|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 19, 2014 7:40:48 GMT -8
I'm not against LNG as a fuel, but I think any LNG vessels WSF wants to operate should be started from the keel up, not a retrofit. Do it from the beginning and do it right. I kind of agree with you there. My biggest concern about retrofitting the Issaquah's with LNG tanks is how those top-side tanks will affect vessel stability. What do those tanks weigh? Beats me, but the fuel, the tanks, and the additional stiffening to support the tank weight are all going to add a bunch of weight above the center of gravity. I'm not looking forward to it.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Nov 19, 2014 11:13:34 GMT -8
I kind of agree with you there. My biggest concern about retrofitting the Issaquah's with LNG tanks is how those top-side tanks will affect vessel stability. What do those tanks weigh? Beats me, but the fuel, the tanks, and the additional stiffening to support the tank weight are all going to add a bunch of weight above the center of gravity. I'm not looking forward to it. Maybe the same guy who designed the Elwha's topside upgrade will be consulted for this LNG upgrade.
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Nov 19, 2014 13:46:44 GMT -8
The volumetric energy content of LNG is about 60% that of diesel. So, to go the same distance, you need about 60% more LNG than you need diesel. Using a very rough estimate of 100 cubic metres as the current fuel capacity of the Issaquah class, they'd need about 166 cubic metres of LNG to maintain the same effective range. Wartsila makes a containerized LNG tank called LNGPac ISO (Info available here and here). It is available in sizes up to 36 cubic metres, and each weighs about 36 tonnes. All this is to say, that in order to achieve roughly same fuel capacity and effective range, they would need approximately 4 of these tanks, placing a total of 144 metric tonnes at upper levels of the ship's structure. I feel like 100,000L is much more fuel than an Issaquah-sized vessel needs to have an effective operating range, so the number of tanks could probably be reduced to two by sacrificing range. All this obviously does not include the weight of extra strengthening, piping, fire suppression and additional equipment required for LNG fueling. Also, I'm not sure but I don't think the 36 tonnes includes the weight of the fuel itself.
|
|
|
Post by PeninsulaExplorer on Nov 19, 2014 17:58:44 GMT -8
So it is just the Issaquah getting the LNG upgrades, or the whole class?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Nov 20, 2014 6:29:11 GMT -8
So it is just the Issaquah getting the LNG upgrades, or the whole class? In theory, the whole class.
|
|
|
Post by PeninsulaExplorer on Nov 20, 2014 19:24:52 GMT -8
So it is just the Issaquah getting the LNG upgrades, or the whole class? In theory, the whole class. Oh, I heard that they are going to use the Kitsap and Issaquah for LNG and keep the rest of the class diesel.
|
|
|
Post by R30A on Nov 21, 2014 11:59:59 GMT -8
I suspect that comes from the Budget documents for the upcoming Biennium. Those show the Issaquah and Kitsap being the only boats converted, but has the heading "Assume Issaquah Class LNG Continues", so I think what is really being stated is that those are the first two planned for conversion.
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Jan 1, 2015 17:38:26 GMT -8
So how is the Nat Gas conversion plan going these days? With the price of diesel fuel dropping, is it going to really be cost effective to convert the fleet? Why not finish the current Oly class contract with a 4th diesel vessel, then engineer a new class going forward with natural gas? I hate to see millions spent on conversions of older vessels on something this State has no experience with. Just another sinkhole to throw money into, can we say Highway 99 tunnel project boondoggle?
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jan 2, 2015 9:48:59 GMT -8
Long term prices will rise again, in the case of these boats we are talking about a fuel price drop that will be maybe two years out of the remaining 30 year lifespan of the boat.
It's generally considered the current low prices are due to the Saudi attempts to stunt the shale oil boom. As soon as the rate of production on the oil shale fields slacken or a few companies go under they'll cut production to boost prices and make more money again. Their behavior at the recent OPEC conference pretty much confirmed this. A nice side effect of this is that it's really bit Russia and saves the overall US economy over $100M per day.
That said I think LNG's savings is iffy as it is a fossil fuel and if I was going to do it I'd at least look at the feasibility of some type of plug-in hybrid that charges at the dock during the night and exploits our cheap hydro power. Might not be viable at all but the concept intrigues me.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Jan 4, 2015 5:24:11 GMT -8
Comments critical of ferry fuel conversion
by Ed Friedrich, Kitsap Sun SEATTLE — As Washington State Ferries prepares to convert six boats to cheaper, cleaner liquefied natural gas fuel, one of its engineers worries about their safety. Chief engineer Alex Zecha sent 26 pages of concerns to the Coast Guard during the current public comment period. He expressed them earlier to ferry brass and Transportation Secretary Lynn Peterson. Zecha, 49, asserts a risk assessment developed by contractor Det Norsk Veritas of Norway on behalf of WSF contains errors and is biased toward gaining Coast Guard approval. The project entails installing new LNG-burning engines on the Issaquah-class ferries — Issaquah, Kitsap, Chelan, Cathlamet, Kittitas and Sealth. LNG is the same as natural gas used for heating homes and cooking, except it’s cooled to minus-260 degrees until it condenses into liquid. In that state, it takes up 600 times less space and can be stored and transported. WSF estimated it would cost $103 million to retrofit the boats, which will have an average of 23 years left in their 60-year life spans. By the time they’re retired, WSF figures it would save $195 million in fuel costs, for an $82 million return on investment. LNG also produces significantly fewer emissions than the ultra-low sulfur diesel that ferries now use. After the Coast Guard approved the retrofit concept in December 2011, WSF selected Det Norske Veritas to complete a risk assessment, safety and security plan, and operating manual. In November 2013, WSF submitted a Waterways Suitability Assessment to the Coast Guard that concluded the proposal is “inherently safe with risks as low as reasonably practicable.” The Coast Guard completed its initial review in October and opened a 60-day public comment period that ends Jan. 12. About 20 ferries operate on LNG in Holland, but none in the United States, which has no regulations for them. Without rules, Det Norske Veritas had to conduct a risk assessment. Zecha, chief engineer on the ferry Klahowya, said the contractor has a conflict of interest to support the project. The firm should be chosen by the Coast Guard to ensure objectivity, he said. "The contractor performing the risk analysis demonstrates a rather surprising degree of bias, subordinating objectivity and the public interest in favor of facilitating their client’s stated objectives,” Zecha wrote. The safety record of bulk carriers of LNG has been good, but the Issaquah conversions, in which the LNG tanks would be placed on the top deck, is a bold move into a new arena involving passengers, Zecha said. The Issaquah-class boats are 32 to 35 years old and don’t meet today’s safety standards as it is. Hallways and doors are too small. There’s no refuge area to take passengers to escape fire. LNG is odorless and colorless, yet WSF doesn’t plan to install detectors in the passenger cabins. The risk assessment states that placing LNG tanks on the top deck removes them from most danger in a collision, but Zecha claims with the way ships are designed today, they’d be the first things hit. “It’s all theoretical,” Zecha, of Bellingham, said of the retrofit. “Nobody has done anything like this in this country. The Coast Guard is taking the role of being cheerleaders for this process rather than objective overseers.” The Coast Guard now is in the role of reviewing the Waterways Suitability Assessment and soliciting public comments, as required by law, said Lt. Cmdr. John Fu, chief of domestic vessel inspections at Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound in Seattle. It’s looking at vessel design safety standards and waterway safety. Once complete, it will forward a Letter of Recommendation to the state Department of Transportation. Lynne Griffith, who took over as WSF director in October, supports using cleaner LNG instead of diesel in ferries. With the system burning nearly 18 million gallons of fuel a year, there’s an opportunity for huge savings. But there’s no price for safety. “Our priority remains the overall safety of our customers, crew, fellow marine operators and the public,” she said in a statement. “As the Coast Guard’s public comment period ends on Jan. 12, we will work closely with them as they review and validate our safety and security assessment to determine if any adjustments are necessary. Once we receive a Letter of Recommendation from the Coast Guard and funding authorization, we will move forward to determine how to best use LNG in our fleet.” Griffith said she’d support using LNG in new boats, too, but needs funding to design them. After the current batch of three new 144-car ferries (it has requested a fourth), WSF won’t likely be in the boat market for a while. The four Super-class boats were built in 1967 and won’t have to be replaced until 2027, based on WSF’s 60-year life spans. Several WSF employees, who asked not to be named for fear of retribution, said most captains, mates and engineers believe LNG is the future of marine power and that WSF should embrace it, but that the $100 million for the retrofit could be better spent designing a new class of ferry specifically to run on LNG. Zecha could draw the ire of the Coast Guard and WSF headquarters but says it’s worth the risk. He said he should be OK as long as he’s speaking as a member of the public on public safety issues. “This project is egregious enough that it’s worth that to shine some light on it,” he said. Background information about the conversion and supporting documents can be found at www.wsdot.wa.gov/Ferries/Environment/LNG.htm. Officials from Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound will join with Pacific Maritime Magazine to host a public forum about the regulatory and operational considerations for the implementation of LNG as fuel Jan. 27 at the Renaissance Seattle Hotel. More information can be found at www.seattlelngconf.com/. www.kitsapsun.com/news/local-news/comments-critical-of-ferry-fuel-conversion_97754160
|
|
|
Post by suburbanite on Jan 20, 2015 21:00:03 GMT -8
Looking at the WSF bid information it appears that there are no interested bidders on the Hyak hybrid project and that WSF has rejected the only two interested parties in an Issaquah class LNG conversion.
The third 144 is under construction. Along with the Jumbo MK IIs and the tub toys that will make 9 boats with 710 series EMDs. Five more 144s are needed over the next 10-12 years to replace the Supers and have a capable reserve boat. Standardizing on 710 EMDs might have been nice but the 710 has been regulated out of use in new construction.
Tier 4 aftertreatment systems take up considerable volume and weight and have rendered some existing tug boat designs unbuildable with the engines that builders are required to use today. WSF may face real problems coming up with suitable engines that fit into the existing 144 design.
With several years already wasted on the exotic Hyak hybrid and LNG Issaquah projects and no new 144s under contract and able to use existing engines has WSF managed to drag their feet so long that new construction and major overhauls are not economically or practically feasible due to new engine regulations?
|
|
|
Post by Name Omitted on Jan 27, 2015 17:57:32 GMT -8
For those who may be curious, the AMHS considered LNG for the Tustimena Replacement. Their reasoning against it can be found in the Recon Report (page 56 of this PDF). Essentially, the combination of fuel density mixed with the requirement that the fuel be stored above the accommodation decks and the range requirements for the ship would have placed a 300-400 LT weight on the topmost deck of the vessel. She will be a very different vessel, with a very different operational profile (I doubt the WSF fleet has any vessel that needs a 2,000 nautical mile range), but there's 5 or so pages of analysis that might be helpful to this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by old_wsf_fan on Jun 7, 2015 9:04:16 GMT -8
Anymore news or updates on the LNG proposals. I understand that the Hyak hybrid project seems quite dead.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 9, 2015 17:14:08 GMT -8
Anymore news or updates on the LNG proposals. I understand that the Hyak hybrid project seems quite dead. I haven't heard a thing, even on the inside. I'm hoping the project is quietly dying.
|
|
|
Post by SS San Mateo on Aug 2, 2016 14:09:57 GMT -8
I decided to look in the contracts section to see if there was any further updates to the LNG conversion project. According to Addendum #3 (PDF), the USCG has approved it. The due date for the initial proposals has changed several times since then. Originally it was 06/29/2016 (per Addendum #3), then it was revised to 07/28, then to 09/08.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Aug 2, 2016 17:14:48 GMT -8
I decided to look in the contracts section to see if there was any further updates to the LNG conversion project. According to Addendum #3 (PDF), the USCG has approved it. The due date for the initial proposals has changed several times since then. Originally it was 06/29/2016 (per Addendum #3), then it was revised to 07/28, then to 09/08. I'd really hoped this foolishness was dead.
|
|
|
Post by R30A on Aug 4, 2016 18:58:40 GMT -8
At least the Hyakbrid appears to be dead though. (Or Hybridyak?)
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Apr 12, 2017 9:05:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mirrlmak on Apr 13, 2017 14:14:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by PNW_ferrynerd on May 24, 2018 11:04:14 GMT -8
Why would they go "Electric"?
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on May 24, 2018 12:14:23 GMT -8
Why would they go "Electric"? To reduce petroleum-based product consumption, assuming that the electricity provided is from an environmentally friendly source.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on May 24, 2018 12:22:45 GMT -8
Why would they go "Electric"? To reduce petroleum-based product consumption, assuming that the electricity provided is from an environmentally friendly source. People asked the same thing about Dylan at Newport in 1965.
|
|
FNS
Voyager
The Empire Builder train of yesteryear in HO scale
Posts: 4,948
|
Post by FNS on May 24, 2018 14:10:25 GMT -8
Why would they go "Electric"? The JM2's are already "Electric". Diesel-Electric with powerful diesel engines turning electric generators. Electricity from the generators are distributed to electric drive motors.
"Battery" is what you should say. They would run their drive motors from batteries instead with diesel generators providing on board charge as needed and shore power cords while touching the wing walls.
|
|
|
Post by Edmondsguy on May 24, 2018 15:01:25 GMT -8
Why would they go "Electric"? The JM2's are already "Electric". Diesel-Electric with powerful diesel engines turning electric generators. Electricity from the generators are distributed to electric drive motors.
"Battery" is what you should say. They would run their drive motors from batteries instead with diesel generators providing on board charge as needed and shore power cords while touching the wing walls.
LOL. now we can also wait and see if it will Help with the Tacoma's problems, as well she has had awful last few years!
|
|
|
Post by Dane on May 24, 2018 22:27:20 GMT -8
|
|