Cruise ship air pollution
The Council also agreed have the City Manager write a letter in support of an exemption from emission regulations for cruise ships (if I heard right) so they can continue to spew pollution into our “pristine” air. I am dismayed that our leaders here in Council and elsewhere, do not support cleaner air and a less polluted planet.
As mentioned at the meeting, Tote converted two of its diesel-powered ships to cleaner-burning liquefied natural gas. This will significantly reduce sulfur emissions by 95% and achieve significant reductions in particulate matter including nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide. The ships will exceed regulatory compliance for the remainder of their service lives.
We should demand that the cruise ships do the same not only for our health, but for our children, grand-children, and the planet. I applaud Tote’s leadership to implement clean-air programs like this.
Sincerely,
Carol Griswold
Author: Sporadic Bird
9:14 am
Hmm…read this article this morning and thought I would put down some thoughts.
First off, to correct the writer, particulate matter, nitrogen oxide (or correctly oxides of nitrogen), and carbon monoxide are all separate, regulated pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Companies often use the misnomer “cleaner burning natural gas” to quantify that you won’t be able to see the particulate matter because by definition natural gas has extremely low particulates. However, all the other pollutants are still there, causing the cruise ship to emit “pollution everywhere it still goes”
Second, the picture is slightly misleading as to the actual operations of a cruise ship. Based on the fact that it looks like it is going into port, the ship is probably varying the load on its engines before docking. Anyone with any boating experience with diesel engines knows that when you reach your cruise speed, the visible emissions are either mostly water vapor or non existent.
Third, cruise ships emissions are regulated under 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 50.070 which is entirely based on visible emissions. Burning natural gas causes almost no emissions and so a new natural gas-burning ship will be almost “exempt” from the rule. As for getting diesel-fired ships to be exempt from such rules, you can write all the letters you want, but the regulatory process is a very long, drawn out process.
Last, if people want to make a instant difference in controlling air pollution, try it on a personal level: don’t keep your place at 70 degrees in the winter, don’t burn coal in town, don’t drive the quarter mile to the store when you can walk, turn off the lights when you leave the room, etc, etc, etc.
10:47 am
9:42 am
Dear Anonymoose….ditto!
10:15 am
Actually, the ship was leaving port.
These restrictions phasing in cleaner burning fuels are already law.
Personal responsibility is to be commended, but the scale of pollution from these ships is astronomical.
I erroneously upgraded the cruise ship fuel from bunker fuel to diesel. Bunker fuel is pretty nasty stuff. According to several sources on the web, including the one below, every day a cruise ship emits the same amount of sulfur dioxide as 13.1 million cars, according to the EPA, and as much soot as 1.06 million cars. That is incredible!
As we all share this same planet and breathe the same air, we should demand compliance. The benefits far outweigh the estimated increase of $50 to $100 cruising costs per week per passenger.
As the article states, “The cruise industry…has a paradoxical relationship with the air and water around their cruise ships. They market themselves as environmentally friendly but, in truth, they are hardly the steward of the air and seas. They are the greatest threat to the clean air and water of Alaska.”
http://www.cruiselawnews.com/2012/07/articles/pollution-1/deadly-cruise-ship-emissions-equal-sulfur-dioxide-spewed-from-13100000-cars-a-day-but-cruise-lines-fight-air-pollution-laws/
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/22/2551857/cruise-lines-state-question-new.html
11:22 am
Yes, it may seem astronomical to some. To others it puts food on their tables to feed their children, grandchildren and others needing a hand.
Since us humans have become more aware of what we leave behind, air quality, oceans, vehicles, dog food, soda, drugs etc have become more planet friendly.
Science in its self has found ways to be more efficient. Change takes time. Time means learning by mistakes, how to improve life for now and tomorrow.
When it comes to our small town of Seward. We need all those air polluting, earth damaging machines to help keep this town alive, but when you stop and think about it, its so easy to blame the ships, trains, planes etc. What about taking personal responsibility.
Take a drive around this town and notice how many junk vehicles, rotten boats, garbage overflowing from a lazy neighbors yard are sitting on land that seeps into our waters, animals stomachs, and plants.
Why not put some of that effort into cleaning up our Seward. Do our part, take personal responsibility.
Seward doesn’t have the nick name “Sewer” because its beautiful. It has the nick name because it looks like CRAP when you drive into this town.
Anyway. I could go on, but I think I got my opinion out just like you…
I applaud you in your efforts to make this world a better place.
3:45 pm
Ah leaving port. Hard to tell from the picture. I assumed a south wind since it is summer.
Yep, there are laws in regulation that are phasing in cleaner burning fuels for ships in general. The same happened for all your cars, trains, and generators over the past few years. And yes, bunker fuel is nasty stuff. It is so viscous that it needs to be heated and pumped to the engines before burning. Unfortunately, bunker oil has a higher heat content, so the shipping industry can burn less of it per nautical mile. Add ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) into the picture. More fuel is required to get the same output as burning bunker oil.
The astronomical numbers cited above are, well, astronomical because it is almost an apples-to-oranges comparison. Not quite, though, here’s what I’ve deduced: EPA is comparing a cruise ship, with a large horsepower turbine or compression ignition engine burning high sulfur bunker oil with fewer emissions controls to smaller, more efficient, cleaner burning, less sulfur gasoline-fired spark ignition engines in cars. If we cut out the differences and do the math this way, the numbers are less astronomical: say you have a 100,000 horsepower bunker oil fired reciprocating engine cruise ship. Say you have a 400 horsepower diesel truck. Put bunker oil in your diesel truck and the number of trucks changes to 250 instead of the quoted 13.1 million cars.
Moving back to the theme of personal responsibility, every time you go to the grocery store and buy say an apple, some bacon, or a coffee, you are probably getting in your car to drive using fuel that came on a ship to buy food that came on a ship, all of which burn bunker oil at least outside of the EEZ where they aren’t required to comply with the federal laws relating to air quality.