# Campaign against cruise ship fumes



## Scurdie (Aug 6, 2009)

The Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU) has launched a campaign against the use of heavy fuel oil in cruise ships. Under the slogan "Uns stinkt's! Kreuzfahrtschiffe sauber machen!" [We think it stinks! Clean up cruise ships!], they demand the use of cleaner marine diesel and the installation of soot filters. Link:
http://www.nabu.de/themen/verkehr/schifffahrt/mirstinkts/
I think they have a point: on VOLENDAM a couple of years ago, I noted with some dismay the trail of smoke she left astern up the pristine Milford Sound, as in the attached thumbnail.
Do some cruise lines already use cleaner fuels? Are soot filters a realistic option?


----------



## Klaatu83 (Jan 22, 2009)

California already has a law in effect that all ships have to switch to burning diesel oil within (I believe) twelve miles of the entrance of the Ports of Long Beach, San Pedro and Los Angeles. Now, apparently, the Eco-Nazis want to force the politicians to compel all ships burn nothing but diesel oil all the time. However, I can't help wondering if the politicians who allow themselves to be bullied into passing such laws fully understand the economic ramifications that those laws will inevitably cause. Diesel oil may burn cleaner, but the cost per ton (unlike automobiles, ships don't buy their fuel by the liter or the gallon) is far higher than that of bunker oil. When your rate of fuel consumption is in tens of tons of fuel per day, the difference in cost really mounts up fast. The cost of operating ships will rise enormously, and so will the cost of the goods that they transport.  Those costs inevitably will be passed on to consumers of all imported goods; whether they be pleasure cruises, fuel, or any other merchandise.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

Its been in the post for years, in Europe HFO is already banned from being burnt while the vessel is alongside and Low sulpher HFO has to be used while steaming in many areas.

They do have a point - HFO is garbage fuel and the emissions are bad by anyones standards.

The movement worldwide to get cleaner vessels is well established and my own personal opinion that this will lead to the near universal adoption of LNG as fuel


----------



## TOM ALEXANDER (Dec 24, 2008)

I'm not an injuneer, but as far as I know, the B.T.U. rating of jet fuel/kerosene/paraffin is lower than stove oil, which is rated less B.T.U. than diesel. Can we assume that HFO contains more B.T.U. than diesel?? I would think that the higher the B.T.U. of a fuel the more bang you would get for your buck - miles per gallon in automotive terms. Should that be so, the fuel consumption of any vessel would be higher in any volume measure with the lighter the fuel.(the tanks can only hold so much of any fuel in gallons/litres, etc. when pressed up.(Not that we would want to press them up due to potential expansion due to increased temperature) The potential argument is there then that the lighter the fuel, the less m.p.g. a vessel will get. So the loss due to increased price per given volume is compounded by a loss of effeciency. To maintain a "diesel" engined vesel using multiple fuels in a clean burning manner would probably require the exhange of injectors, timing, etc. A more economical and cleaner alternative would be to install exhaust gas re-cyclers to squeeze that last ounce of energy out of the exhaust gas. That solution has been pretty well perfected in wood burning household stoves. So, there shouldn't be much exhaust smoke left, either visible or invisible if that were done. 
I think back to my deck days on the Pacific Northwest with Yarrows water tubes running Parsons turbines. Boilers were fed HFO and very rarely was any smoke visible. Only messy part was blowing tubes at about 02:00 on the midnight watch. Sometimes, it didn't matter what course you steered there was a lot of "comeback". That was only done when offshore and in complete darkness. Gobs of soot made employment for the clean ship routine at 07:00 with crew and apprentices under the watchful eye of the bo'sun.


----------



## funnelstays (Nov 19, 2008)

TOM ALEXANDER said:


> I'm not an injuneer, but as far as I know, the B.T.U. rating of jet fuel/kerosene/paraffin is lower than stove oil, which is rated less B.T.U. than diesel. Can we assume that HFO contains more B.T.U. than diesel?? I would think that the higher the B.T.U. of a fuel the more bang you would get for your buck - miles per gallon in automotive terms. Should that be so, the fuel consumption of any vessel would be higher in any volume measure with the lighter the fuel.(the tanks can only hold so much of any fuel in gallons/litres, etc. when pressed up.(Not that we would want to press them up due to potential expansion due to increased temperature) The potential argument is there then that the lighter the fuel, the less m.p.g. a vessel will get. So the loss due to increased price per given volume is compounded by a loss of effeciency. To maintain a "diesel" engined vesel using multiple fuels in a clean burning manner would probably require the exhange of injectors, timing, etc. A more economical and cleaner alternative would be to install exhaust gas re-cyclers to squeeze that last ounce of energy out of the exhaust gas. That solution has been pretty well perfected in wood burning household stoves. So, there shouldn't be much exhaust smoke left, either visible or invisible if that were done.
> I think back to my deck days on the Pacific Northwest with Yarrows water tubes running Parsons turbines. Boilers were fed HFO and very rarely was any smoke visible. Only messy part was blowing tubes at about 02:00 on the midnight watch. Sometimes, it didn't matter what course you steered there was a lot of "comeback". That was only done when offshore and in complete darkness. Gobs of soot made employment for the clean ship routine at 07:00 with crew and apprentices under the watchful eye of the bo'sun.


They are called exhaust gas ecconimisers.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

funnelstays said:


> They are called exhaust gas ecconimisers.


and we have had them for a very long time


----------



## Satanic Mechanic (Feb 23, 2009)

TOM ALEXANDER said:


> I'm not an injuneer, but as far as I know, the B.T.U. rating of jet fuel/kerosene/paraffin is lower than stove oil, which is rated less B.T.U. than diesel. Can we assume that HFO contains more B.T.U. than diesel??
> Assuming you are referring to calorific value per unit quantity HFO is a long way down the scale but not just in terms of enthalpy but in terms of the amount of energy you have to use conditioning the bloody stuff - heating, purification, sludge disposal
> 
> 
> ...


I wasn't going to but I am at a loose end today(Smoke) in a niceblue above


----------



## doyll (Mar 9, 2007)

nicely done SM (Applause)


----------



## Derek Roger (Feb 19, 2005)

I doubt the refineries could produce enough diesel for all the worlds shipping . What would they do with the bunker C . It would throw them into a loop for a while .


----------

