There. They have thought of something else for ships engineers to do in port, hook up and discharge sewerage. Of course they will be big penalties for spillage.
Yes of course, but think of all the good availabilities there will be for catchy slogans:
- “Put a turd in your tank”
- “Take a dump for the environment and save the planet”
- “Save a sh*tload of money for your employer”
The possibilities are endless.
Normal routine for Washington State Ferry engineers. Among many others.
It was my be kind to engineers week.
Beyond green fuel:
Could floating nuclear ammonia production unit be the future?:
Methanol is gaining followers:
NYK welcomes 2nd methanol-fueled tanker hired by Waterfront
LNG is still only a stopgap fuel on the way to zero emission.
It’s not over until the fat lady sings:
Maybe LNG can have a bigger role to play, even after 2050?:
I think the direction companies will follow with regards to future marine fuels more has to do with cost and fuel density than anything else.
Has the problem of retrofitting existing vessels to “Zero Emission” been solved?:
Does having “No Engine Room” mean no Engineers, or many “small” E/R mean more (but smaller) Engineers needed??
Here is the company behind this invention:
A very good advise:
And the winner IS!!:
But liquid Hydrogen is still in the running:
Methanol can be produced from natural gas, coal and renewable sources such as municipal waste, biomass and recycled carbon dioxide.
Of those ways of producing methanol. two ( natural gas and coal ) are ruled out as those are something we are trying to get away from. So we have renewable sources such as municipal waste, biomass and recycled carbon dioxide. Which then begs the question - COSTS. Let me guess it is cheaper to produce methanol from natural gas and coal than anything else - So Methanol is RULED OUT.
We could have long been doing something productive with municipal waste, but have chosen not too. The R&D is just not there, and will be costly to get there…
Next we have
Methanol – CH3OH – is four parts hydrogen, one part oxygen and one part carbon.
Two Things ;
1.) Methanol 4 parts hydrogen, 1 part oxygen, and 1 part CARBON - CARBON really ? Are’nt we trying to get away from CARBON ??
2.) 4 Parts Hydrogen, Methanol is mostly hydrogen. If we have to produce hydrogen to get Methanol, then why not just STOP AT HYDROGEN ?
Apparently because Methanol is liquid and can be stored in 1 Atm. at ambient temp.
It can also be used more readily in existing large diesel engines without major modifications, This enable dual fuel operation until Green Methanol is more easily available in major ports around the world:
The main competitors are Ammonia and pure Hydrogen.
All of the above is now being experimented with, as well as on board “carbon capture and storage”, which may enable traditional fuel and “Blue” or “Black” Methanol to be used as “zero emission fuel”.
Scholarly articles about the advantages and disadvantages of all alternative fuels are published almost daily, so it is difficult to follow the latest, unless you spend all days on it.
IMHO Molten Salt Reactors, using low grade Uranium as fuel, MAY be the ultimate solution as the “Marine Fuel of the Future”.
I don’t expect to live long enough to know the answer though.
My thought is, I just want to be in the know. So I can keep up with the changes and maintain. At least until I can retire. After I can retire, not as much of a concern. On that anyone have a prediction on the timeline for the shift to hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, or any other "green new fuel "
Bunkering service is of main importance for which fuel to choose as the fuel of the Future.
If Singapore wants to maintain it’s position as the leading bunkering port they need to offer bunkering service for all the contender in the race;
Carbon capture MAY be a solution to the Future Marine Fuel question:
If so, Singapore must start to figure out how to receive captured carbon from ships and export it to where it can be stored safely,
Or maybe find used for it;
Or even better, make fuel from captured carbon: