Thank St Greta for saving us

Minn said:
I can bore for Britain on this.

There are four «*solutions*»:

1. Buy low sulphur fuel oil. That’s what my outfit are doing. There are issues with this that I can witter on about if asked - there are some crude oils that have a very low sulphur content (some Chinese and West African crudes) and there are several arrangements for making low sulphur fuel oil from higher sulphur crudes but the fuel oils tend to be unstable or incompatible or both.

2. Burn marine gas oil. That’s basically the same stuff as road diesel. You can probably spot the problem given that the world merchant fleet uses about the same amount of fuel as diesel road vehicles.., there are also exotic engineering issues

3. Fit closed loop scrubbers. Significantly expensive - say US$ 6M per ship plus operating costs including proper sludge disposal which few ports are set up to handle as well as supply of chemicals.

4. Fit open loop scrubbers and simply wash the excess sulphur oxides into the sea. The cheap and dirty solution, already banned in many places, including the entire coast of China...
Click to expand...

Interesting and informative, thanks

All this just shows how the focus on a narrow view of emissions targets (eg cars), ignores the big issues around large ship and aircraft emissions, which as cross national boundaries have been conveniently ignored until recently.
It is good that some people with foresight, conscience and stamina have managed to start some progress in these areas.
Though as others note, ultimately buying less short term disposable goods and travelling less will be the only really effective measures.
 
Minn said:
I can bore for Britain on this.

There are four «*solutions*»:

1. Buy low sulphur fuel oil. That’s what my outfit are doing. There are issues with this that I can witter on about if asked - there are some crude oils that have a very low sulphur content (some Chinese and West African crudes) and there are several arrangements for making low sulphur fuel oil from higher sulphur crudes but the fuel oils tend to be unstable or incompatible or both.

2. Burn marine gas oil. That’s basically the same stuff as road diesel. You can probably spot the problem given that the world merchant fleet uses about the same amount of fuel as diesel road vehicles.., there are also exotic engineering issues

3. Fit closed loop scrubbers. Significantly expensive - say US$ 6M per ship plus operating costs including proper sludge disposal which few ports are set up to handle as well as supply of chemicals.

4. Fit open loop scrubbers and simply wash the excess sulphur oxides into the sea. The cheap and dirty solution, already banned in many places, including the entire coast of China...
Click to expand...

You forgot (5) go back to sails.
 
scotty123 said:
You forgot (5) go back to sails.
Click to expand...

Sails are boring. Go for rotors.

Postbilag.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Minn said:
As one of «*them*» I’m happy to tell you that as of the first of January next year «*they*» will either burn low sulphur fuel oil or «*they*» will indeed «*have some form of filter system in the funnels to remove it*».
Click to expand...

Did the industry "volunteer " or was if forced on you by the IMO?.... (actually I know the answer)



But that is thread drift.
We as boat owners are about to face more regulations because St Greta and her likes have suddenly thought to focus on something that really is of no consequence in the overall scheme of things.
 
dunedin said:
Interesting and informative, thanks

All this just shows how the focus on a narrow view of emissions targets (eg cars), ignores the big issues around large ship and aircraft emissions, which as cross national boundaries have been conveniently ignored until recently.
It is good that some people with foresight, conscience and stamina have managed to start some progress in these areas.
Though as others note, ultimately buying less short term disposable goods and travelling less will be the only really effective measures.
Click to expand...

The worlds marine fleet produces about as much pollution as Germany.
That may sould a lot... But compared to India, Brazil, China, America it is a cigarette next to a bombfire. And, marine transport is the absolutely most fuel efficient way to move stuff. It takes roughly 1hp per tonne to move on water... Compared to an HGV packing 300hp to move 25 tonnes.
 
In 1979 a climate catastrophe was 100% guaranteed, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Monbiots and other hysterical doomsday cultists.
As an impressionable teenager, I uncritically believed the grave, finger-wagging eco-fanatics on telly, and the widespread photos showing my home town of London, hundreds of feet underwater, with prominent landmarks poking out of the water.

I took it to heart, as the young do, and started working and living on board a variety of motley vessels, awaiting the apocalypse.
I'm still on board, waiting..
 
Minn said:
We see that the Department for Transport are going to look into emissions from yachts.

What could possibly be more urgent and important than that? *

* insert sarcasm emoji here.
Click to expand...

Emissions from yachts?
Must refer to the consequences of too many beers and fray bentos?:confused:
 
Tomahawk said:
Did the industry "volunteer " or was if forced on you by the IMO?.... (actually I know the answer)



But that is thread drift.
We as boat owners are about to face more regulations because St Greta and her likes have suddenly thought to focus on something that really is of no consequence in the overall scheme of things.
Click to expand...

What is your problem with reviewing boat emissions? And why not reduce the rate if environmental damage?
The elderly have no right to continue to cause excessive damage to the environment that will seriously damage the young who will have to live with it.
 
Simples,
It is a lot of effort to address something of no consequence. In short a waste of money and effort.
There are some
80,000 motor boats
40000 yachts
46000 power boats
31000 canal boats
40000 jet skis.
230000 in all, most of which spend all month stationary

and 38000000 vehicles.... most of which are driven each day.


Like the sainted Greta, it smacks of a publicity stunt.

How much emissions are attributable to other hobbies such as driving to the mountains for a spot of hill walking..
 
dunedin said:
What is your problem with reviewing boat emissions? And why not reduce the rate if environmental damage?
The elderly have no right to continue to cause excessive damage to the environment that will seriously damage the young who will have to live with it.
Click to expand...

Tomahawk has given a full answer so far as vehicle emissions is concerned but all this pales into insignificance compared with the huge numbers of coal fired power stations in China, India, Poland, etc. Not to mention coke production for steel making, refinery cat crackers and many other major sources of CO2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top