Apology Accepted!

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Once again, natural gas powered ships are the best answer. I have addressed this several times on this forum. 

Uh, more than "several".  I am with you 100%.  Why doesn't it catch on and spread?  Other powerful opponents?  Who are they?  

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

26 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Just one problem Ron. Bunker fuel is dirt cheap. I am talking $2/barrel. Using NG would cause shipping cost to increase by a factor of 4 or 5. Nuclear powered ships would be better if there was a way to ensure that no nuclear materials got into the hands of terrorists. That is the kind of thing the UN should be able to regulate. After all, they already have weapons inspectors?

Now now sell the environment out over a few dollars? 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

The first large natural gas ship became operational in 2012. 

https://www.offshore-energy.biz/norway-worlds-first-lng-powered-cargo-ship-launched/

I have been promoting them for many years. 

They have built a new one, bigger and even more fuel and emissions efficient, with greater capabilities.  Why don't more companies go this route?

 

BioMar: Norwegian production expansion comes on stream

03-Nov-2017 By Lynda Searby

Danish fish feed producer BioMar has expanded production capacity by 140,000 metric tons at its Karmøy facility in Norway and invested in a “new generation” LNG vessel to transport feed from the factory.

HTTPS://WWW.FEEDNAVIGATOR.COM/ARTICLE/2017/11/03/BIOMAR-NORWEGIAN-PRODUCTION-EXPANSION

[Wombat + 1,028]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Once again, natural gas powered ships are the best answer. I have addressed this several times on this forum. 

Oops, I tell a lie! Just checked bunker price. $400/tonne which works out at $60/barrel. Unbelievable. It is waste product from oil refining so should be much cheaper than refined diesel. No wonder NG is being considered!

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

28 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Just one problem Ron. Bunker fuel is dirt cheap. I am talking $2/barrel. Using NG would cause shipping cost to increase by a factor of 4 or 5. Nuclear powered ships would be better if there was a way to ensure that no nuclear materials got into the hands of terrorists. That is the kind of thing the UN should be able to regulate. After all, they already have weapons inspectors?

Not in this Reality, you're not. A metric ton is equivalent to about 7 bbls of oil. There's no way to get to your $2/bbl in this century. Sure, when WTI sells for $10/bbl bunker is that cheap, but I wouldn't build a business plan on that. 

The real problem with LNG fuel is its size and complexity. Size is premium on a container ship and their crews are not what I would call summa cum laude material. Add in the "filling station" problem and implementation gets tricky indeed. I'm 100% in favor when the ship in question is an LNG transport. Nothing like hauling your own fuel. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 minute ago, Ward Smith said:

Not in this Reality, you're not. A metric ton is equivalent to about 7 bbls of oil. There's no way to get to your $2/bbl in this century. Sure, when WTI sells for $10/bbl bunker is that cheap, but I wouldn't build a business plan on that. 

The real problem with LNG fuel is its size and complexity. Size is premium on a container ship and their crews are not what I would call summa cum laude material. Add in the "filling station" problem and implementation gets tricky indeed. I'm 100% in favor when the ship in question is an LNG transport. Nothing like hauling your own fuel. 

Yeah, I already saw my own miscalculation. But I can see how the operators of the largest container ships might like the idea of "dual-fuel" given the ability to switch the mix depending on price. I guess the refinery waste is used to produce both bunker fuel and bitumen to make asphalt roads, but I do wonder the effects that electric vehicles would have on supply and demand. If there were less oil refineries in the future, I guess there would be less bunker fuel produced? On the other hand, a rapid decline in demand for bunker fuel due to more gas-powered ships may cause the price to decline? The ship operators would become "price-makers" as opposed to price takers? The other thing I like about Ron's suggestion is that dual-fuel ships should also be able to take 20% green H2. Flipside is that without all that SO2 in the atmosphere, the planet will warm even faster. There is always a trade-off.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

12 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Yeah, I already saw my own miscalculation. But I can see how the operators of the largest container ships might like the idea of "dual-fuel" given the ability to switch the mix depending on price. I guess the refinery waste is used to produce both bunker fuel and bitumen to make asphalt roads, but I do wonder the effects that electric vehicles would have on supply and demand. If there were less oil refineries in the future, I guess there would be less bunker fuel produced? On the other hand, a rapid decline in demand for bunker fuel due to more gas-powered ships may cause the price to decline? The ship operators would become "price-makers" as opposed to price takers? The other thing I like about Ron's suggestion is that dual-fuel ships should also be able to take 20% green H2. Flipside is that without all that SO2 in the atmosphere, the planet will warm even faster. There is always a trade-off.

The price of asphalt has been climbing steadily since 2000, which is when we began to see a critical mass of delayed cokers installed in refineries. Now they have added FCC units and hydrogenation using various means, which means they can "recycle" the bottoms and produce more profit from "free" feedstocks. They've no reason to "dump" the bottoms anymore. Add in the sulfur ban and bunker fuel is going the way of the dodo bird. Already ships are moving to diesel at the lowest quality they can find. They might be wise to dump all their used cooking oil into the tanks while they're at it.  

[Wombat + 1,028]

35 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Now now sell the environment out over a few dollars? 

If you really did have your eyes open, you would know that the only way to reduce global warming is to make it economically viable to do so. China and India will not switch away from FF's unless economically sensible and neither will the West. As I said earlier, that is precisely what is beginning to happen, solar and wind already cheapest way to produce electricity, just need cheap storage. Green H2 is also on it's way, and experiments already being done with H2 powered aircraft. May never be suitable for long-haul flights, which is why I still see the oil & gas industry surviving another 2 centuries, albeit much smaller than today. Then again, bio-fuels may be cheaper than methanol within 30 years?

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

1 minute ago, Wombat said:

If you really did have your eyes open, you would know that the only way to reduce global warming is to make it economically viable to do so. China and India will not switch away from FF's unless economically sensible and neither will the West. As I said earlier, that is precisely what is beginning to happen, solar and wind already cheapest way to produce electricity, just need cheap storage. Green H2 is also on it's way, and experiments already being done with H2 powered aircraft. May never be suitable for long-haul flights, which is why I still see the oil & gas industry surviving another 2 centuries, albeit much smaller than today. Then again, bio-fuels may be cheaper than methanol within 30 years?

Oh Hi my eyes are somewhat open...Smiles while I am not a rocket scientist by any means I can assure you I have somewhat of a grasp on trade and economics. 

Let's play a game...no more trade with China or India until they go LNG...Meanwhile the US will pickup a few hundred thousand  jobs ...and world wide pollution will drop. 

Actually I do believe mfg and shipping costs from China and India is now the same as just mfg in the US

[Wombat + 1,028]

11 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

The price of asphalt has been climbing steadily since 2000, which is when we began to see a critical mass of delayed cokers installed in refineries. Now they have added FCC units and hydrogenation using various means, which means they can "recycle" the bottoms and produce more profit from "free" feedstocks. They've no reason to "dump" the bottoms anymore. Add in the sulfur ban and bunker fuel is going the way of the dodo bird. Already ships are moving to diesel at the lowest quality they can find. They might be wise to dump all their used cooking oil into the tanks while they're at it.  

You just reminded me. Saw a part of Australian "Landline" show a few weeks back, CSIRO has found a plant that (when genetically modified), can produce oil even cheaper than palm oil. It might displace palm oil and perhaps be used as a bio-diesel. Can be grown in arid conditions apparently. There is so much research going on into greener production of virtually everything that it impossible to keep track of. The Japanese have even worked out how to make hard plastics out of limestone and soft bio-degradable plastics from some type of natural fibre. Yet the world is investing heavily in petro-chemicals?!?

[Wombat + 1,028]

4 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Oh Hi my eyes are somewhat open...Smiles while I am not a rocket scientist by any means I can assure you I have somewhat of a grasp on trade and economics. 

Let's play a game...no more trade with China or India until they go LNG...Meanwhile the US will pickup a few hundred thousand  jobs ...and world wide pollution will drop. 

Actually I do believe mfg and shipping costs from China and India is now the same as just mfg in the US

Only if you outlaw the unions and introduce universal healthcare?!?

[Wombat + 1,028]

Just now, Wombat said:

Only if you outlaw the unions and introduce universal healthcare?!?

 

Just now, Wombat said:

Only if you outlaw the unions and introduce universal healthcare?!?

I was referring to manufacturing. On your point about LNG, totally agree.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Wombat said:

Oops, I tell a lie! Just checked bunker price. $400/tonne which works out at $60/barrel. Unbelievable. It is waste product from oil refining so should be much cheaper than refined diesel. No wonder NG is being considered!

What you re thinking of as "bunker" is actually a refined fuel.  In the old days, bunker was broken into two types:  IFO 180 and HFO 380.   IFO for intermediate fuel oil, and HFO for Heavy fuel oil.  Now, those are products that are from the bottom of the refinery splitters, what is left over in still-liquid form when the middle distillates are taken out.  So in the "old days" thaat stuff was sold to the ship industry and burned off in those monster diesels that were specifically designed for that grade of fuel.  And it was very cheap - below 6 cents a gallon, at one point. 

Once the IMO demanded that all ships go to low-sulfur fuels on January 1, 2020, the ship industry largely demanded that the refining of the grades of bunker be carried out by the fuels suppliers, not done on board by aftermarket treatments to keep the sulfur out of the exhaust.  And the fuels industry has largely responded, so what you are seeing as quoted as "bunker" is the heavy stuff but with the material purified.  And that is why you are seeing those $400/tonne cost figures.   

Can you still buy the old crud?  Nope.  Off the market.  Now it is either marine diesel, or refined and treated bunker. 

On another note, the reason you do not see many ships powered by natural gas is that of energy density.  A big ship's diesel running on gas produces considerably less power than one on oil fuel, so the same engine gets less horsepower, and thus steams much slower.  It will also run colder, causing internal engine problems.  And you need to store all that gas, which is yet another problem.  It is not as easy as you might think; lots of technical issues. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

12 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

What you re thinking of as "bunker" is actually a refined fuel.  In the old days, bunker was broken into two types:  IFO 180 and HFO 380.   IFO for intermediate fuel oil, and HFO for Heavy fuel oil.  Now, those are products that are from the bottom of the refinery splitters, what is left over in still-liquid form when the middle distillates are taken out.  So in the "old days" thaat stuff was sold to the ship industry and burned off in those monster diesels that were specifically designed for that grade of fuel.  And it was very cheap - below 6 cents a gallon, at one point. 

Once the IMO demanded that all ships go to low-sulfur fuels on January 1, 2020, the ship industry largely demanded that the refining of the grades of bunker be carried out by the fuels suppliers, not done on board by aftermarket treatments to keep the sulfur out of the exhaust.  And the fuels industry has largely responded, so what you are seeing as quoted as "bunker" is the heavy stuff but with the material purified.  And that is why you are seeing those $400/tonne cost figures.   

Can you still buy the old crud?  Nope.  Off the market.  Now it is either marine diesel, or refined and treated bunker. 

On another note, the reason you do not see many ships powered by natural gas is that of energy density.  A big ship's diesel running on gas produces considerably less power than one on oil fuel, so the same engine gets less horsepower, and thus steams much slower.  It will also run colder, causing internal engine problems.  And you need to store all that gas, which is yet another problem.  It is not as easy as you might think; lots of technical issues. 

Appreciate your take on this discussion, @Jan van Eck.  Noting your comment above, what is your take on what these guys are doing:

BioMar: Norwegian production expansion comes on stream

03-Nov-2017 By Lynda Searby

Danish fish feed producer BioMar has expanded production capacity by 140,000 metric tons at its Karmøy facility in Norway and invested in a “new generation” LNG vessel to transport feed from the factory.

HTTPS://WWW.FEEDNAVIGATOR.COM/ARTICLE/2017/11/03/BIOMAR-NORWEGIAN-PRODUCTION-EXPANSION

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Danish fish feed producer BioMar has expanded production capacity by 140,000 metric tons at its Karmøy facility in Norway and invested in a “new generation” LNG vessel to transport feed from the factory.

It appears that that ship is not built with a diesel.  The engine is apparently a Rolls Royce jet engine, a turbine, set up to burn gas instead of kerosine.  It is also a local-range ship, going from some port out to where the fish farms are, which are typically in sheltered waters in the fjords.  The fish are not out in the open sea.  The Danes are under great political pressure to "go green," for example to the extent that Danish coal electric plants are pressured to burn dried olive skins and twigs, compressed into bricks, instead of coal.  They buy the bricks in Spain and haul them all the way to Denmark, in order to satisfy the Greens.   Does the fish-farm boat make the grade cost-wise?  I dunno, and would not speculate, but cost is not the only criterion.  Politics also is. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Jan van Eck

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

On another note, the reason you do not see many ships powered by natural gas is that of energy density.  A big ship's diesel running on gas produces considerably less power than one on oil fuel, so the same engine gets less horsepower, and thus steams much slower.  It will also run colder, causing internal engine problems.  And you need to store all that gas, which is yet another problem.  It is not as easy as you might think; lots of technical issues. 

A very key point is also the refuelling infrastructure... 

LNG as shipping fuel is very much in a chicken and egg place at the moment. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I dunno, and would not speculate, but cost is not the only criterion.  Politics also is. 

The fish is in Norway, not Denmark. You avoid some air pollution taxes when you go LNG. Also, energy density is not that important for this type of work as there are limits to how small the vessel can built and fish feed is more about volume than weigth. 

[Billyjack + 58]

19 hours ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

There will be hardly a time when morons start apologizing, being unable to reflect their own stupidity. Donald Trump is the brightest example, followed by his faithful cult. 

Always good to hear from a flock member of the religion of Secular Socialism, whose deity is the government. The denomination of the Church of Warming, is particularly hard to provide any rational discourse like all postmodernists. One would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical, since all they have is the prophesy of their oracle, computer models, and the sermon of their Joel Osteen, Al Gore. . 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

8 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

On another note, the reason you do not see many ships powered by natural gas is that of energy density.  A big ship's diesel running on gas produces considerably less power than one on oil fuel, so the same engine gets less horsepower, and thus steams much slower.  It will also run colder, causing internal engine problems.  And you need to store all that gas, which is yet another problem.  It is not as easy as you might think; lots of technical issues. 

OMG Jan what have you said??

Ron is gonna be soooo pissed at you!!

All good points though.

I do believe that generally 70% of ships power comes from their turbos so either make these more efficient or more plentiful and that may solve the power issue. The other points still stand though

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Several of BC ferries have been upgraded to run on LNG.  Short trips but they don't refuel each stop as time is important.

https://www.bcferries.com/onboard-experiences/fleet/profile-spirit_of_vancouver_island.html

It could hold a lot of fish food...

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 hours ago, Wombat said:

Agree. I have degrees in Physics, Environmental Science and Business and could refute half of that twit's points but it not worth it. I am a "hard-core" greenie, but I have always known that nuclear power is part of the answer. As for solar, it would only take 8 sites and 0.1% of land mass to power the planet. He didn't know what he was talking about when he was young, doesn't know what he talking about now. Never studied science yet thinks he is such a master at it that his meta-analysis better than mine? He just goes from one guilt trip to another because he will never be able to see the bigger picture. Good thing wind and solar now cheaper than FF's and H2 economy is on it's way. Nobody needs him or his replacement (Greta) anymore. Business is getting on with the job of creating cleaner, cheaper, sustainable, and more secure energy systems. Everybody needs to just get over it.

Natural gas is the answer. It is less expensive and more abundant than any other energy source. It is very clean and quick to set up. It does not blight the landscape and create the toxic waste that solar does or the fiberglass that has to be buried. A lot of waste streams can be made into biogas creating a dual benefit of eliminating waste while creating green energy. 

Nuclear cannot compete on a cost benefit ratio over the lifespan especially since they are still leaving their antiquated plants standing and they are being subsidized by the end consumers who have to pay higher energy prices. Worst yet, they have not yet found a safe way to store their nuclear waste for thousands of years. Add to that, the American people do not want them anymore because they never delivered the cheap energy they promised back during President Eisenhower's terms.

Hydrogen is expensive to produce and difficult to transport. It has not proven itself in any substantial way.  

Dangers of Nuclear Plants and Radioactive Waste

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Uh, more than "several".  I am with you 100%.  Why doesn't it catch on and spread?  Other powerful opponents?  Who are they?  

The shipping companies do not want to make the expensive conversions. The smokestack scrubber companies try to discourage it and sell them scrubbers. 

I really haven't followed it very closely lately because It is a slow growth. I think that extremely low natural gas prices will help since I expect low grade diesel prices to rise. 

Conversions of ships are expensive but NEW SHIPS being built should be mandated to go with natural gas. Refueling is not a major problem. A lot of facilities have already been built and refueling ships could also be used as long as needed. 

I will try to get more shipbuilding information. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Now now sell the environment out over a few dollars? 

They are dealing with European Union and probably British regulations requiring very clean emissions. This is the motivation for them. Otherwise you may be right although natural gas might be  just as cheap, they cannot use it without conversion.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

18 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

They have built a new one, bigger and even more fuel and emissions efficient, with greater capabilities.  Why don't more companies go this route?

 

BioMar: Norwegian production expansion comes on stream

03-Nov-2017 By Lynda Searby

Danish fish feed producer BioMar has expanded production capacity by 140,000 metric tons at its Karmøy facility in Norway and invested in a “new generation” LNG vessel to transport feed from the factory.

HTTPS://WWW.FEEDNAVIGATOR.COM/ARTICLE/2017/11/03/BIOMAR-NORWEGIAN-PRODUCTION-EXPANSION

I think that is a small LNG ship compared to the container carrier ships being built, but good technology is being used. This is not rocket science. Natural gas has been used in ICE engines since WW1. 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

No SHIT, How many billions have been wasted! He should be arrested.