New propulsion sytems for ships

[brian eiland]

Did you realize??...
"Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world emitting as much as 260 time more SOx than all the worlds cars put together"

"One ship pollutes as much as 50 million cars"

Dave Culp has just referenced an EXTREMELY interesting paper over on another forum, and it is presented in a graphical form. I just felt compelled to make this forum discussion aware of it.

http://www.dkgroup.eu/

http://dkgmt.com/Files/Billeder/Pres...esentation.pdf

1) Shipping's emission legacy
2) SOx and NOx reduction
3) CO2 reduction
4) The Air Cavity System
5) Major emissions reductions
6) New builds and new technologies
7) Shipping vs. Aviation
8) Conclusion: Shipping can lead the way
Q&A
Appendix 1: Propeller technology

[marshmat]

An interesting presentation, Brian. I'm afraid you're likely to take some flak here for posting it. Although I do question the commentary on improved efficiency with twin screws, the findings on emissions and fuel burn look about right.

The trouble isn't that ships are inefficient- for the weight they carry, they're actually pretty good for fuel economy. Yes, they could be a lot better, but for various reasons (tonnage calculation, canal clearances, etc.) the tendency is to go for rather boxy forms, instead of looking for the most efficient possible solution for a given amount of cargo.

The thing is, when we look at cars, we've had government after government worldwide harassing the automakers for decades to make cleaner-burning engines, add catalytic converters, etc. and those same governments have been ordering the oil companies to clean up the fuel, get rid of the sulphur, etc. Reluctantly, they've played along, and to everyone's benefit in the end.

But we don't have anyone doing that for the shipping industry or their fuel suppliers. It's perfectly OK for a ship diesel to burn bunker-C oil with a sulphur content measured in percent, as opposed to the few parts per million allowed in road diesel. It's not difficult and not terribly expensive to add scrubbers to the smokestacks and to clean up the fuel a bit more at the refinery. But until someone tells the shipowners they have no choice, we can't expect them to make the investment on their own.

[Boston]

I have often wondered when the age of sail will be back
after all wind is free and clean

the clipper ships of old will once again grace us with there beauty
and there sanity

oh
way to be concerned about co2 emissions G
there is hope in this world ;-)

[Guillermo]

I have to carefully read Brian's posted information, but let me tell you I Chaired a few weeks ago a technical session on Energy, Environment and the Seas, organized by our Naval Engineers Association. It was quite clear that ship's transport is the more efficient one in terms of miles-tons. Better than cars, trucks, trains and, of course, planes.

Cheers.

P.S. Now that I have had a quick read, my first impression is that presented information is tendencious and clearly misleading in several aspects. I'll try to search for the info we have used and post it here.

[marshmat]

Guillermo,

The file Brian posted is indeed a bit sensationalist as far as presentation goes. That much is obvious.

It is fairly common knowledge both in and outside the shipping industry that ocean-going ships are very efficient, in terms of the fuel needed to carry a certain weight a certain distance (and thus the CO2 emissions, a direct consequence of the amount of fuel burned). That doesn't mean that they couldn't be more efficient, which is one point of the article. Just because something is reasonably good at what it does, is no reason to stop trying to make it better.

The main focus is on particulate and sulphur-based emissions- the stuff responsible for smog, air quality problems, etc. On this count, even relatively new, relatively efficient ships fare terribly. It is a function of the fact that they burn a very unrefined fuel (#4, bunker-C, etc.) with high concentrations of sulphur and other contaminants, and the fact that they generally have no mechanisms whatsoever for cleaning the exhaust stream. Even if they aren't burning as much fuel as a truck or train would to haul the same load, they're emitting hundreds, even thousands of times more particulate matter, sulphur compounds, etc. You can see this- in the enormous brown cloud that trails virtually every freighter on the Great Lakes, even after they've had several days underway to warm up.

We have the technology to solve this problem at low cost and with very little disruption to the industry and everyone who depends on it. It's just a matter of getting mandatory standards in place so that the option to pollute excessively is no longer available.

We have freighters around here that are too big to fit through the Seaway- they are permanently lake-locked, and will never see a country other than Canada and the USA in their lives. Yet they are registered in Liberia so they don't have to meet US/Canadian standards or pay US/Cdn taxes. Only with international agreements can we clean these ships up.

[FAST FRED]

"The thing is, when we look at cars, we've had government after government worldwide harassing the automakers for decades to make cleaner-burning engines, add catalytic converters, etc. and those same governments have been ordering the oil companies to clean up the fuel, get rid of the sulphur, etc. Reluctantly, they've played along, and to everyone's benefit in the end."

Everyone but the folks that use cars.

The percentage of Ethanol is the percentage fuel mileage is reduced, so "cleaner air for LA" costs every driver 10%, daily.

The Clean air methods used today on engine, add another 10-15% fuel penalty to most cars.

Even more on Class 8 trucks, that deliver most stuff we use.

FF

[Guillermo]

Matt,
Sulphurs and NOx are the main aspects to fight against, of course.

You can find here what the IMO is doing to address this problems among other enviromentaly related.

http://www.imo.org/About/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109

I totally disagree with them about CO2 being a harmful gas. It is not at all, and trying to reduce anthropogenic emissions per se is an absurdity, not to say a serious irresponsibility in many cases. I only agree on its emissions reduction just because it can be acomplished only by more efficient engines and alternative energies, which will make us all less oil dependant, a good thing.

Cheers.

[Boston]

but why you disagree is really perplexing
of all the thousands of studies that clearly show co2 is a serious greenhouse gas
you insist on focusing on the ones that are industry sponsored
trying to show it is not
or those rare few from legitimate sources that show anomalous data
that under normal circumstances would be set aside in the shadow of thousands of pieces of corroborating evidence
I am not sure how you come to the conclusions you have come to
but as someone once said

to each his own

[FAST FRED]

"but why you disagree is really perplexing
of all the thousands of studies that clearly show co2 is a serious greenhouse gas"

Only by studies that rely on continued funding by finding a "problem "by jiggeling a computer model , that would result in 'Carbon Taxes" being paid to yet another gov .

READ the Complete UN report , not the phony "summary" by burorats looking to get richer at your expense.

FF.

[brian eiland]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

I have to carefully read Brian's posted information, but let me tell you I Chaired a few weeks ago a technical session on Energy, Environment and the Seas, organized by our Naval Engineers Association. It was quite clear that ship's transport is the more efficient one in terms of miles-tons. Better than cars, trucks, trains and, of course, planes.

Maybe my use of the word 'efficency' in the title to my posting on this subject was misleading. I do realize that our ocean shipping is an efficient use of energy in tons/mile. I was just referring to the paper's treatment of 'improved efficiencies'.

Hopefully there is always room for improvement in all our endeavors

[brian eiland]

I might make the suggestion that you visit this film that I referenced in this discussion of "CRUDE"
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/ope...ram-21427.html

...a YouTube presentation of the film
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40072407639740
(I just found a video of this film on a Google site. The sound is screwed up for the first couple of minutes, but then it seems to straighten out)

...now fast forward to minute 59:00 to the discussion of this 'carbon loop' that produced the very conditions that resulted in the formation of the crude oil in the first place.

Imagine an ocean that is losing much of its sea-life, and then an anoxic event that pushes it into greater stagnation....Ocean Stagnation, it has occurred before. (1hr:02 minutes of the film)

Then have a look at 'the engine of ocean circulation' (1hr:8min:30sec)

Questioning anoxic events?? Take a look at some lakes in upstate New York (1:10:30)

[Boston]

Ive gone over all of that extensively
including the allegation that the IPCC is somehow involved in funding research
in the end
people believe what makes em comfortable

oh well
as I said
to each his own
B

[FAST FRED]

"people believe what makes em comfortable"

However the "Global Warming " fiction can usually be traced back to a single pile of ca$h ,funding George Sorros.

The UN goes along at the chance of extracting billions from the productive world on behalf of dozens of non productive dictatorships.

FF

[Boston]

actually the UN can barely agree on when to hit the Lou
let alone on how to spend money
for the most part
no one pays there dues and that bunch of fools is working on credit and IOU's
certainly not some kind of cash cow from which to suck funds for fictitious fallacies

as I said
people believe what they want to believe
and so to each his own

[Kiteship]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

I totally disagree with them about CO2 being a harmful gas. It is not at all, and trying to reduce anthropogenic emissions per se is an absurdity, not to say a serious irresponsibility in many cases. I only agree on its emissions reduction just because it can be acomplished only by more efficient engines and alternative energies, which will make us all less oil dependant, a good thing.

Cheers.

I would very much like to hear your more detailed views on this Guillermo (on-list or off--you may prefer not to subject yourself to some of the flak available here). Unless for political or personal livlihood reasons, you are the first of what I consider "knowledgeable" people to seriously doubt the IPCC consensus. Please elaborate?

Thanks,

KiteShip