Steam Packet Warns Of Disruption To Sailings

[x-in-man]

Right up there with that tunnel linking Jersey, Guernsey and France.

They'd be better off with a monorail. 

[woolley]

On 3/9/2024 at 9:27 AM, Manxman2000 said:

And the Rhiannon wind farm, and that’s a big one.  Looks like they will protect the routes in from the west.  That will send the Belfast bound traffic around the south of the island.  Douglas to Liverpool will be like a dogs leg to route around the wind farm.   After reading the article, it will never happen.  

Of course it won't. Like that Johnson bollox about building a bridge to Ireland, and they've been talking about a barrage across the Severn throughout my life.

[woolley]

On 3/6/2024 at 4:58 PM, John Wright said:

We seem to be edging slowly to the truth about the speed restricted, polluting, Ben. Disclosure still has some way to go.

Fitting scrubbers is not entirely a positive thing. Seems to depend on whether you give more weight to polluting the air or the sea. They are also power hungry, so more fossil fuel consumption.

https://www.airclim.org/acidnews/environmental-impacts-ship-scrubbers

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, woolley said:

Fitting scrubbers is not entirely a positive thing. Seems to depend on whether you give more weight to polluting the air or the sea. They are also power hungry, so more fossil fuel consumption.

https://www.airclim.org/acidnews/environmental-impacts-ship-scrubbers

Actually if you listen to the sound file:

https://www.tynwald.org.im/playaudio?file=/business/listen/AgainFiles/O-202401-1231a.mp3

Allinson said the problem isn't the scrubbers, which are about removing sulphur, but reducing carbon emissions.  As the Ben already uses low-sulphur fuel scrubbers aren't needed.

[Capt_Mainwaring]

Manxman down to around 10kts. Left 1410 due in 1900. Is it maybe to do with low tide? Thought that wasn't an issue on the King Edward Pier berth?

[woolley]

On 2/14/2024 at 11:47 AM, John Wright said:

My understanding is that Ben runs on marine diesel fuel, one of the heaviest, most polluting, refinery fractions. Lots of sulphur, nitrogen oxides and carbon particulates.

There’s a thing called IOPP ( International Oil Pollution Prevention ) which applies to ships by international convention, MARPOL under IMO.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80bcae40f0b62305b8cdd7/Pt_A_Ch12_IOPP_Final_Feb_16.pdf

Ben is old, and whilst our sole year round life line vessel she had temporary exemptions pending works to comply, scrubbers to take out Sulphur, NOx and carbon particulates.

Expensive to retrofit. BF intended doing it to many of their older ferries, but after a couple they decided to order 5 new e-flexers on charter from Stena.

Mx is compliant.

Youll recall that under the sea services agreement Ben was to be kept as back up, but SPCo has recently sought to get rid of Ben and use Arrow ( which it has bought since the agreement was signed ).

That gives no resilience for passengers in winter when Manannan cannot sail.

The Ben is not currently capable of covering any freight or passenger back up duties as she is currently under a temporary extension to her IOPP certification, this means she has a power restriction placed on her (except for manoeuvring in port) until full certification is granted. Hence the 7kts speed.

The new rules started to come into force 2 years ago after a long notice period of statuary obligations that were to be met. Steam Packet have gambled. Not complied. Problem is that with a boat as old as the Ben, with limited life, cost of compliance May have become prohibitive.

Steam packet have dragged their heels on this and the implication is clear, they must think they can sell the vessel and it would be someone else’s problem.

Hope that helps.

What it does indicate is that when SPCo said they were readying the Ben when Mx was recently unable to sail for technical ( not weather ) reasons, they were at best being economical with the truth.

@Roger Mexico Thank you for the heads up re there being no need for scrubbers. I was relying on the above post by the oracle (which you liked) as, to be fair, he does seem to have known something of the inside track on this affair ahead of any official admission that there was an issue.

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Actually if you listen to the sound file:

https://www.tynwald.org.im/playaudio?file=/business/listen/AgainFiles/O-202401-1231a.mp3

Allinson said the problem isn't the scrubbers, which are about removing sulphur, but reducing carbon emissions.  As the Ben already uses low-sulphur fuel scrubbers aren't needed.

What does it mean by carbon emissions? 

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, woolley said:

@Roger Mexico Thank you for the heads up re there being no need for scrubbers. I was relying on the above post by the oracle (which you liked) as, to be fair, he does seem to have known something of the inside track on this affair ahead of any official admission that there was an issue.

Scrubbers are necessary. At some stage. As you’ve observed they can increase engine inefficiency and can increase other pollutants, such as CO2.

The current position is that the Ben hasn’t had its final testing and classification and is in receipt of a month by month temporary  certification with pollutant output, and therefore maximum power output, calculated theoretically. That’s the 48%.

Needs to go in for major overhaul and practical testing. 

 

[John Wright]

MANANNAN BERTHING TRIALS AT NEW LIVERPOOL TERMINAL PLANNED FOR TUESDAY 12 March

Peel Ports Movements Board now indicates MANANNAN will depart Cammell Laird wet basin at 11.00 on Tuesday morning 12th March and arrive at "Waterloo Lock Ro-Ro terminal" at 12 noon.

She is scheduled to be there until 18.30 when she will move to the Landing Stage, ETA 19.30.  

[John Wright]

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

What does it mean by carbon emissions? 

Do you own a car? Burn hydro carbons and you get water and CO2. You get other things as well 

On diesels you get particulate filters, to capture “soot” and on ICE generally you get catalytic converters to capture Carbon Monoxide and unburned fuel into H2O and CO2 and to filter NOx.

Marine Diesel exhaust scrubbers remove SO2, NOx and particulates, not just the sulphur. And whilst it’s true that the Ben can run on low sulphur marine diesel there’s a substantial price premium,  and a shortage, compared with marine diesel.

Heavy ( 3.5% Sulphur ) is hovering between $350-400 per tonne. And low sulphur (0.5%) has a premium of between $150-200 per tonne. So it’s around 50%.

[TheTeapot]

There's a weird theory that the low sulphur marine fuel has actually contributed to global warming. 

[Happier diner]

15 hours ago, John Wright said:

Do you own a car? Burn hydro carbons and you get water and CO2. You get other things as well 

On diesels you get particulate filters, to capture “soot” and on ICE generally you get catalytic converters to capture Carbon Monoxide and unburned fuel into H2O and CO2 and to filter NOx.

Marine Diesel exhaust scrubbers remove SO2, NOx and particulates, not just the sulphur. And whilst it’s true that the Ben can run on low sulphur marine diesel there’s a substantial price premium,  and a shortage, compared with marine diesel.

Heavy ( 3.5% Sulphur ) is hovering between $350-400 per tonne. And low sulphur (0.5%) has a premium of between $150-200 per tonne. So it’s around 50%.

Discussion

Yes I have a car thank you and I understand the concept very well

My question was about the term "Carbon emissions" though. The statement that I quoted didn't make sense. Perfect clean combustion potentially has the highest carbon emissions of all because you have made all the hydrocarbons into CO2. So if you use the term 'carbon emissions' it can be misleading. Imperfect combustion will lead to the formation of CO and Soot. If you remove these so they are not emissions your net carbon emission (what's up the funnel) is lower.

I think we are referring to undesirable emissions (apart from CO2). like you correctly say CO and NOx . 

There are 2 factors

1. How efficient your engine (and drive chain and hull) is in terms of fuel consumption (which leads directly to C) and

2. How clean you engine is (before and after remove the nasties). 

The cleanest engines in the world can be very poor in terms of "Carbon emissions" 

 

Edited March 11 by Happier diner

[swoopy2110]

King Edward Pier work not due to be completed until after TT now due to 'unforseen circumstances'

Great Govt buzz word.

[John Wright]

4 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Discussion

Yes I have a car thank you and I understand the concept very well

My question was about the term "Carbon emissions" though. The statement that I quoted didn't make sense. Perfect clean combustion potentially has the highest carbon emissions of all because you have made all the hydrocarbons into CO2. So if you use the term 'carbon emissions' it can be misleading. Imperfect combustion will lead to the formation of CO and Soot. If you remove these so they are not emissions your net carbon emission (what's up the funnel) is lower.

I think we are referring to undesirable emissions (apart from CO2). like you correctly say CO and NOx . 

There are 2 factors

1. How efficient your engine (and drive chain and hull) is in terms of fuel consumption (which leads directly to C) and

2. How clean you engine is (before and after remove the nasties). 

The cleanest engines in the world can be very poor in terms of "Carbon emissions" 

 

And marine diesels as fitted to the Ben are much more inefficient than a good car ICE

[Happier diner]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

And marine diesels as fitted to the Ben are much more inefficient than a good car ICE

You mean in turning fuel into power?