Skip to comments.
Ships, trains told to become cleaner (EPA to announce new stronger pollution controls)
AP on Yahoo ^
| 3/14/08
| H. Josef Hebert - ap
Posted on 03/14/2008 10:02:44 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
To: Red Badger
21
posted on
03/14/2008 11:25:34 AM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: marktwain
You’re missing one important new fact that relates only to pollutants; what goes up never comes down.
22
posted on
03/14/2008 11:27:45 AM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: Wiseghy
Some huge percentage of So. Cal air pollution is due to Long Beach alone. 20%-30% maybe? B.S.
while shipping has never changed
Wrong.
Emmission standards for commercial vessels has had several increases in standards over the last decade.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/marine.htm
By the way, in terms of miles of travel by ships, Long Beach is #9. Ports in Texas and Lousiana are all the top eight except #3 of New York.
Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/c-marine/r99020.pdf
Table 2-4, Top 95 Deep-Sea Ports, trips by ship
Page 2-7
23
posted on
03/14/2008 11:33:00 AM PDT
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: thackney
Thanks. I heard about this on the radio while driving back home today and was looking for the complete package.
As usual, I found it here on FR...
Is this the end of heavy oil in bunkers ?
24
posted on
03/14/2008 1:17:56 PM PDT
by
Eric in the Ozarks
(ENERGY CRISIS made in Washington D. C.)
To: Eric in the Ozarks
The little I understand of the latest rule change is a reduction of the particulates and NOx permitted in the exhaust. I suspect it will effect engine manufactures more than fuel.
The lower sulfur requirement was passed earlier and is being phased in.
25
posted on
03/14/2008 1:52:45 PM PDT
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: thackney
The soot issue suggests they may be targeting N6 oil, used in most of the big ocean ships and on the Great Lakes. I saw a study by PIRA that suggested the world does not have enough diesel fuel to replace all the residual oil now going into the shipping industry as motor fuel.
On the sulfur issue, if the ships run ULSD, what are they going to use to replace the lubricant that sulfur imparted to these big engines ? A pal at one of the shipping lines suggested "sulfur pellets" which would be dropped in the bunker, every few hours...
26
posted on
03/14/2008 1:57:59 PM PDT
by
Eric in the Ozarks
(ENERGY CRISIS made in Washington D. C.)
To: Eric in the Ozarks
I saw a study by PIRA that suggested the world does not have enough diesel fuel to replace all the residual oil now going into the shipping industry as motor fuel. Perhaps technology like the Chevron pilot plant at Pascagoula could be used to convert the residual oil to diesel fuel, using the same volume of hydrocarbons but broken down to smaller chains.
27
posted on
03/14/2008 3:14:13 PM PDT
by
thackney
(life is fragile, handle with prayer)
To: thackney
Noooooo ! My bread and butter is in those heavy hydrocarbons.
28
posted on
03/15/2008 5:43:12 AM PDT
by
Eric in the Ozarks
(ENERGY CRISIS made in Washington D. C.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson