HAL Recieves Air Quality Violations In Alaska

[cbr663]

Four of HAL’s ships have received air quality violations from the Department of Environmental Conservation in Alaska. The Eurodam, Nieuw Amsterdam, Westerdam, and Amsterdam were cited.

 

In addition, the Noordam, Volendam and Eurodam were cited for wastewater discharge violations.

 

https://www.juneauempire.com/news/air-violations-issued-to-eight-cruise-ships/

[OVgirl]

That is not very good news. It would be interesting to see a response from the cruiselines.

[grsnovi]

What are the chances that this will impact the 2019 itineraries? I don't want to put money down today if the Eurodam won't be allowed into Glacier Bay next summer.

[aa7yy]

That is not very good news. It would be interesting to see a response from the cruiselines.

 

Seems to me to very good news.

 

It's not West Virginia and a toilet !

[kazu]

Four of HAL’s ships have received air quality violations from the Department of Environmental Conservation in Alaska. The Eurodam, Nieuw Amsterdam, Westerdam, and Amsterdam were cited.

 

In addition, the Noordam, Volendam and Eurodam were cited for wastewater discharge violations.

 

https://www.juneauempire.com/news/air-violations-issued-to-eight-cruise-ships/

 

Not good news at all. At least HAL didn't violate twice unlike another cruise line. Looks like HAL wasn't alone :(

[Sir PMP]

Four of HAL’s ships have received air quality violations from the Department of Environmental Conservation in Alaska. The Eurodam, Nieuw Amsterdam, Westerdam, and Amsterdam were cited.

 

In addition, the Noordam, Volendam and Eurodam were cited for wastewater discharge violations.

 

https://www.juneauempire.com/news/air-violations-issued-to-eight-cruise-ships/

 

Great!! No more stops in Ketchikan..

[grsnovi]

After reading the linked article it makes me wonder if the quality of the fuel purchased during this last season differed from what the lines were previously able to purchase. I have often wondered about stack emissions. Glad they're being monitored.

[old mike]

Related, from the Juneau Empire newspaper. https://www.juneauempire.com/news/ship-exhaust-generates-flurry-of-complaints/

 

If someone parked a "diesel smoke producing machine" like the Norwegian ship near my house I would complain.

 

Land based facilities have to meet stringent emission standards, ships should be no different and in the future they will be required to meet new standards.

 

Marine fuel sulphur content will have to be reduced dramatically in 2020 from a current allowed 3.5% sulphur content to 0.5% content. This does not require any "fancy" new technology, existing hydro-treater technology will do the job and it has been used in the refining industry for over 50 years. Naturally, fuel costs will increase. (Reference the International Marine Organisation, IMO)

[Krazy Kruizers]

Not good news.

Thank you for the link. Glad HAL wasn't alone with the violations.

[mcrcruiser]

Perhaps the Alaska EPA will make the ships adhere to low or no emissions .The new gas powered ships on order ,no doubt will be welcome in Alaska waters :):)

 

Seems to me presently the Alaska authorities can't have it both ways & that is collect high port charges & no emissions . If the cruise lines have to pay penalties above those rather high port taxes ,then imo the Alaska merchants will see far less cruise traffic to support their economies:o

[old mike]

Perhaps the Alaska EPA will make the ships adhere to low or no emissions .The new gas powered ships on order ,no doubt will be welcome in Alaska waters :):)

 

Seems to me presently the Alaska authorities can't have it both ways & that is collect high port charges & no emissions . If the cruise lines have to pay penalties above those rather high port taxes ,then imo the Alaska merchants will see far less cruise traffic to support their economies:o

 

On the money, mrcruiser. Survey after survey has shown that "people" want better environmental conditions but are not prepared to pay for it, cue the magic wand and unicorn farts.

[chengkp75]

Related, from the Juneau Empire newspaper. https://www.juneauempire.com/news/ship-exhaust-generates-flurry-of-complaints/

 

If someone parked a "diesel smoke producing machine" like the Norwegian ship near my house I would complain.

 

Land based facilities have to meet stringent emission standards, ships should be no different and in the future they will be required to meet new standards.

 

Marine fuel sulphur content will have to be reduced dramatically in 2020 from a current allowed 3.5% sulphur content to 0.5% content. This does not require any "fancy" new technology, existing hydro-treater technology will do the job and it has been used in the refining industry for over 50 years. Naturally, fuel costs will increase. (Reference the International Marine Organisation, IMO)

 

However, the fines being discussed here have nothing whatsoever to do with sulfur levels in fuel, or SOX and NOX emission levels. The fines are for "opacity" of the exhaust gas, and while it can correlate to particulate emissions, it also requires training to interpret the results of monitors with regards to other environmental factors like background sky color, air temperature and humidity levels. Ships get fined all the time in areas that monitor stack emissions for "white smoke", which can reach the limit of opacity, but which is caused by water vapor in the exhaust gas (water vapor is a natural end product of combustion) forming steam due to either excess air supplied to the engine, or an exhaust gas boiler that cools the stack gas below the dew point of the surrounding air. The ship's boilers can also suffer from excessively cool stack gas causing steam to form in the stack gas.

[old mike]

Chengkp75 I normally find myself in violent agreement with your posts but not with the one above. :confused:In the words of Shakespeare "me thinks thou dost protest too much."

 

As background I'm a chemical engineer with 30+ years in the oil refining and power generation industry, impossible to avoid regulation in those industries!!!!

 

Regards opacity measurement reference https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/VEFieldManual.pdf section 2.3.1 and for examples of more current information https://www.maine.gov/dep/water/wd/vessel/airemissionsreport.pdf especially section 3.1

 

Opacity was originally intended to detect poor combustion of coal in early industrial revolution steam generating boilers. No trained observer should be mistaking condensing exhaust water vapour as "opacity". If that does happen, and I don't doubt that it does, the owners of the offending equipment should be in court challenging the charges with emission data.

 

(The mainstream media is very fond of showing back lit condensing exhaust water vapour and calling it "Pollution")

 

This is how sulphur is a root cause. As long as marine fuels contain 3.5% sulphur the engines will emit relatively high concentrations of SOx and the stack gases will have a blue tinge and more importantly stink. The stench is what people, justifiably, complain about, just like the Norwegian vessel in the Juneau Empire video. Those complaints are placed with regulatory agencies who will then use whatever tools they can in order to be perceived as "doing something".

 

Exhaust gases running below dew point is becoming very common nowadays as a result of "waste heat recovery" to drive up overall energy efficiency.

[frankc98376]

The Vista ships had Gas Turbine engines on them that they used to run in Alaska ports for very low emissions. I thought I read that they stopped using them due to the cost of jet fuel.

I looked at a cruise log from an Alaska cruise on Oosterdam in 2013 and showed the amount of jet fuel the ship burned in Alaska. Was on Oosterdam that an officer told us they used the gas turbines primarily in Alaska due to emissions standards.

[Vict0riann]

In Juneau we booked a "private" whale-watching tour which had about 30 people on board. I was almost asphyxiated by the diesel fumes on the back open deck. Hope they got caught, too!

[old mike]

The Vista ships had Gas Turbine engines on them that they used to run in Alaska ports for very low emissions. I thought I read that they stopped using them due to the cost of jet fuel.

I looked at a cruise log from an Alaska cruise on Oosterdam in 2013 and showed the amount of jet fuel the ship burned in Alaska. Was on Oosterdam that an officer told us they used the gas turbines primarily in Alaska due to emissions standards.

 

Modern Gas Turbines are absolutely the most efficient way to generate power. If installed as combined cycle machines, where the exhaust gases are used to generate steam which in turn is used to generate more power, the overall thermal energy efficiency can be as high as the low 60% Much higher than even large marine diesel engines.

 

I'd bet that with the upcoming changes in marine fuel specifications, and hence fuel costs, there will be a lot of people scratching heads and working on NPV's and IRR's for re-powering options versus fuel costs for marine operations.

[chengkp75]

Chengkp75 I normally find myself in violent agreement with your posts but not with the one above. :confused:In the words of Shakespeare "me thinks thou dost protest too much."

 

As background I'm a chemical engineer with 30+ years in the oil refining and power generation industry, impossible to avoid regulation in those industries!!!!

 

Regards opacity measurement reference https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/VEFieldManual.pdf section 2.3.1 and for examples of more current information https://www.maine.gov/dep/water/wd/vessel/airemissionsreport.pdf especially section 3.1

 

Opacity was originally intended to detect poor combustion of coal in early industrial revolution steam generating boilers. No trained observer should be mistaking condensing exhaust water vapour as "opacity". If that does happen, and I don't doubt that it does, the owners of the offending equipment should be in court challenging the charges with emission data.

 

(The mainstream media is very fond of showing back lit condensing exhaust water vapour and calling it "Pollution")

 

This is how sulphur is a root cause. As long as marine fuels contain 3.5% sulphur the engines will emit relatively high concentrations of SOx and the stack gases will have a blue tinge and more importantly stink. The stench is what people, justifiably, complain about, just like the Norwegian vessel in the Juneau Empire video. Those complaints are placed with regulatory agencies who will then use whatever tools they can in order to be perceived as "doing something".

 

Exhaust gases running below dew point is becoming very common nowadays as a result of "waste heat recovery" to drive up overall energy efficiency.

 

As I said, the opacity measurement does have some validity, but it does require training to evaluate. And I'm not saying that diesel exhaust gases are not matters of concern for pollution reasons. My ship has been fined in California before for "white stacking" the boiler, when we knew it was vapor, because we adjusted the air mixture down and corrected it. In most cases, it isn't worth the cost and effort to fight the fine.

 

And yes, SOX emissions are a concern, but since 2015 when the North American ECA restricted it's allowable sulfur levels to 0.1%, all ships within 200 miles of the North American shoreline (and non-contiguous US lands) either burn low sulfur marine diesel oil (#2 diesel or home heating oil) or use an exhaust gas scrubber that reduces residual fuel oil SOX emissions to the same level as low sulfur diesel, SOX emissions from ships have been reduced in US ports and coastal waters by 97%.

[chengkp75]

The Vista ships had Gas Turbine engines on them that they used to run in Alaska ports for very low emissions. I thought I read that they stopped using them due to the cost of jet fuel.

I looked at a cruise log from an Alaska cruise on Oosterdam in 2013 and showed the amount of jet fuel the ship burned in Alaska. Was on Oosterdam that an officer told us they used the gas turbines primarily in Alaska due to emissions standards.

 

Those gas turbines were originally intended to reduce emissions in areas like Alaska, but it was found that running a gas turbine in port to power the hotel load was prohibitively expensive, as the turbine is far less efficient when operating under low load. And, even when designed, the turbines were not designed to run on jet fuel, any more than the marine gas turbines the navies of the world use, they run on marine gas oil (#2 diesel fuel).

[chengkp75]

Modern Gas Turbines are absolutely the most efficient way to generate power. If installed as combined cycle machines, where the exhaust gases are used to generate steam which in turn is used to generate more power, the overall thermal energy efficiency can be as high as the low 60% Much higher than even large marine diesel engines.

 

I'd bet that with the upcoming changes in marine fuel specifications, and hence fuel costs, there will be a lot of people scratching heads and working on NPV's and IRR's for re-powering options versus fuel costs for marine operations.

 

If that is the overall efficiency of a combined cycle gas turbine, then a well designed marine diesel engine beats that. A slow speed diesel engine, combined with a jacket water heated evaporator, and a waste heat boiler with superheat coils and a steam turbo-generator, can reach 80% overall thermal efficiency. And the diesel will maintain a higher efficiency over a bit wider range of power demand than the gas turbine. While gas turbines are good for power plants that have relatively stable loads, the widely and quickly variable loads of a ship do not lend themselves to gas turbines from an efficiency standpoint.

[AKJonesy]

I think the real point here is that they violated. If this bothers you, then people should contact HAL and tell them about it.

[sail7seas]

What are the chances that this will impact the 2019 itineraries? I don't want to put money down today if the Eurodam won't be allowed into Glacier Bay next summer.

It is unlikely many of us could possibly know that......... : shrug: Perhaps not even HAL would yet be ready to answer that question

 

 

 

 

i'd like to know other ships and cruise lines that were cited.

[sail7seas]

If that is the overall efficiency of a combined cycle gas turbine, then a well designed marine diesel engine beats that. A slow speed diesel engine, combined with a jacket water heated evaporator, and a waste heat boiler with superheat coils and a steam turbo-generator, can reach 80% overall thermal efficiency. And the diesel will maintain a higher efficiency over a bit wider range of power demand than the gas turbine. While gas turbines are good for power plants that have relatively stable loads, the widely and quickly variable loads of a ship do not lend themselves to gas turbines from an efficiency standpoint.

 

 

Oh my, :D I wish Ihad enough technical kowledge to understand that . but thank you for explaining for those among us that 'get it' :).

[KroozNut]

i'd like to know other ships and cruise lines that were cited.

 

The article identifies them...

 

"A full list of the violating ships includes the Norwegian Jewel (Norwegian Cruise Line), Radiance of the Seas (Royal Caribbean), Amsterdam (Holland America Line), Eurodam (Holland America Line), Nieuw Amsterdam (Holland America Line), Westerdam (Holland American Line), Emerald Princess (Princess Cruise Line) and Golden Princess (Princess Cruise Line) were all found to have violated air quality from June-August this year."

[rkacruiser]

I doubt that this situation will affect 2019 Alaska itineraries.

 

But, it is disappointing news. Anyone who has participated in a Behind the Scenes Tour or attended a presentation by the Environmental and Safety Officer knows how seriously the cruise lines take with regard to their responsibility to protect the environment: air and ocean.

[AmazedByCruising]

Opacity was originally intended to detect poor combustion of coal in early industrial revolution steam generating boilers.

 

Opacity is a poor metric. I often see pictures of innocent steam from powerplants in newspapers as proof of poisonous stuff killing us all, or at least climate change, or hindering laridae to find food.

 

Then again, what would be a better metric? Easy to measure, easy to understand, easy to seperate the bad ships from the good ships.