Low(er) sulfur bunker fuel for cruise ships

[HoleshotHolset]

We have ULSD in the US - finally.



Now there's a push for lower sulfur in bunker fuel used in cruise ships... interesting!



Kauai Garden Island News



1000ppm bunker fuel would be . 1% sulfur



Current bunker fuel is 1. 4 - 2. 5% sulfur - that's 14,000ppm - 25,000ppm - WHOA!



By comparison, ULSD sold in the US for on-road use can be no more than 15ppm. (The old "LSD" low sulfur diesel was 500ppm. )



Beers,



Matt

 

[DeezelDood]

Good subject. Since I work in the marine industry I have some first-hand experience with the new regs. The Hawai ships are probably targeted because they call California ports. California Air Resources Board (CARB) have had their sights on ships for years. For the past year or so they have required that auxiliary diesel engines (electric power) berthed in California ports must burn Marine Gas Oil (MGO ) with a sulphur content no higher than 0. 5%. Records are kept aboard ship and the ships are boarded by CARB air quality reps to insure compliance. The new proposed regs are an exponential increase in the requirements. Marine ULSD will be required on all propulsion and auxiliary engines with 200 miles of the coast of California. The odds are very high that these new rules will be implemented. ULSD is much larger problem for ships than vehicles. 0. 1% (1000ppm) sulphur is a "sea change" in itself. I cannot imagine 15ppm ULSD. It is highly unlikely that refineries could not meet the demand for the highly refined 15ppm ULSD in any case.

a. The cost of 0. 1% ULSD is 30-50% higher than the heavy fuel oil (up to 4. 5% sulphur) they currently burn @ sea. This cost will be passed on to consumers since virtually everything we use is imported from Asia.

b. Marine Engines currently in use are not well suited for ULSD. Low lubricity is a factor but the larger issue is that the lube oils ships use 95% of the time have additive packages that are formulated for 2. 5-4. 5% sulphur. Running these engines on ULSD will tear them up in short order because of deposits created in the ring grooves, piston crowns, and exh valves by the excess (non neutralized) BN additive. Therefore, ships will be required to carry separate tanks of low BN lubes to be used when burning ULSD. Again, higher costs will be passed on to consumers.

The move to cleaner air is not going away. We 'll just suck it up an bear it.

 

[HoleshotHolset]

... This cost will be passed on to consumers since virtually everything we use is imported from Asia. ...

The move to cleaner air is not going away. We 'll just suck it up an bear it.

What better way to reduce the trade deficit?!



Mandating these new requirements is not going to be easy... but we'll get through it.



Beers,



Matt

 

[rbattelle]

It is highly unlikely that refineries could not meet the demand for the highly refined 15ppm ULSD in any case.

Or, they'll try to meet the demand and the price of ordinary #2 will skyrocket.



Personally, I'd love to see the ships abandon CA and move North to Washington and Oregon.



Ryan

 

[Wayne M.]

I don't know for sure what fuel they use, but the Staten Island ferry is going ULSD (I believe #2). The push is definetly on everybody!

 

[nickleinonen]

good for them for helping the environment out, but dang, i am not looking forward to the fuel price increases [already over $1. 10/liter ]

 

[DeezelDood]

http://www.contracostatimes.com/sea...s.com-www.contracostatimes.com&nclick_check=1



Hold the phone! Found this on the web today.

Not sure if link will work (give it a try).

 

[MOates]

One small question -



What legal precedent or justification are they claiming for the right to impose state air quality standards - not national, not a sovereign country, but STATE - on ships in international waters?



Last I checked, CA was not an independent sovereign country with it's own territorial waters or economic zone. (Much as some of us might wish it was).



How would they even enforce this a couple hundred miles out to sea - get the Navy to give them some mothablled frigates so they have their own fleet, then go boarding merchant vessels on the high seas for air quality inspections?



The more I see and hear about CARB and their regulations, the more I feel they're nothing but a bunch of control freaks bent on forcing everyone into their version of utopia. Their actions seem to have gone far past the point of diminishing returns and common sense.

 

[DeezelDood]

Most of the people at CARB are well meaning, but they don't think things through. For one thing, they spit out requirements with little or no industry input. Second, they use theoretical data instead of actual measurements.

Quick example, 99% of ships calling Los Angeles enter from the NW. This puts them off the coast for 120 miles or so. CARB decided that slowing the ships down would reduce air polution. There is a "voluntary" 12 mph slow down zone in effect. This ignores the fact that (a) the ships are moving slower and are in the coastal waters longer and (b) diesel engines are most effcient at about 85% peak horsepower. It is unlikely, but possible, that the measured data would support their conclusions. It would take years and $$$ to collect this data, but that would not meet the short term political goal of doing something. The data could also refute their assumptions. Better to to put ones head in the sand and move forward I guess. The same rationale was used in the ULSD requirement. Minimal input from industry on the mechanical and logistical impact of ULSD. Final point, the Feds are not blameless. Fed tax dollars are used as a carrot (or stick) to enforce EPA air quality regs. California, LA in particular, is constantly under a microscope.

There is a lot of pressure on the state agencies to meet those EPA guidelines. Not all regs are bad, the air quality in the LA basin has improved a lot in 30 years. What is needed is a balanced approach that takes everyones needs into consideration. I'm not holding my beath.