|
Post by Dane on Dec 4, 2007 14:35:25 GMT -8
As was also stated, the United States Navy (and as a matter of fact, all branches of it's armed forces) have a general policy of "we will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board xyz." This being the official line, it has also been quoted to me directly by an 'un-named source' (mainly because I cannot remember who the heck he was) that the USN does not "under normal circumstances" go against the wishes of friendly nations when stopping in at ports of call with it's ships -- I paraphrase the following, from the late 90's when I visited an open house aboard an aircraft carrier in Vancouver Harbour: "we will offload the nukes to our tender ship prior to entering the territorial limits of friendly nations that have banned nuclear weapons. There have only been a few occasions (in the far East) where we have had undeclared nuclear weapons on board while in port." I believe that this may have been in reference to porting in the Philippines or some other "friendly" nation in that area in times when the North Koreans were "sabre-rattling". I was about to say, "that's not right" with respect to nucleur arms - American vessels regularly come through Canadian waters with these arms, but your post clearly says "[when] stopping in at ports of call." The Canadian coast has a few "submariner highways" which are used, and often USN operations will take them right to the edge of Canadian soviegn waters when they're out on the seas. I have never read this thread before LOL; I have missed so much interesting discussion! I just assumed the future ferry was a bridge.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Dec 7, 2007 10:58:15 GMT -8
|
|
Mill Bay
Voyager
Long Suffering Bosun
Posts: 2,886
|
Post by Mill Bay on Dec 7, 2007 13:06:44 GMT -8
Wow, that is very interesting... the bow designs says it's specifically meant for operating in heavy sea conditions. The call it a seismic bow because it can absorb or disperse the shock of impacts with waves. It basically looks like a giant bow-bulb except that the entire bow is the bulb.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Dec 8, 2007 19:43:28 GMT -8
Actually, I've got to correct you on this...the "seismic" label comes from the equipment package they carry, not the bow design or its characteristics. This design is apparently unique in its stability in rough water, and, therefore, an excellent platform for the seismic equipment it is destine to carry.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Dec 8, 2007 19:52:22 GMT -8
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting concept here.
This type of bow reminds me that of a submarine. I could picture this bow being burried in tall waves, and having water wash all of the way up to the bridge.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Dec 18, 2007 5:16:40 GMT -8
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Jan 8, 2008 7:46:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Jan 9, 2008 16:54:04 GMT -8
Fuel Cells
Some new news.... but first some background info
At present as some of you know i an chief engineer on a very large yacht built by Feadship of holland.
We have recently replaced or 3 main generators with new units as the ships loads have grown. And the old units were slightly undersized to begin with also due to their 1970 era initial design were quite dirty running. Billonares just don't seem to like diesel fumes when entertaining on deck... being an engineer i just cant figure out why?
so we replaced the gens with new Marpol tier 2 compliant units. They run very clean for the first 700 hours, then smoke worse than the old units! We are having to rebuild the injectors at 600 hours to avoid this! (in car terms this would be like having to change your spark plugs every 300Km.)
I made some calls to the shipyard to discuss the problems... and they are right in the same place as us. The new engines are almost impossible to keep running clean. And when the new marpol tier 3 kicks in we will need catilitic converters to meet the requirements. These will need removing and cleaning (cooking at 1000f) every 1000 hours!
So the only solution that is economically feasible it to use a fuel cell for generation when the ship is still. Feadship is working/studying this!
I will keep you all posted as i get more info.
Oceaneer77
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Jan 9, 2008 18:21:45 GMT -8
Feadship are the Rolls Royce of Yachts so the engineering must be something. It will be interesting to hear if any other solutions will be found and fuel cells maybe will break out of their experimental phase and actually start to be put to practical use.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jan 12, 2008 17:47:40 GMT -8
They run very clean for the first 700 hours, then smoke worse than the old units! We are having to rebuild the injectors at 600 hours to avoid this! (in car terms this would be like having to change your spark plugs every 300Km.) ... The new engines are almost impossible to keep running clean. And when the new marpol tier 3 kicks in we will need catilitic converters to meet the requirements. These will need removing and cleaning (cooking at 1000f) every 1000 hours! WOW! That is not too impressive at all, that they have such poor performance/service life! Granted, it is "routine maintenance", but the interval is HORRIBLY short!! I imagine, in a way, that this is good for you (in terms of job security), but also an unimaginable PITA having to do this work so frequently. I had no idea that the performance was so 'pith-poor' ...
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Jan 13, 2008 17:34:13 GMT -8
Yes the performance is poor and it will only get worse as the regulations get tighter.. It will change when the technology and production catches up to the regulations.
oceaneer77
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 26, 2008 14:00:16 GMT -8
Here's an article that our friend "Coastal Coons" wrote recently: www.bclocalnews.com:80/opinion/13979312.html============= Even ferries need to “go green” to fight climate change By Gary Coons - The Northern View - January 23, 2008 More than 80 per cent of British Columbia’s carbon emissions come from burning and producing fossil fuels. That is why any plan for carbon neutrality cannot omit the diesel fuel burning B.C. Ferry fleet. Domestic marine emissions accounted for about 2.5 million tons of carbon released into the atmosphere in 2005; that was about four per cent of overall emissions for the province. However, B.C. Ferries has been exempted from provincial legislation that sets targets for emission reductions. If we are serious about mitigating our impact on the climate, serious about reducing emissions, we have to include all major polluters in our plans. B.C. Ferries should be no exception. Although the company is making some effort in the right direction, if they were held to the same standard as other public services the potential for even greater gains exists. For example, there is technology that can be added to the engines of older ferries in the fleet that can help optimize the fuel efficiency of the ships. Yet, because these modifications are not supported by the manufacturer of the engines, the corporation is hesitant to pursue these efficiencies. If the company was faced with a government directive requiring greater emission reductions, they would have the incentive to make these modifications to their fleet. Environment Canada and B.C. Ferries worked together to develop an emissions reduction system that was very successful in reducing harmful pollutants from the exhaust of the ferries it was tested on. Nitrous Oxide emissions were reduced by as much as 20 per cent and particulate matter was cut by almost 20 per cent during the study. The International Ship-owners Alliance of Canada recently outlined how they wish to include ocean going vessels in the attempt to reduce green house gases by using better fuel and other initiatives. They also believe that deep sea shipping and B.C. Ferries should not be exempt. From electric plug-ins for ships to hull, fuel and other efficiencies our fleet must be included. When it comes to cleaning up the airshed in the Lower Mainland or the coast in general, our ferry fleet must be included. These innovations must be implemented; they can’t be allowed to fall by the wayside. In the fight against climate change we need to pursue every avenue possible. We can’t afford to make exceptions. We also need to get creative about how we pursue other possible reductions in our fuel use and the emissions caused by the fuel. One idea that has been mentioned by one of my colleagues, Maurine Karagianis, our transportation critic, is running our ferries on biodiesel. Biodiesel, like all vegetable derivatives, comes from fully renewable sources. Emissions from biodiesel are much less harmful than those produced from burning traditional, fossil based fuels. Pure biodiesel adds no measurable amount of sulphur to the atmosphere, and produces almost half the carbon monoxide that is released from the burning of traditional diesel. Although there may be some concern with massive biofuel production, I believe that as long as it is monitored and based on sustainable agricultural practices it can develop into a sustainable fuel source. If we are going to build a prosperous future for this province and this planet, we need to use every tool at our disposal to change our carbon footprint for the better. We owe it to ourselves and to our children ===================
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jan 26, 2008 14:16:01 GMT -8
While I am all for renewable fuels, I don't think that biodiesel is the best option for BCF. It is currently cheap, but as soon as the demand spikes (like it will shortly) the price will skyrocket because there is not enough production of corn and canola to feed everybody, let alone run a large transportation infrastructure on it as well.
I was reading a little while ago about how the demand for ethanol in the US has skyrocketed so much it made the price of corn in Mexico go up by 5x. It went up so much, that corn based products, like tacos, which are a staple of Mexican diets, became prohibitively expensive for most people.
Now, if they were prepared to subsidize agricultural expansion, so that the price of food stayed low enough, then this might work. It's not just a matter of switching fuels though.
Also, even though it is a renewable resource, the CO2 emissions are still quite high. Also, the fact remains that we are still using internal combustion engines, which are inefficient by definition. The average diesel engine runs at about 40-45% thermal efficiency, which doesn't even account for friction or inertia within the system.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 26, 2008 14:17:17 GMT -8
I have to laugh, because the best, "cleanest burning" fuel produces the largest volume of carbon dioxide, since in an idealized combustion process, the only products would be carbon dioxide and water. Sure you can reduce all the nasty stuff like sulphur and crap, but you still have the underlying problem that burning will always equal carbon dioxide.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jan 26, 2008 14:49:43 GMT -8
I still can't figure out why everyone panics over Carbon Dioxide emissions. Though I'm not an ecologist, I did learn a thing or two about it in High School. Increased carbon dioxide in the air, means increased plant growth, seeming plants feed on CO2. Increased plant growth results in more oxygen supply. Climate change is right up there with political correctness with me, it makes my blood boil everytime I hear about it.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Jan 26, 2008 15:41:13 GMT -8
Carbon dioxide acts like argon, methane, and other gasses, in that it acts like a greenhouse. If you think of the thermal window panes you might have on your house. They have argon in between 2 (or 3) pieces of glass to allow light in but not allow the heat back out again.
The light from the sun enters our atmosphere and strikes the ground. A lot of it is reflected back up into the atmosphere, where a certain amount is allowed back out into space, and the rest is reflected back to earth as light and heat. As it keeps reflecting back and forth, the light slowly (relatively) turns to heat.
Increased levels of argon, carbon dioxide, and other gasses allows less light to be allowed back into space and makes more get reflected back to the earth's surface. This increases the atmosphere's average temperature. Note that I said average temperature. In certain areas of the earth, it will make the temperature decrease because so much light gets absorbed into the ground.
While you are right in that plants "breathe" carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, the problem is that the plants that do most of that (trees) are being cut down and not replanted fast enough (ie. the amazon rainforest, and our local temperate rainforests). This, coupled with the fact that carbon dioxide emissions have skyrocketed in the last 200 years since the invention of the steam engine and the fact that we discovered this black liquid undergound that burned really hot, has resulted in global average temperatures increasing dramatically.
And it doesn't just mean hotter summers. Large storms, such as Hurricane Katrina, are fuelled from the heat rising from the ocean. As the oceans heat up, we will see more and more of these massive, destructive storms.
I agree with you Chris, it makes my blood boil too. Too often I see the words "Global Warming" and I see either a scare tactic, or governments pretending to do something to win feeble minded voters who don't read up on the facts for themselves. The fact remains that the earth is heating up, and one of the easiest ways of combating it is to cut down on our CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.
I don't want this to turn into a debate on whether global warming exists or not, as that has been done so many times it has become exhausting.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Jan 26, 2008 15:45:50 GMT -8
Thanks for the insight, Nick. Gives me some food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Jan 27, 2008 0:40:06 GMT -8
Thanks for the insight, Nick. Gives me some food for thought. If you haven't watched "An Inconvenient Truth" Watch it. You'll learn alot about the environment.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Jan 27, 2008 10:06:05 GMT -8
Bio-diesel is not the be-all and end-all solution either.
As was correctly stated by coxnnick, prices for the staple items used to make bio-diesel continue to climb. There is, believe it or not, a global wheat and corn shortage - that is why the cost of bread has gone up in the local supermarket. Expect milk prices to follow on sometime soon too.
Now the other side of bio-diesel. While new truck/rail/marine engines are currently manufactured to deal with ULSD (ultra-low sulphur diesel) and most engines in the last 6-8 years have been manufactured to LDS (low sulphur diesel) specs, retrofitting older engines is not an option; they simply have to be replaced. While THIS is nothing to do with bio-diesel, it sets up a problem, as it is now mandated by law that all on-road diesel sold is of the ULSD spec. This would be a good thing to most laypeople, right? Well, you have to look at the fact that the sulphur in the diesel is there for the specific purpose to lubricate engine components and protect them during the rigors of combustion operation.
Bio-diesel in lower blends (B5 thru B20) can almost be substituted "off-the-shelf" for MOST applications in LSD/ULSD on-road diesel engines with minimal cost or aggrivation to the operator of that truck. B5-B15 have been tested and found to not increase operational costs or add the cost of needing additives or higher frequency of maintenance.
HOWEVER, LSD does not give you as much "bang-for-the-buck" as older (no longer available) regular diesel. The joules of energy in each litre dropped off, when they re-refined it to remove some of the sulphur. ULSD does this again, and has a factor of about 8% less "combustion power" than LSD.
What this means in real time? My fuel economy for driving my truck just DECREASED by 8% because of using cleaner burning fuel. I now have to use 8% MORE fuel to go the same number of kilometres than I did before. While I am burning a cleaner fuel, I now have to burn MORE of it. How much emissions have we really eliminated??
As an example, over the last two weeks, I have been driving a 1999 GMC T-8500 truck doing in-town deliveries. It is very well maintained and does not belch smoke when running. I used to get about 1050km/tank of fuel 2 years ago running on LSD. Now, I am lucky to get 880-900km on the same tank. This does include idle time (required to run the power tailgate without killing the battery) and useful when delivering on the rain and snow for driver comfort.
Service on this truck is up now too. We have to run more injector cleaner thru to keep the fuel injectors from fouling now that we are using ULSD fuel. The mechanic estimates that it has also moved up the rebuild period of the engine by about 75,000km. Oil changes are now much more important and timely than before, and I have also been forced to run a better grade of oil, as per the engine manufacturers specs, to compensate for running ULSD fuel in an engine that is not optimized for this. Of course, while great and everything, this oil is more expensive than the regular 15W-40 diesel oil I was running before.
So, as of now, I am burning ULSD fuel, which is more expensive to produce (as it is re-refined more), which has less energy and has required me to change my oil more often and use more expensive oil, as well as having to use fuel and oil additives.
My costs have increased, and that is too bad for me. However, I am using more fuel, and changing my oil more often -- and that is bad for the environment. Yes we handle waste oil and stuff better now, but still, I am using more of it to do the same thing that I could do with less before. This seems somehow backwards to me.
Bio-diesel multiplies this loss of fuel economy. While it is not a direct relation, every 5% of 'bio' that you add to the diesel part of things reduces the joules of energy per litre by about 2.5-3%. Less-bang-for-your-buck. Again, you are burning a cleaner fuel, but to go the same distance, you are burning MORE of it.
Engines that have not been built specifically for use with bio-fuels are also susceptible to damage or increased wear from these fuels, as the fuels themselves do not have certain elements in them that the original fuels did. This means using additives, or upping your maintenance schedule; or taking the chance and risking pre-mature engine failure.
Hopefully this has given you some insight from my side of things. I am not an expert, and I cannot quote standards and documentation, but all this research is out there and hopefully it has given some food for thought.
While solutions sometimes look appealing on the outside, you need to look under the hood to see what the real costs and pitfalls are.
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Feb 26, 2008 17:20:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Feb 28, 2008 6:09:15 GMT -8
Thanks for bringing this out to our attention. Interesting indeed, but I will wait to see how it works in application. I wonder how the the first few adopters of it will like it?
|
|
|
Post by oceaneer77 on Feb 29, 2008 14:36:40 GMT -8
Hi Hardy
Our application on a large yacht would be only as intermittent power and small storage of hydrogen.
Presently most yachts have a load bank for the generators to keep them operating at 80% load. This device is quite ridiculous as it heat up salt water and pumps it overboard. They are needed for yacht because the ships loads changes so much during the day, and it is important to keep any diesel engine loaded up to prevent damage to the interior of the engine.
In our application the load bank would disappear and be replaced with an hydrogen generator and compressing system. The system would make enough hydrogen to power the switchboard (electricity) for 4-5 hours. When sufficient hydrogen was stored you stop the diesel generator and go to the fuel cell.
It still is not a totally green solution but is way better than heating up water and pumping it overboard.
Oceaneer77
|
|