Jump to content
Richie

Environmentally friendly???

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Fine Whine said:

While I bow to your technical knowledge Jonno I am still thoroughly confused by this thread. This is an extract from the BF blog about Cap Finisterre and scrubbers.

Chris :S

 

If you've been following our blog then you'll already know that we've been carrying out an extensive programme of modifications to three of our ships this winter and spring...

This work involves the installation of scrubbers - essentially gas filters - to Normandie, Cap Finistère, and Barfleur, allowing them to burn cost-effective heavy fuel oil, whilst still complying with new, stringent regulations applying to ships' emissions.

cap-finisteres-funnel.jpgCap Finistère's funnelinline_enlarge_en.gifCap Finistère recently returned to operation following her refit, and whether you're standing on the shore, or travelling on board, you'll notice a number of modifications and improvements. And many of them you may not notice at all.

To be honest Chris I don't know what the big deal is. At the moment BF burn marine diesel, so what?

Why do they have to use the scrubbers... just because they're there?

All it means is that the six ships will remain compliant regardless of what fuel market forces dictate is the most cost effective to use. MGO maybe slightly cheaper but that's offset by the large amounts of energy required to power the scrubbers and energy on a ship equals heavier fuel consumption. 

They still get the tax breaks whether they're used or not and it doesn't require a dockyard to switch over. Neither fuel requires the convoluted hardware traditional HFO did, tank flushing is done at berth, the main engines can be reconfigured alternately whilst at sea and gen sets are built bi fuel anyway.

For what it's worth the Pont Aven, Armorique and MSM's main engines can be converted to run on LNG with electric gen sets. That's not beyond the bounds of possibility if the partnership with TOTAL.SA is a successful one.

Who knows what the next BV paperwork will say?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget also that this was actually the original plan.  When project Pegasis was live, the plan was to convert MSM, Pont Aven and Armorique to run on LNG.  Scubbers were not the first-choice solution, but at the time BF felt they had no choice but to go for scrubbers when Pegasis (and all the associated funding for the LNG conversions) fell through.  That's why these three vessels were the last members of the fleet to go for their scrubbers - BF held out for as long as they could in case the LNG conversions could still happen.  However, now that they have had their scrubbers fitted I very much doubt that BF would stump up for LNG conversions as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion - I was on Mont St Michel yesterday, have sailed on her a few times since the scrubbers were installed but this was the first time that I had noticed the "rainfall" effect, probably because of reading this thread previously. Yesterday morning was dry when we left Portmsouth but out in the Solent there was suddenly, what felt like, thick drizzle falling on the port side of the stern outer deck causing a few people to scurry off inside thinking that it had started to rain.....nothing fell on the starboard side most likely due to the wind, and it only lasted 20 - 30 seconds I would guess. I spent a lot of time out on deck and this happened at least a half a dozen times during the crossing that I noticed.

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any ship using scrubber is producing water vapour and droplets I'd rapidly run the other way. they are are only 80% effective at best and the only byproduct of open loop scrubber systems is sulphuric acid. It's why they're built with coiled loops so the vapour returns to liquid wash water which is pumped directly into the sea allowing the alkalinity to neutralise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I travelled back from Caen on MSM yesterday afternoon and on outside aft deck 8 where they have the benches it was like light rain for about 10 minutes as we started to move off the berth, in fact many people thought it was rain and went inside (despite the very warm sunshine!). sadly NO plastic deckchairs available either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without wishing to create a polemic ….

I had trouble getting my head round the logic of the massive investment in scrubbers, and running the whole fleet on diesel. Yes, we know that with no scrubbers, Bretagne is on diesel these days.

So, on Tuesday, I asked the chief engineer on Armorique, who without knowing 100% about the rest of the fleet, confirmed that Armorique was running on heavy fuel oil, with the scrubbers doing their job. I would guess this is the case across the fleet? And, why run on diesel across Biscay, outside the MARPOL zone?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BF funnel giving off white fumes = good. Arguably showing up operators who have not complied. There are always edge cases, but the point of the scrubbers is that there should basically be plenty of white (vapor) coming out when they are engaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/04/2018 at 16:51, jonno said:

If any ship using scrubber is producing water vapour and droplets I'd rapidly run the other way. they are are only 80% effective at best and the only byproduct of open loop scrubber systems is sulphuric acid. It's why they're built with coiled loops so the vapour returns to liquid wash water which is pumped directly into the sea allowing the alkalinity to neutralise it.

Jonno - you mention the acidity, but 'standard' rain has a pH of about 5.5 I believe, making it acidic?... despite the amplification due to industry or location

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hf_uk said:

Jonno - you mention the acidity, but 'standard' rain has a pH of about 5.5 I believe, making it acidic?... despite the amplification due to industry or location

The pH of rainwater isn't particularly important as it has no minerals meaning there is no pH buffer which ground based water has. The former has no pH until it interacts with anything ground based. The latter has sulphate and carbon deposits.

Rainwater is essentially distilled water which does pick up minute airborne mineral traces but the distillate is able to overcome them. We've all experienced rainfall which leaves a desert residue on your car or windows but even then it has no pH until it lands on something.

Deionized water is different, it's purer so even CO2 makes it acidic.

The wash water discharge effluent from open loop scrubbers is pure sulphuric acid and never enters any part of the smoke stack.(BF's don't produce condensate, they aren't condensing and aren't used for heat recovery ergo no flue gas condensation.) The scrubbers rely on the high alkalinity levels in seawater for neutralization. The problem you face years later is in seas like the Baltic and the Med' which aren't particularly tidal, the alkalinity levels aren't renewed frequently so eventually the wash water will destroy them.

Scrubbers are very short term and can't even really be described as a solution as no one will be burning the bottom end of the refining process within 5 years. There aren't many passenger ships out there with them, only those which were given hefty subsidies and many of those don't use them.

Even now marine diesel oil which only requires particulate filters is cheap, todays Bunker Index (29/6) has it at  £508 a tonne which equates to 11400 litres of MDO when it's density is considered. That's 44p a litre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When they are in port and they start up, they belch out a load of black smoke.  Is this just residual soot before the scrubbers start?  Seen Barfleur do it,  see her from the quay, with clouds of black smoke coming out of her funnels.  Gets one of the anti pollution locals all hot under the collar as he has posted so in local Facebook pages.  (He gets the mick taken for it every time, he moans about everything he thinks is polluting)  Doesn’t bother me it is only for a couple of minutes, I informed this guy on Facebook that I have sat on her decks when the wind blew all that dark matter down onto us and we were all enveloped in a cloud of exhaust and most of us found it funny! Nobody really pays any attention.

Edited by Khaines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jonno said:

The pH of rainwater isn't particularly important as it has no minerals meaning there is no pH buffer which ground based water has. The former has no pH until it interacts with anything ground based. The latter has sulphate and carbon deposits.

Rainwater is essentially distilled water which does pick up minute airborne mineral traces but the distillate is able to overcome them. We've all experienced rainfall which leaves a desert residue on your car or windows but even then it has no pH until it lands on something.

Deionized water is different, it's purer so even CO2 makes it acidic.

The wash water discharge effluent from open loop scrubbers is pure sulphuric acid and never enters any part of the smoke stack.(BF's don't produce condensate, they aren't condensing and aren't used for heat recovery ergo no flue gas condensation.) The scrubbers rely on the high alkalinity levels in seawater for neutralization. The problem you face years later is in seas like the Baltic and the Med' which aren't particularly tidal, the alkalinity levels aren't renewed frequently so eventually the wash water will destroy them.

Scrubbers are very short term and can't even really be described as a solution as no one will be burning the bottom end of the refining process within 5 years. There aren't many passenger ships out there with them, only those which were given hefty subsidies and many of those don't use them.

Even now marine diesel oil which only requires particulate filters is cheap, todays Bunker Index (29/6) has it at  £508 a tonne which equates to 11400 litres of MDO when it's density is considered. That's 44p a litre.

So acidic rain was a myth then? Rainwater has a pH like all aqueous solutions. Distilled water has a pH of 7. The rainwater pH can be lower than 7 i.e. acidic when it reacts with acid gases such as sulphur dioxide (SO2), producing sulphuric acid. The open loop scrubber is no different to what happens in the atmosphere with the major difference that scrubbers prevent the spread of this noxious gas, reduce a downfall of sulphuric acid on land (and sea). The effluent of an open loop system is not pure sulphuric acid but a very diluted acidic solution. From memory, it is possible to dilute 400L of gaseous sulphuric acid  in a liter of water. A big advantage of the closed loop systems is that the acid can be recovered and reused in chemical processes such as fertilizer production.

Re the price of fuel, it may not stay cheap with all the tensions around Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, crechbleiz said:

So acidic rain was a myth then? Rainwater has a pH like all aqueous solutions. Distilled water has a pH of 7. The rainwater pH can be lower than 7 i.e. acidic when it reacts with acid gases such as sulphur dioxide (SO2), producing sulphuric acid.

Henry's Law on partitioning of carbon dioxide between air and water plus the dissociations of carbonic to proton and bicarbonate must be wrong then.

 

42 minutes ago, crechbleiz said:

The effluent of an open loop system is not pure sulphuric acid but a very diluted acidic solution.

I suggest you tell that to the Danish Ministry of the Environment. There's no chance of any closed loop effluent being used for fertilizer due to the concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzo furans not to mention the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

In the open loop system this is all pumped into the sea.

 

56 minutes ago, crechbleiz said:

gaseous sulphuric acid

Sulphur Dioxide and Sulphur Trioxide aren't gaseous sulphuric acid. it needs vanadium oxide as a catalyst in the contact process. You do know that Sulphur Dioxide is used as food preservative? It's E220.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jonno said:

Henry's Law on partitioning of carbon dioxide between air and water plus the dissociations of carbonic to proton and bicarbonate must be wrong then.

 

I suggest you tell that to the Danish Ministry of the Environment. There's no chance of any closed loop effluent being used for fertilizer due to the concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzo furans not to mention the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

In the open loop system this is all pumped into the sea.

 

Sulphur Dioxide and Sulphur Trioxide aren't gaseous sulphuric acid. it needs vanadium oxide as a catalyst in the contact process. You do know that Sulphur Dioxide is used as food preservative? It's E220.

I m not gonna engage in a chemistry lesson here. I am fully aware of some of the facts you are quoting having studied chemistry for far too long. Acidic rain does exist and CO2 is not the main contributor. 

Was just pointing out that saying that rainwater has no pH is wrong. It is around 7 i.e. Neutral and can turn acidic when absorbing acidic gases. 

I am fully aware that Sox aren't sulphuric acid. However the latter is one of the products of Sox reacting in the atmosphere. UV radiations are one of the possible catalysts. 

I am glad that Colin was able to get confirmation from a BF engineer that HFO is used for the scrubber equipped vessels. Someone on this forum was adamant that they didn't need scrubbers since they were not using HFO 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crechbleiz said:

I m not gonna engage in a chemistry lesson here. I am fully aware of some of the facts you are quoting having studied chemistry for far too long. Acidic rain does exist and CO2 is not the main contributor. 

Was just pointing out that saying that rainwater has no pH is wrong. It is around 7 i.e. Neutral and can turn acidic when absorbing acidic gases. 

I am fully aware that Sox aren't sulphuric acid. However the latter is one of the products of Sox reacting in the atmosphere. UV radiations are one of the possible catalysts. 

I am glad that Colin was able to get confirmation from a BF engineer that HFO is used for the scrubber equipped vessels. Someone on this forum was adamant that they didn't need scrubbers since they were not using HFO 

Come on crechbleiz, you've studied chemistry so you'll know rain has a neutral pH and the value of the it gains is determined by where it's formed and where it falls and once it does fall it's no longer rainwater but groundwater and takes on further background pH. The only way to determine the truest value is to take an airborne sample within in a glove box in a nitrogen atmosphere and that's impossible. You'll also know that the biggest obstacle we face from high concentrates of SOx is reflection as it blocks out the UV the planet needs and has a detrimental cooling effect..

As for what BF burn... guilty as charged although I gained my information from Bureau Veritas and a senior bloke at Whitakers who amongst others takes care of BAI's fuel oil terminal in Millbay.

Iranian tensions? Oil is 5 dollars a barrel cheaper than what it was when Trump pulled the US plug on their involvement in the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jonno said:

Come on crechbleiz, you've studied chemistry so you'll know rain has a neutral pH and the value of the it gains is determined by where it's formed and where it falls and once it does fall it's no longer rainwater but groundwater and takes on further background pH. The only way to determine the truest value is to take an airborne sample within in a glove box in a nitrogen atmosphere and that's impossible. You'll also know that the biggest obstacle we face from high concentrates of SOx is reflection as it blocks out the UV the planet needs and has a detrimental cooling effect..

As for what BF burn... guilty as charged although I gained my information from Bureau Veritas and a senior bloke at Whitakers who amongst others takes care of BAI's fuel oil terminal in Millbay.

Iranian tensions? Oil is 5 dollars a barrel cheaper than what it was when Trump pulled the US plug on their involvement in the deal.

Didn't say anything different. Neutral is pH=7, not 0. Your initial email was saying "rain has no pH" which is incorrect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jonno said:

Come on crechbleiz, you've studied chemistry so you'll know rain has a neutral pH and the value of the it gains is determined by where it's formed and where it falls and once it does fall it's no longer rainwater but groundwater and takes on further background pH. 

Pure water has a pH of 7.0 (neutral); however, natural, unpolluted rainwater actually has a pHof about 5.6 (acidic).[Recall from Experiment 1 that pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration.]

http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTutorials/Water/FreshWater/acidrain.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cvabishop said:

Who cares! 🙄

 

6 hours ago, neilcvx said:

Exactly 👏🏻

So why waste your time reading and then posting. I'm sure there are plenty of things you do care about plus other threads worthy of your attentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jonno said:

 

So why waste your time reading and then posting. I'm sure there are plenty of things you do care about plus other threads worthy of your attentions.

Yes, I thought this was one of the more interesting discussions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jonno said:

 

So why waste your time reading and then posting. I'm sure there are plenty of things you do care about plus other threads worthy of your attentions.

Because I want to see the facts about scrubbers not opinions and if I don’t follow then I won’t see that and if I follow it I might as well post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, cvabishop said:

Who cares! 🙄

I think we all should to a certain extent, first as it involves the marine environment which most of us appreciate and, hopefully, respect and second as it ultimately our money through taxes and ticket prices which has allowed BF to install this technology. We might not all understand how it works to the same degree, nor the complex processes involved, but should appreciate the effort made by the engineers and technicians responsible to come up with a system that allows vessels to meet today's regulations as well as making them saleable when and if the time comes. Ed. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, neilcvx said:

Because I want to see the facts about scrubbers not opinions and if I don’t follow then I won’t see that and if I follow it I might as well post.

That's fair enough Neil I carried on about rainwater as crechbleiz was putting words in my mouth... Where have I written that rainwater has a pH of 0? He then claimed that rainwater with a pH of less than 7 is acidic which is not accurate either as at 0'c it's pH is 7.47 but still has equal amounts of Hydronium and Hydroxide ions and at 100'c its pH is 6.14 again non acidic as it still has equal amounts of H3O and OH. Both are neutral.

There are areas in the Gulf of Bothnia which have recorded pH levels of 8 due to temperature but are still neutral. It may appear on paper that the area has high alkalinity so is perfect for scrubber wash water but actually the Baltic has very low alkalinity due to its brackish state. There are contradictions everywhere.

Broadly using 7 as a baseline is great theoretically and secondary school classroom experiments but the actual exacting environment this figure requires is only ever attainable in a controlled falsely created atmosphere.

We used to do huge amounts of work to record the adverse effects rainwater in different cities, different temp's and altitudes had on turbofans especially flying through the polluted atmosphere surrounding large airports and heavily industrialised areas as power plant life and more importantly life extending maintenance is critical. The likes of Boeing and Airbus subject their airframes to the same to the extent that aircraft built may not necessarily have the same coating composition.

Most if not all large scale engineering projects do the same. Even as a teenager in the '80's I had to take concrete sample blocks which were then submerged in different types of water, fresh, river, sea and rain and at different temp ranges with the adverse effects recorded over a 12 month period.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...