March 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Feb
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Archive for the Bunker Fuel Category

Up in smoke: Dirty smoke from ships

August 23, 2008 by admin.

Technology News
Up in smoke

Published: 21 August 2008 10:21 AM
Source: The Engineer Online

Chemists at UC San Diego have measured the impact that dirty smoke from ships cruising at sea and generating electricity in port can have on the air quality of coastal cities.

The scientists say that the impact of dirty smoke from ships burning high-sulphur fuel can be substantial, on some days accounting for almost half of the fine, sulphur-rich particulate matter in the air known to be hazardous to human health….(Full Story)

Posted in Bunker Fuel, Community & Industry, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

Ship toxins kill 60,000 a year: Study

November 8, 2007 by admin.

Toronto Star

Environmental report says world’s fleet must switch to cleaner fuels and curb smokestack pollutants

Peter Gorrie
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

International shipping companies must curb smokestack emissions that kill up to 60,000 people a year, including 9,000 in North America, warns a study released yesterday.

Unless the world’s ocean fleet switches to cleaner fuels, the annual global toll of premature deaths will hit 84,000 within five years, says the study in the American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science & Technology….

The damage comes from sulphur-laden Bunker C oil that powers the growing number of ships in trade and tourism. The sludgy fuel is “the dregs of the oil refining process,” and has nearly 3,000 times more sulphur than the diesel fuel burned in trucks in North America and Europe, Marshall said….

The annual number of premature deaths from all outdoor air pollution is estimated to be about 800,000, the study notes. Researchers estimated the marine pollution toll by measuring the emissions from the more than 55,000 ships, then, figuring out how much they add to the total pollution in the atmosphere. Finally, they calculate the expected number of deaths from that increase….

The solution, is simple, although expensive, Marshall said: Ships, too, should be required to burn low-sulphur fuel and install scrubbing devices. Emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide from new and existing ships must be cut by as much as 90 per cent, no later than 2015, the study states…. (Full Toronto Star Story)
_________________
Note by folc.ca

Seawater-scrubbing of diesel exhausts on cruise ship

October 29, 2007 by admin.

folc.ca

Holland America Lines test seawater-scrubbing of diesel exhausts on cruise ship

Massive sulphate disposal in seawater, is it safe, or will history repeat itself?

Walter Schneider

According to announcements by Holland America Cruise Lines and by Kristallon (the maker of the scrubber) earlier this year and later, one of the best solutions ever devised to reduce and curb cruise-ship-engine emissions, and thereby the massive sulphur-dioxide (SO₂) pollution produced by cruise ships, was about to be tested and is undergoing testing right now, with promising results.

The seawater scrubber on the cruise ship Zaandam (Inland route Vancouver to Alaska) will use 450 tonnes of seawater an hour to help convert SO₂ to sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) and to sulphate (SO₄^2-). The altered seawater from the conversion of the SO₂ by the seawater scrubber will be discharged - diluted at a ratio of 1:10 - into the ocean. The conversion of the remaining sulphuric acid contained in the discharge water will then be completed in the ocean, to convert the remaining sulphuric acid to sulphate.

In essence, such a conversion process will do what nature does anyway, but it will take a shortcut and eliminate atmospheric pollution and the impact of acid rain caused by cruise-ship emissions. When SO₂ is discharged into the air, it is transformed into sulphur-trioxide (SO₃) and then, upon contact with water in the air, changed to sulphuric acid and into sulphate. That produces acid rain.

A diesel-powered ship equipped with a seawater scrubber will locally discharge concentrated “acid rain” right into the ocean and, where a cruise ship cannot connect to an on-shore source of electric energy (there are none on the Vancouver-Alaska route), right into the water of the harbour where it is berthed.

Various studies that were commissioned to examine the issues involved concentrated on the “acid rain” issue. They mention sulphate-production and -dumping only in passing, if at all. Those studies that mention sulphate consider it to be harmless, but is it?

Sulphate is a source of oxygen for anaerobic bacteria. Anaerobic bacteria metabolize sulphate and produce, amongst other things, hydrogen-sulphide (evil-smelling in small concentrations and scentless but harmful and even extremely deadly in moderate concentrations). Aside from the fact that the dumping of sulphate causes anaerobic bacteria to thrive in seawater at the bottoms of bodies of water that are starved of oxygen (common in coast waters), the anaerobic bacteria cause a concern that none of the seawater-scrubber studies I examined mention at all.

Anaerobic bacteria that metabolize sulphate convert the all-pervasive mercury in water (its presence there being largely a result of atmospheric distribution of pollution by coal-fired power plants) to a form (methyl-mercury) that is bio-available but not bio-degradable. The danger of methyl-mercury in the biomass is that it becomes concentrated as it moves up through the food chain — by a factor of about 10 every time it passes from one level to the next. At times and in some localities methyl-mercury causes fish (who are one step removed from the top of the food chain) that are contaminated with excessive levels of methyl-mercury to become unsafe to eat.

Methyl-mercury poisoning in humans who regularly ingest fish or shellfish was first discovered in 1956 in Japan, where it produced the infamous Minamata disease and its devastating results. Minamata disease also manifested itself many years later in Canada, in humans that lived, and regularly ate fish, in areas downstream from pulp mills.

Are seawater scrubbers on cruise ships safe for humans? Who knows? One thing is certain. Although the cause of Minamata disease was known for many years, prior to 1970 it was not considered in calculating its impact on humans when pulp mills using mercury-polluted bleach and discharging mercury-polluted water into streams were constructed in Canada.

Minamata disease in Ontario, Canada, was discovered in 1970. The human misery and costs caused by Minamata disease in Ontario were enormous.

There are many settlements along the Inland Route to Alaska that subsist on fish. There are others that sell fish to the whole world. Will seawater scrubbers on cruise ships keep all consumers of fish from that area safe? Who knows? One would think that is worth taking a look at.

However, as of now it does not appear that anyone involved in studying seawater-scrubbing of diesel exhausts of any ship is looking beyond the goal of preventing most or all SO2 produced by ships from entering the atmosphere. The impact that the injection of a massive volume of sulphate will have on the local ecology in coastal waters, in relation to giving anaerobic bacteria a boost that will enable an escalation of the rate of conversion of precipitated mercury to methyl-mercury, appears not to be an issue that is being examined in connection with sulphate production by seawater scrubbers. Nevertheless, the relationship of anaerobic bacteria thriving on sulphate and causing an escalation of the production of methyl-mercury in the process is a fact. For example:

Coastal Environmental Quality Initiative, University of California
Contribution of Iron-Reducing Bacteria of Mercury Methylation in Marine Sediments, by Emily J. Fleming and D C. Nelson; Paper 040, Dec. 8, 2006 (212 kB PDF file)

Quote: [methyl-mercury] enters food chains where it bioaccumulates to concentrations that can cause impaired neurological function in a variety of higher organisms (fish, birds, humans). This toxic conversion has, in the scientific literature, been quite dogmatically attributed to activities of sulfate-reducing bacteria….

More reports and study reports can be accessed through a google-search (about 364 entries on the search-return list)

There may not be any cause for concern with the environmental impact of seawater scrubbers, but it is possible that it exists. If that is the case, and if seawater scrubbers still are permitted to be used, then many people will become severely and incurably ill, and ultimately the taxpayers will be left holding the bag.

Posted in Pollution: Health Issues, Bunker Fuel, Acid Rain, Heavy-Metal Poisoning & Pollution, Hydrogen-Sulphide, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

Lawsuit filed over LA port air pollution

September 6, 2007 by admin.

presstelegram.com

Lawsuit filed over port air pollution

Thousands sick after government failed to regulate emissions, group says.

By Kristopher Hanson, Staff writer

LOS ANGELES - A new lawsuit blasts the federal government for failing to regulate diesel ship emissions despite evidence that air pollution around harbor communities is sickening thousands annually.

The suit, filed Wednesday in Washington, D.C., by San Francisco-based Friends of the Earth, accuses the Environmental Protection Agency of repeatedly putting off new pollution controls on oceangoing vessels visiting U.S. seaports….(Full Story)
___________
folc.ca: At 27,000 parts per million, bunker fuel used by diesel-powered ships contains 1,800 times as much sulphur by volume than does ultra-low-sulphur (ULS) Diesel at 15 parts per million used by highway trucks.

Even Diesel locomotives don’t use ULS Diesel. The sulphur content of Diesel fuel used by locomotives contains upward from 300-500 ppm of sulphur, thereby contributing to sulphur-dioxide-polluted air.

It appears that in effect the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adamantly protects a system for waste-sulphur disposal through dispersion in the environment.

Posted in Community & Industry, Bunker Fuel, Pollution: Health Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues, Ultra-Low-Sulphur Diesel, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

Court stops California from regulating shipping fuel standards

September 5, 2007 by admin.

landlinemag.com

A federal court has stopped California from enforcing a new fuel standard designed to cut use of bunker fuel from cargo ships as they reach ports in the Golden State….

The Long Beach Press-Telegram reported that bunker fuel contains sulfur content as high as 27,000 parts per million, compared with U.S. diesel limits on cars and trucks of sulfur no higher than 15 parts per million….(Full Story)
___________
Note by folc.ca: At 27,000 parts per million, bunker fuel used by diesel-powered ships and locomotives contains 1,800 times as much sulphur by volume than does ultra-low-sulphur (ULS) Diesel at 15 parts per million used by highway trucks.
It appears that the [U.S.] EPA adamantly protects a system for waste-sulphur disposal through dispersion in the environment. Why would the EPA do that?

Clean fuel to raise shipping costs

April 4, 2007 by admin.

The Standard (Hong Kong)

Hong Kong ship owners are pushing for a global switch to cleaner-burning distillates from high-sulfur marine fuels to reduce pollution and minimize engine damage, a top industry official said Tuesday….

“We have a great opportunity to get out of burning dirty fuel - a switch to distillates with a 1 percent sulfur cap will help simplify and clean up our engine rooms,” Bowring said.

More than 90 percent of the world’s trading fleet runs on high-sulfur residual fuels, which cause significant pollution….(Full Story)

___________________
Note by folc.ca:
A one-percent sulphur cap would cut the sulphur content in marine diesel to be no higher than about half of what it currently is, but that would still keep the sulphur content of marine diesel fuel to be 667 times higher than that in diesel fuel used for highway traffic in North America. One should be forgiven for believing that bunker fuel is used as a convenient means to dispose of sulphur and to pollute the environment in the process of sulphur dispersion by means of emitting massive amounts of sulphur-dioxide into the atmosphere.

Posted in Bunker Fuel, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

K-Line announces shift to Low Sulfur Fuel in the Pacific Northwest

March 23, 2007 by admin.

Press release: K-Line announces shift to Low Sulfur Fuel in the Pacific Northwest

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. (”K” Line), one of the world’s largest ocean transportation companies and an industry leader in environmental stewardship, announced that all container vessels in “K” Line’s Pacific Northwest service, calling at Tacoma, WA and Vancouver, B.C. will use low sulfur fuel in auxiliary machinery while the vessels are docked at Pacific Northwest ports. (Full Story)
________________
Note by folc.ca: It goes without saying that, when in motion, those ships are using highly polluting bunker fuel that contains extremely high levels (20,000 ppm and more) of sulphur. See next article for more on that. The photo (above) and the related story show that K-Lines’ boast, of being “an industry leader in environmental stewardship” is the motivating force for using lower-sulphur fuel in auxiliary engines when in or in the vicinity of ports in the Pacific Northwest, is perhaps justified only when it is being forced through legislation to become environmentally clean.

The California legislation that forces K-Lines to become “an industry leader in environmental stewardship” in the Pacific Northwest came into effect in January 2007.

Posted in Bunker Fuel, Ultra-Low-Sulphur Diesel | Print | No Comments »

Cars, trucks and buses trail cargo ships as air polluters

March 23, 2007 by admin.

A study finds that while land vehicles are cutting emissions, seafaring vessels are spewing sulfur oxide ‘virtually unchecked.’

By Janet Wilson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

Ocean-going vessels produce greater quantities of sulfur oxide air pollutants than all the world’s cars, trucks and buses combined, according to a study released Thursday.

The report by the International Council on Clean Transportation calls for international regulators to move aggressively to curb emissions from “bunker fuel” used by freight vessels that contains an average 27,000 parts per million of sulfur. U.S. standards for diesel trucks and other vehicles limit sulfur fuels to just 15 parts per million to protect public health. One kind of sulfur oxide, sulfur dioxide, can quickly kill if too much is inhaled rapidly. Chronic exposure to lower levels has been linked to respiratory problems. (Full Story)
_______________
Note by folc.ca: The article constitutes somewhat shoddy journalism. Diesel locomotives use bunker fuel, too.

Posted in Bunker Fuel, Emission Incidents & Issues, Ultra-Low-Sulphur Diesel, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

California legislation regarding marine diesels and sulfur-containing diesel fuels

February 21, 2007 by admin.

NEP&I (North of England P&I Club, marine insurance mutuals), Dec. 22, 2006

Emission Limits and Requirements for Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel Electric Engines within Californian Waters

From the 1st of January 2007 all ocean going vessels calling at California ports will have to ensure that auxiliary engines and all diesel electric engines are operating with gas oil or diesel with a maximum sulphur content of 0.5% when within 24 nautical miles from the Californian baseline. [That equates to a sulphur content of 20,000 ppm by weight. — ed. *]

Owners and Operators who’s vessels exceed this limit may be prosecuted under California’s Health and Safety Law….

From 2010 vessels will require to use marine gas oil with a maximum sulphur content of 0.1%. (Full Story)

Update 2007 11 08 by folc.ca: In September of 2007 the US Federal Government nixed this California legislation. It is curious that the driving force for that was the US Environment Protection Agency.

Without a doubt, marine diesel fuel is a concern with respect to air pollution, as shown in the photo (at right) of the diesel-exhaust plume (visible in the lower right of the photo) laid down by the cruise ship Norwegian Wind on a tour to Alaska (June 8, 2006, near Haines, Alaska).

Obviously the emission reduction targets set by the California regulation are no more than a pittance in the fight to curb SO₂ emissions from bunker fuel. All that the California regulations achieve is to set the limit for the sulphur content in marine bunker fuel to be no higher than 1,333 times than that in ultra-low-sulphur diesel. (Some marine bunker fuels can contain as much as 1.5% sulphur in designated areas, while the sulphur content of some No. 6 bunker fuels can be as high 6%.) Even the 2010 target limit for sulphur content in marine bunker fuel will still permit marine bunker fuel to have a sulphur content that is 267 times higher than the 15 ppm in ultra-low-sulphur diesel, but that will be a considerably more effective restriction.

It must therefore be concluded that marine diesel or bunker fuel is until then a convenient vehicle for the disposal of waste sulphur on a very large scale by spewing it into the environment in the form of SO₂. Marine diesel exhaust plumes are loaded with SO₂; and the one shown in the photo is from just a single ship. A number of cruise ships travel this route each day during the tourist season. Although tourism is vital to Alaska’s economy, that makes it far from being environmentally friendly.

Well, at least Californians now have the benefit of the illusion that something effective is being done to curb air pollution caused by ships.

Nevertheless, the sulphur-content restrictions for marine bunker fuel in California and other localities will increase the world’s waste-sulphur inventory and the waste-sulphur storage requirements in the US. The world market for waste sulphur is already seriously glutted, and the tightening emission restrictions on SO₂ will increase the severity of that glut. That decreases the market potential for Alberta waste sulphur. The question now is by how much the California regulations and those in other localities increase the likelihood that waste sulphur will be stored at the proposed sulphur storage and handling facility in the County of Lamont.

One recent study for the EC [European Commission] found that ship-borne sulfur dioxide [SO₂] emissions will account for at least 30% of all airborne SO₂ in Europe by 2010 (see Diesel Fuel News 11/27/2000, p2). But updated forecasts indicate that marine SO₂ could rise to the equivalent of 75-100% of all Europe’s land-based SO₂ emissions by 2010, Robinson said….Sweden, Belgium and France already ban the sale of higher-sulfur marine gasoil….

Posted in Bunker Fuel, Emission Incidents & Issues, World Sulphur Glut, Sulphur Logistics, Ultra-Low-Sulphur Diesel | Print | No Comments »

Blogroll

Links