Page 1 of 1
California adopts stiff pollution rules for ships
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:06 pm
by nivek
Going to self edit the usual "WTF-O!!!!?" commentary...
kevinL
***********
California adopts stiff pollution rules for ships
Los Angeles Times
"California regulators adopted the world's toughest pollution rules
for oceangoing vessels Thursday, vowing to improve the health of
coastal residents and opening a new front in a long battle with the
international shipping industry. The rules, which take effect in 2009,
would require ships within 24 nautical miles of California to burn low-
sulfur diesel instead of the tar-like sludge known as bunker fuel.
About 2,000 vessels would be affected, including container ships, oil
tankers and cruise ships. ... California's new regulation will have a
global effect: 43% of all marine freight imported into the United
States, much of it from Asia, moves through the ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach." (07/25/08)
http://tinyurl.com/6ku5gt
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:00 pm
by Lifer
Maybe we should give California back to Mexico. Then, their crazy laws wouldn't affect what remains of the US! True, we'd lose a couple of major ports, but there's always San Francisco and Seattle. We might have to import oranges and fresh vegetables from "northern Mexico," but we already import a bunch of fruits and veggies from Mexico, don't we?
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:11 pm
by DaveO
Looks like Seattle is going to get an economic boost. Last one leaving the LA terminals can shut the lights off.
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:57 pm
by Juan
That's not new, we all know it was coming (in the business). All ships I've seen built after 2003 has special storage tanks for low sulphur diesel. In Europe all the Baltic sea has been Low sulphur only for a couple of years now
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:30 am
by nivek
Juan wrote:That's not new, we all know it was coming (in the business). All ships I've seen built after 2003 has special storage tanks for low sulphur diesel. In Europe all the Baltic sea has been Low sulphur only for a couple of years now
Juan and all,
I live on upper reaches of Columbia river here in Oregon. All the oil powered engines up this way MUST be diesel powered, use lighter fuels.
Emission control indeed, but more importantly, spill clean up and pollution problem abatement.
As far as I am aware, none of the barge moving tugs on river use bunker grade oils.
Know that inland waterways and seaways are two different situations, can see why the desire for lighter oils on Columbia. Barge and tugs do pass through and *live" in Portland, a large city with a growing population.
With Kali situation, I've not yest found the scientific reasoning in a public venue where it can be viewed. Sure like to see what tests were used to determine the need for boats using the "cleaner" oils.
kevinL
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:42 am
by Lifer
Kinda makes you wonder what the oil companies are going to do with all the unused bunker fuel, doesn't it? I would imagine that it's what's left over after all the "good" fuel (gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel, jet fuel, etc)has been separated from the crude, isn't it?
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:53 am
by Juan
Seagoing vessels, depending on it's size, can burn up to 30tons a day of bunker fuel.
So just one ship in one day is burning the equivalent of all the cars in a small town in a whole week, except that in town you are using low sulphur fuel.
I understand the need of a State like Kalifornia, to try to keep it's air clean, since they have many big ports and a lot of seagoing traffic and it's coastal geography makes smog to stay in the coast over the cities.
Besides, due to escalating oil prices the new trend in shipbuilding is to build ships that burns IFO380 instead of IFO180, wich is cheaper, heavier and more pollutant.