Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If I vote out then I will possibly be voting for Mr Duncan Smith - who I cannot abide. I would like to see him cast into the annals of political history, and after his recent whining about his lot in life, even more so!! But if I vote to stay then I am siding with bloomin Cameron and Osborne. Vote out would cut off the snake's head, but would we get worse, and reap what we sow either way?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is just as much a mistake to view the referendum issue as being about personalities as it is to replace intelligent debate with scare tactics. This vote is not about who is in charge next year, or even what the immediate effects will be on the UK economy. It is a vote that will determine the destiny of the UK for the next 100 years, and the whole debate is woefully short of objective factual information informing both sides of the vote. Both sides of the campaign are guilty in this respect, but the UK government more so because it is abdicating its responsibility to ensure that the UK population is properly informed on both sides. The consequences of this vote will be of critical relevance to our country long after Cameron, Duncan-Smith, Osbourne, Johnson, Farage, Corbyn, you, I and everyone else in this forum have long departed the planet.

Edited by Gareth
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I know that last post of mine was off-topic, and it is not meant as a criticism of anybody on the forum. It's just that there have been a few posts in the thread about the EU referendum in the UK that have suggested that the issue might in some way be about personalities and it is such an important decision (that is far from straightforward) that I thought the above needed saying. If the mods want to take all the EU posts out into a separate thread in the Open House section that would be fine by me.

 

Back on the subject of fumes and emissions, and in response to droopsnout, sorry was not intending to belittle the importance of controlling emissions. My angle was purely that I did not understand why it was not important to do that everywhere and why zoning was necessary, but that's because I misunderstood the regulations to be about protecting the global climate rather than about limiting regional pollution. My thanks to cvabishop for explaining that to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personalties who need their wings clipped, Gareth, all the abovementioned. Those personalities could well affect a lot of lives on here, and the aforementioned main players will be having a direct effect on whatever happens in the EU regarding ferry travel. The out campaign features a bunch of clowns and so do the in campaign so we are stuffed either way. I've a good mind to abstain from voting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great informative post Jonno. Makes one look at the emissions issue in a whole new light.

 

re: the fumes issue

I can only imagine the hyperbole if this gets traction on Trip Advisor..."my cabin smelt like an Esso station" blah blah

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the smell of diesel part and parcel of being on a ship -- rather like vibrations? I used to say that the characteristic odour of the car ferries was a combination of diesel, hot paint and fried food! Not everybody's ideal and breathing in exhaust fumes as distinct from the lingering smell of the fuel can't be too good for you. I have to say I do quite like the smell of diesel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Northy and G4rth, fair points although still think it is daft to retro current ships. As much as they do live linger there are far fewer of them than old cars...collectively, in comparison are they much different in offending. Admittedly in the 70/80/90.s many aircraft were slowly banned from operating in certain areas without different stages of noise signature. But my understanding would be per aircraft the retrofitting/modification to stage 3 and 4 engines was probably a lot cheaper per aircraft simply because of numbers involved and the standard design of each - thus mass production of new kit. Each ship is bespoke and I can only assume, per ship a blooming large sum compared to the capital cost of the ship itself.

 

And yes, I should have done my research, MARPOL is to blame, it was a cheap shot at Europe, I admit! Ironically if the regulations had not insisted on converting old ships, Brittany Ferries may have had more money and sooner to have now ordered and even have running a fleet of newer CLEANER ships than being left with a gaggle of old converted or unconverted ships chugging away. This is my beef, I wage a bet the net effect of scrubbers in the fleet is hardly making any gains to the environment, but hey, if it ticks a box . . . .!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some very good points 5_ShortBlasts. I suspect you are correct that the overall environmental gain is fairly marginal, I think Jonno made that point quite well too in another post. Sulphur emissions seem to have been put ahead of CO2 emissions, I guess because sulphur is more of a regional issue (thinking in terms of acid rain) than the global issue of CO2. It would be interesting to read some research papers on the issue, I'm not sure much is published yet. I do think it's good that something has been done but thoroughly agree that investing in new ships and new engines would be preferable to the compromise we have. At the moment I'm not sure the economics work out either, though this will change as fuel costs climb over the coming months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of installing scrubbers versus running of diesel or even converting to LNG is, of course, a judgement to be made by operators. If the decision is not so clear-cut now, due to currently low fuel prices, it's a new lease of life for Bretagne, at least. But cutting sulphur emissions is unarguably a good thing, for both the environment and the future of the ferry industry.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Some very good points 5_ShortBlasts. I suspect you are correct that the overall environmental gain is fairly marginal, I think Jonno made that point quite well too in another post. Sulphur emissions seem to have been put ahead of CO2 emissions, I guess because sulphur is more of a regional issue (thinking in terms of acid rain) than the global issue of CO2. It would be interesting to read some research papers on the issue, I'm not sure much is published yet. I do think it's good that something has been done but thoroughly agree that investing in new ships and new engines would be preferable to the compromise we have. At the moment I'm not sure the economics work out either, though this will change as fuel costs climb over the coming months.

 

Agreed. And I also appreciated Jonno's post which was highly informative to someone like me with virtually nil technical/engineering experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have transferred a question I asked on another thread here as it seems more relevant given the direction this discussion is taking. I hope that is OK.

 

Quote:

Can I ask what might be a daft question and relates obviously to new builds and not to conversions. Why do we still need funnels in this day and age? I know that in steam-driven ships it helped to draw a flow of air through the boilers, but with modern engines and in particular diesels why can't the exhaust gases be vented directly into the water. Surely if the engine outlet is well above the waterline and the exhaust pipe runs diagonally downwards with a series of non-return valves this would eliminate the need for scrubbers as the gases would mix directly with the seawater. There would presumably be less noise, vibration and smoke to disrupt the passengers. It would free up considerable interior space for more cabins and facilities and the ship's design could be more aerodynamic and adventurous. In addition passing under bridges would no longer be a problem. Thanks. Ed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't the smell of diesel part and parcel of being on a ship -- rather like vibrations? I used to say that the characteristic odour of the car ferries was a combination of diesel, hot paint and fried food! Not everybody's ideal and breathing in exhaust fumes as distinct from the lingering smell of the fuel can't be too good for you. I have to say I do quite like the smell of diesel.

 

The usual ferry smells are fine. My post #21 refers to something entirely different, related to a specific problem which made the journey unusually uncomfortable. Thankfully, the situation appears now to have been resolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have transferred a question I asked on another thread here as it seems more relevant given the direction this discussion is taking. I hope that is OK.

 

Quote:

Can I ask what might be a daft question and relates obviously to new builds and not to conversions. Why do we still need funnels in this day and age? I know that in steam-driven ships it helped to draw a flow of air through the boilers, but with modern engines and in particular diesels why can't the exhaust gases be vented directly into the water. Surely if the engine outlet is well above the waterline and the exhaust pipe runs diagonally downwards with a series of non-return valves this would eliminate the need for scrubbers as the gases would mix directly with the seawater. There would presumably be less noise, vibration and smoke to disrupt the passengers. It would free up considerable interior space for more cabins and facilities and the ship's design could be more aerodynamic and adventurous. In addition passing under bridges would no longer be a problem. Thanks. Ed.

 

​The main argument would be you are just moving the pollution into the sea. I think with the scrubbers the dirty water from the process has to be taken ashore and disposed of.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

​The main argument would be you are just moving the pollution into the sea. I think with the scrubbers the dirty water from the process has to be taken ashore and disposed of.

 

 

Thanks for your reply. I think you are correct with regard to the system on board Pont Aven (which might explain the scale of her new system) but on other vessels I believe the waste generated is discharged directly into the sea where it is neutralised and diluted by the seawater. So I think that the pollution impact would just be the same. My logic was that rather than spray the gasses with seawater (which has to be lifted from water level) in an ugly and expensive process involving pumps etc why not use the water at the same level as the engines?

 

My real point was regarding future ship design with 'clean' fuels, not requiring scrubbing systems, and if the designers can't find a way around the need for funnels. Or do passengers intrinsically associate funnels with ships and are suspicious of any deviation from the norm? Certainly many of the diesel-burning fast-cats don't have funnels but vent the fumes out of the back, so why can future cruise ferries not do the same? Ed

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some very good points 5_ShortBlasts. I suspect you are correct that the overall environmental gain is fairly marginal,

 

Perhaps localized might have been a better word. With the increases in asthma and other respiratory diseases there is a considerable potential pay back to the health services in reduced polution. How many times is the view to the horizon actually clear on a fine day. The more polution is reduced the better as far as I'm concerned. Some of us here can remember the 50's when although polution was bad and people were wearing smog masks, when it cleared, you could still look up at the sky and clearly see the Milky Way in southern England. I can't remember the last time I was able to do that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's more to do with light pollution isn't it?

 

Masked by rather than caused by. In Poole they are changing all to sodium lights to led lights. It's got rid of the orange glow but it just makes it more obvious how little you can see in the sky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

​The main argument would be you are just moving the pollution into the sea. I think with the scrubbers the dirty water from the process has to be taken ashore and disposed of.

 

 

Solo, it's pumped directly into the sea allowing the natural alkalinity to neutralise it. there is a small tank onboard which is used periodically for content testing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to see how the advances in electric/hybrid engines effect ferry design, should be possible in the near future to have a route like the Caen one serviced by a hybrid ferry with quickly changeable battery blocks .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
Now this could just be my imagination but I suspect that I noticed some 'Exhaust type fumes' in certain places on the Pont Aven since the 'ugly scrubbers' were fitted. I was on the Santander - Portsmouth trip docking yesterday and noticed this in the Commodore cabin we were in plus the Commodore lounge. May be utterly wrong but would like the opinions of others.

I suspected that it was coming through the air conditioning.

 

Moving on a few weeks: We are travelling in Cabin 8417 on Thursday night (Ply-Ros). Can anyone update us on the situation regarding the Commodore cabins since the scrubbers were fitted to the Pont. These whispers about fumes and vibrations seem to crop up from time to time, so just wondering if there is truly a problem or is it just peeps over-reacting. When weather permits we like to sleep with the balcony door open so we can hear the sea and feel the breeze, but if diesel fumes are going to fill the cabin, that will be a bit off-putting to say the least.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...