02 PM, HappyInVan said:

 

Thanks!!!!!

 

I was listening to the chatter. Looks like most folks are going with 0.5% fuel. Some concerns about the availability of that fuel in 2020. Some negative comments about EGCS. Number of ships fitted with EGCA by January 1^st 2020 ...

 

https://shipinsight.com/articles/egcsa-database-to-eliminate-scrubber-uncertainty

 

 

Just questions on two topics for the chief engineer.

 

Can you comment on the problems reported by Carnival's court appointed monitor. To repeat the except from StandEarth's letter to the IMO...

 

https://www.stand.earth/blog/markets-vs-climate/carnivals-cruise-pollution/open-letter-international-maritime-organization

 

“The CAM Team identified over thirty reported incidents on Covered [Carnival Corporation & plc] Vessels related to EGCSs during ECP Year One. Many of these incidents relate to unexpected EGCS shutdowns resulting in violations of air emission requirements. For example, the Carnival Ecstasy experienced multiple ECGS shutdowns in May, July, and October 2017 due to equipment malfunctions. See Carnival Corporation & plc HESS Weekly Flash Reports (June 23, 2017, July 27, 2017, and Oct. 18, 2017). As a result, the ship impermissibly burned heavy fuel oil in Emission Control Areas without an EGCS online.”

 

Plus, this comment from the StandEarth letter.

 

“The report documents air pollution violations occurring across Carnival’s brands and locations, with failures noted in multiple vessels of the Holland America Line, Carnival Cruise Line, P&O Cruises, Princess Cruises, and Cunard. They occurred in the North American, U.S. Caribbean, and North Sea Emissions Control Areas.”

 

Is this level of reliability worrisome? Should the ship stay at sea until the ECGS is online? Could the reliability get worse with time? Are your ships burning 0.5% fuel in 2020, if it is not a secret?

 

Second, you've been a mariner for 45 years. It covers the go-go days when it wasn't illegal to dump waste in the wilderness and oceans. Would it be simplistic to require ships to transfer their waste to proper shore facilities for sorting/disposal?

 

You pointed out that it would add costs to freight. How much? Shouldn't the customers be told and allowed to make the choice? Ditto for cruise ships. As MARPOL continues to tighten standards, the easiest solution for mariners would be to pass the problem to shore-side? After all, the waste from close loop BC scrubbers cannot be disposed at sea or incinerated.

 

Without seeing the exact violations, its very difficult to determine.  Remember, this is a summary report, and it is quite long.  I don't know how old the Ecstasy's scrubbers are, so there may be some training issues, there may be some juvenile failures as there are in all new systems.  They may be record keeping violations (not recording where and when fuel was changed, or scrubbers started), or that they started too late, and the transition finished when inside the ECA.  Scrubber reliability does not get worse with age, any more than any other mechanical system does.  The ship should have written procedures to follow if/when the scrubber fails inside or approaching an ECA, for quickly switching over to low sulfur fuel, which all the ships carry as well as the high sulfur residual fuel.

 

My ship operates entirely within the North American ECA, so we have been burning 1.0% sulfur fuel since 2010, and 0.1% sulfur fuel since January 2015.

 

Not sure what you are referring to with dumping waste in the ocean, when you ask if it would be simple to "require ships to transfer their waste ashore"?  At present, and for the last many years, that is exactly what has been required, for most waste streams onboard ships.  No garbage is allowed overboard with the exception of ground food waste.  Sewage must be treated to minimum standards (and most cruise ships go far beyond this).  Oily water must be treated to remove oil to minimum standards (and again most cruise ships go far beyond what most cargo ships do).  "Oily residues" or "slops and sludges" from operating marine engines (used lube oil, sludges separated from fuels, etc) are either incinerated onboard, or pumped ashore for re-refining or incineration ashore.

 

How much will it affect freight?  Right now, the price difference between high sulfur residual fuel ($348/ton in Houston average this year) and diesel fuel ($604/ton) is about 73% more for diesel.  The projections I've seen will place low sulfur residual fuel (0.5%) somewhere between, but the gap between diesel and high sulfur fuel will widen due to shifting demand caused by the regulations.  So, there is a cost to install a scrubber, or there is a cost to buying the low sulfur fuel required without the scrubber.  Fuel cost is the largest single item in the transportation chain.  What customers are to be told, and make what choice?  Which ship the product will be shipped on?  Really?  When there are many layers between the consumer and the producer in the shipping logistics train, spanning multiple companies and multiple countries?

 

As for waste from a closed loop scrubber, most are operated as open loop, if their effluent meets standards, except in ports, where most ports require closed loop.  The only difference is that there is more treatment of the effluent of an open loop system to reduce the pH of the effluent.  And, if the ship has a waste oil incinerator (nearly every cargo ship does, many cruise ships do not), then yes the sludge from the scrubber can be incinerated.  Diesel engines cannot control the temperature of combustion, which is why you get emissions, just like a car.  An incinerator controls the exhaust temperature, burning hotter if the temperature drops, to maintain a temperature where the sulfur and other things being incinerated are done at temperatures that create inert, or at least non-toxic, products from the sulfur, etc.  This is done at land incinerators all the time.

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Solar power is the logical substitute for fossil fuel. Convert excess solar radiation into energy, and give it a kick-start by taxing users of fossil fuel.

 

Since you like sources, here is an article that talks about the relative "density" of various power sources:

 

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-renewable-energy-sources-space-fossil.html

 

Where it says that solar power can take up to 1000 times the space of a gas powered plant of the same power.  While it says that advances could see a 3-5 times increase in solar density by the mid century, that still leaves an awful lot of "ground" to make up, ground covered in solar panels.  And, while West Texas ranchers make a lot of extra bucks putting up wind generators on their sage brush covered semi-desert acres, while still running cattle on them, it is again a low density generator, and different from covering acres with solar panels where nothing can grow under them.