bazzaw Posted March 11, 2015 #1 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I see that the matter of cruiseships using or not using low sulphur fuel in Sydney Harbour is in the news. I recall when we went on P&O Oriana to the UK some years ago , the Captain literally stopped the ship in mid - English Channel and announced that the ships engines were changing over from bunker oil to some lighter grade fuel. He explained the difference over the loudspeakers - and we soon got underway again. Barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassamanda Posted March 11, 2015 #2 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Saw that on the news tonight also. Poor Balmain trendies have been trying to voice there objection to having cruise ships in White Bay. StArted the first day it opened. They just found a new reason. Its also one of the reasons that Rhapsody is leaving us i believe she does not use the refined diesel. Ships to Alaska all have to use low Sulphur fuel or fit expensive scrubbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted March 11, 2015 #3 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Saw that on the news tonight also. Poor Balmain trendies have been trying to voice there objection to having cruise ships in White Bay. StArted the first day it opened. They just found a new reason. Its also one of the reasons that Rhapsody is leaving us i believe she does not use the refined diesel. Ships to Alaska all have to use low Sulphur fuel or fit expensive scrubbers. I wasn't aware of any emissions statutes in Australia. I'm interested in these things from a professional standpoint, so if anyone could provide a link to any law or environmental stricture in Australia, I'd appreciate it. Virtually any diesel engine that runs on residual fuel oil can also operate on diesel fuel. The US ECA (Emissions Control Area) is not only for Alaska, but covers the entire North America coastline (US and Canada) out to 200nm, as well as Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the USVI. There are also ECA's in the North Sea, the Baltic, the Med (proposed), and while the ships are in EU ports. For the previous poster, I'm surprised that the ship stopped in mid-Channel to switch. Generally, given the multiple engines on cruise ships, the transition is better done sequentially, and nearly every ship is capable of switching fuel while underway, without interruption of propulsion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted March 11, 2015 #4 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I've looked, and see that the low sulfur requirement is set for July 2016, but haven't found out whether it is an in port only, or a wider ECA like the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruisine21 Posted March 11, 2015 #5 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Saw that on the news tonight also. Poor Balmain trendies have been trying to voice there objection to having cruise ships in White Bay. StArted the first day it opened. They just found a new reason. Its also one of the reasons that Rhapsody is leaving us i believe she does not use the refined diesel. Ships to Alaska all have to use low Sulphur fuel or fit expensive scrubbers. Toxic and dangerous emissions belching out of cruise ships making Balmain residents sick. Maybe they need take a cruise to recover. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-state-election-2015/nsw-state-election-2015-baird-government-vows-to-ban-highsulphur-fuels-from-cruise-terminals-20150310-140f1y.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted March 11, 2015 #6 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Toxic and dangerous emissions belching out of cruise ships making Balmain residents sick. Maybe they need take a cruise to recover. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-state-election-2015/nsw-state-election-2015-baird-government-vows-to-ban-highsulphur-fuels-from-cruise-terminals-20150310-140f1y.html So they are only targeting cruise ships? Not sure how that works in Australia, but in the US, the cruise lines would just say that cargo ships burn more fuel (more ships paying more visits) than cruise ships, and why don't they have to switch fuels? California has long had a stricter emissions regulation than the US, and required ALL ships either to switch to low sulfur fuel or plug into shore power within an hour of docking. The problem for cruise ships is the massive amount of high voltage power required to go "cold iron", and the cost of the infrastructure to the taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Big_M Posted March 11, 2015 #7 Share Posted March 11, 2015 So they are only targeting cruise ships? More information here: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/11/cruise-ship-pollution-nsw-liberals-pledge-to-enforce-low-sulphur-fuel Note, these are only policy proposals by various parties leading to the upcoming election, and not in place nor even put forward as legislation yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUT2407 Posted March 11, 2015 #8 Share Posted March 11, 2015 One big issue seems the be that the geniuses that built White Bay didn't put in any electrical connections, so ships docked there have to run their engines to provide electricity. Causing more pollution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted March 11, 2015 #9 Share Posted March 11, 2015 One big issue seems the be that the geniuses that built White Bay didn't put in any electrical connections, so ships docked there have to run their engines to provide electricity. Causing more pollution. As I've said, very few ports have the ability to power cruise ships. Cargo ships that are in the port of LA can connect to shore power at 480v, and draw the 700-1000kw power they need. A cruise ship, in order to have cables connecting to shore something smaller than mooring lines, operate at 10,000v and will draw 5-6Mw. Not sure how your long distance transmission lines work or where you step down for consumers in Australia, but in the US this requires some major urban planning, as many people don't like to be under the 10-40kvolt transmission lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Kruzer Posted March 11, 2015 #10 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I wonder if thats the reason Pacific Pearl docks at the OPT. She is an old ship and my understanding is that when she was built , she was designed to use the cheap heavy oil. If you look at the port cams of her you can see the smoke coming from her funnells. When she leaves Auckland ,we watch for her coming and we know when she is about to arrive near us as we follow the plume of smoke coming around the headland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted March 11, 2015 #11 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I wonder if thats the reason Pacific Pearl docks at the OPT. She is an old ship and my understanding is that when she was built , she was designed to use the cheap heavy oil. If you look at the port cams of her you can see the smoke coming from her funnells. When she leaves Auckland ,we watch for her coming and we know when she is about to arrive near us as we follow the plume of smoke coming around the headland. All cruise ships, even the most recent, are designed to burn heavy residual fuel, and do so today in most of the world. But, as I've said, virtually any diesel that is designed to burn residual fuel can burn diesel fuel as well. Now, whether or not the equipment is maintained in top condition to prevent smoking is a different thing altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazzaw Posted March 11, 2015 Author #12 Share Posted March 11, 2015 One big issue seems the be that the geniuses that built White Bay didn't put in any electrical connections, so ships docked there have to run their engines to provide electricity. Causing more pollution. Correct me if I am wrong - but Sydney OPT has no shore power and neither do the two cruise terminals in Brisbane. The only time I have ever seen shore power being used is when I was in the Navy - then again the power that a small destroyer/submarine/patrol boat uses is vastly smaller than cruiseships Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chengkp75 Posted March 11, 2015 #13 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Correct me if I am wrong - but Sydney OPT has no shore power and neither do the two cruise terminals in Brisbane. The only time I have ever seen shore power being used is when I was in the Navy - then again the power that a small destroyer/submarine/patrol boat uses is vastly smaller than cruiseships Even in drydock, a cruise ship will run one generator, as no shipyard in the world is set up to provide the high voltage, high Mw requirements of a modern cruise vessel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbenjo Posted March 11, 2015 #14 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I wonder if thats the reason Pacific Pearl docks at the OPT. She is an old ship and my understanding is that when she was built , she was designed to use the cheap heavy oil. If you look at the port cams of her you can see the smoke coming from her funnells. When she leaves Auckland ,we watch for her coming and we know when she is about to arrive near us as we follow the plume of smoke coming around the headland. The Pearl does not dock at the OPT. She uses White Bay. The only time P&O uses OPT is when there is another ship at White Bay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUT2407 Posted March 11, 2015 #15 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Correct me if I am wrong - but Sydney OPT has no shore power and neither do the two cruise terminals in Brisbane. The only time I have ever seen shore power being used is when I was in the Navy - then again the power that a small destroyer/submarine/patrol boat uses is vastly smaller than cruiseships Well the Govt says that that is what is going to have to happen at White Bay. Edited March 11, 2015 by GUT2407 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbenjo Posted March 11, 2015 #16 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Well the Govt says that that is what is going to have to happen at White Bay. Maybe all the whinging Greenies in Balmain can hook there solar panels and wind farms up to White Bay and help out :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUT2407 Posted March 11, 2015 #17 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Maybe all the whinging Greenies in Balmain can hook there solar panels and wind farms up to White Bay and help out :rolleyes: Now that's an idea, you might know, what happens at OPT or do the residents of The Rocks and Toaster get all fumed out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo72 Posted March 12, 2015 #18 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Alan Jones is now pushing this barrow as he lives opposite OPT. This will bring swift changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruiselover53 Posted March 12, 2015 #19 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Well the Govt says that that is what is going to have to happen at White Bay. What the Government says 2 weeks before an election means nothing.I doubt whether any government will be prepared to outlay all that money.A better idea would be to level all the houses and replace with wind farms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUT2407 Posted March 12, 2015 #20 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Alan Jones is now pushing this barrow as he lives opposite OPT. This will bring swift changes. Well if the Parrots on the case it will become an election issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbenjo Posted March 12, 2015 #21 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Alan Jones is now pushing this barrow as he lives opposite OPT. This will bring swift changes. And the ferries that run in and out of Circular Quay and around the harbour all day every day run on what????????? diesel I bet ..... lets get rid of them as well :mad::mad: PS: Sorry Mr Jones that's ferries...not fairies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo72 Posted March 12, 2015 #22 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I agree Gbenjo, but when he gets a bee in his bonnet he doesnt let up. Ask Mr Newman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Big_M Posted March 12, 2015 #23 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I wonder if thats the reason Pacific Pearl docks at the OPT. Pacific Pearl usually docks at White Bay (as with her sisters). In fact, she was even there today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Big_M Posted March 12, 2015 #24 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Alan Jones is now pushing this barrow as he lives opposite OPT. This will bring swift changes. Ah, now we know why this has become a 'political issue' of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Big_M Posted March 12, 2015 #25 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Note, these are only policy proposals by various parties leading to the upcoming election, and not in place nor even put forward as legislation yet. Today's latest is that both major parties will now run with the same policy, which is the Liberal's one. Essentially, all cruise ships at NSW ports from next year are to have maximum 0.1% sulphur content. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-state-election-2015/nsw-state-election-2015-labor-signals-bipartisan-approach-to-cutting-use-of-high-sulphur-fuels-20150311-1415u4.html As before, this is still just policy, not at legislation nor implementation yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now