Posted on 07/23/2015 10:04:02 AM PDT by thackney
The North American ocean carrier TOTE is deploying the world’s first container ships fueled by liquefied natural gas (LNG). The move anticipates imminent environmental regulations that are likely to trigger large shifts in the maritime shipping industry.
TOTE is making the move to comply with the international Marpol Annex VI maritime emissions standards, first implemented in 2005. Restrictions on emissions like sulfur and nitrogen oxide will tighten in 2016 within designated emission control areas (ECAs), including the waters surrounding North America.
Sulfur and nitrogen oxides are generated in large volumes by conventional maritime ships, which have long relied on so-called heavy fuel oil—the thick, dirty, but affordable remnants of the crude oil refining process. According to the International Council on Clean Transportation, the ocean shipping industry currently accounts for 8% of global emissions of sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain.
These emissions also have serious effects on human health. Michael Samulski, Director of the EPA’s Large Marine and Aviation Center, says that the tighter regulations will prevent between 12,000 and 31,000 U.S. deaths per year now linked to maritime pollution. Those impacts are not only in port areas or along coastlines, but reach hundreds of miles inland.
TOTE’s first LNG-fueled ship, the Isla Bella, was constructed by General Dynamics NASSCO, and completed in April. It will start working its planned route between Puerto Rico and Jacksonville, Florida, later this year. A second ship of the same model, dubbed the Marlin class, is expected to be completed in early 2016, and will work the same route. TOTE is also converting two ships in the Alaska trade to LNG.
TOTE claims that the Marlin class ships will emit 98 percent less nitrogen oxide, 97 percent less sulfur, and 72 percent less carbon dioxide than comparable conventional ships.
As shippers move to comply with the Marpol Annex VI standards, they have a handful of options. They can use higher-grade fuel, or install scrubbing technologies comparable to a car’s catalytic converter. TOTE CEO Anthony Chiarello says his company explored scrubbing technology, but concluded it’s not yet advanced enough. Higher grade diesel, on the other hand, “becomes a very expensive option.”
That left LNG, but it has its own challenges. Most importantly, ports don’t currently have much infrastructure for getting LNG fuel into ships. TOTE is partnering with Peuget Sound Energy to build LNG fueling facilities in Tacoma, where it will fuel its Alaskan ships, and AGL Resources is constructing a liquefaction plant in Jacksonville for Puerto Rico-bound ships. But those facilities won’t be completed until 2019 and late 2016, respectively. In the meantime, TOTE will rely on trucks and barges to fuel ships.
Despite these challenges, more LNG-fueled ships are in the pipeline. Crowley, one of TOTE’s competing carriers in Puerto Rico, is building LNG ships expected for delivery in late 2017. The United Arab Shipping Company has ordered 17 ships ready to be easily retrofitted for LNG.
“I personally believe within the next ten years, LNG will be the predominant maritime fuel,” says Chiarello. The Korean energy ministry agrees, projecting that the market for LNG ship manufacturing will grow by nearly 25 times over the next decade, and LNG fueling facilities are being built at major Korean ports to help the shipbuilding units of Samsung, Hyundai, and Daewoo capture that market.
Future of Energy > Natural gas > LNG for transpor
http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/natural-gas/natural-gas-transport.html
We found out that propane has like 15,000 btu’s per pound and gas has 114,000 btu’s per gallon ... so we stayed with gas.
That was written by the same writer that wrote the script for the bs move “WATER WORLD!!!”
Don’t compare pound to gallons, that doesn’t have meaning.
But yes, if you take an engine designed for gasoline and feed it fuel through the same delivery system with less energy per volume, it is not going to perform as well.
But these engines are designed to use the Nat Gas.
Well since propane is measured in pounds .... and when you do a search on propane and btu’s it gives it in pounds.
But a pound of propane is not equal in any way to a gallon of gasoline.
” Michael Samulski, Director of the EPA’s Large Marine and Aviation Center, says that the tighter regulations will prevent between 12,000 and 31,000 U.S. deaths per year now linked to maritime pollution.”
What complete and utter nonsense.
It’s true. With tighter regulations those specific people will become immortal and never die.
The whole thing was about propane vs gasoline and the btu equivalent between a like amount. We were discussing here the loss of power of 500 watts in an electrical house generator and using gas or propane.
The numbers you gave were NOT for a like amount.
Have a nice day and thanks for PLAYING.
When you compare calories, do you compare gallons of juice to pounds of fruit?
Or do you compare single servings?
Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...Equivalents ...
Yeah, I bet the science behind that is extremely science-y.
Pound of Propane is NOT equivalent to a gallon of gasoline.
Please excuse me. I have to go and discuss my cats wedding arrangements, or have a chat with a brick wall.
I fully understand.
With less Bunker C used for fueling ships there will be more for asphalt (tarmac) use. Will that have a negative impact on the price of asphalt? Might be a good thing for maintaining/replacing highway infrastructure.
It’s not your fault, it’s not my fault, it’s the asphalt...
Or you may see more run through cokers and not producing more asphalt.
It will change some economics.
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.