Boatnerd Discussion Forum

Not sure if mentioned as I did not see it mentioned but main reason may be to switch to LNG is the upcomong Tier III IMO emission standards for SO2 and NOx levels.The US is already building LNG powered vessels , as well, other areas of the world have this fuel in use.This is not a new idea to shipping.Only new to the great lakes.Several engine manufactures world wide also have a duel fuel option available to customers,as this fuel will be used more frequently vs expensive scrubbing systems to clean up exhaust emissions

Interlake's plans predate these plans.

Everyone knows that coal is especially unpopular with the current administration and that a war has been being waged upon it for years now that that will only continue and increase.

But the rapid ratcheting up on that war a few days ago seems to have caught observers unaware and surprised that such a big step is being taken so suddenly over the more gradual course that we've been on. So there's no way for us outsiders to really know how this is going to affect Interlake's plans since they're likely unsure themselves and re-evaluating and waiting. I really doubt they foresaw this and already had taken it into account with their analysis.

Forcing much more energy consumption to shift far quicker to LNG than it otherwise would've without this mandate makes me very skeptical that supply will be able to keep an even pace with demand.

And not only that, but for prices to remain the same as demand takes a large jump, not only does the proportion of supply to demand have to remain constant, but the cost for each unit of it that is supplied (Is it measured in cubic feet?) has to remain the same.

And that's highly unlikely to be the case if a large proportion of our energy consumption takes a sudden shift to LNG over a short period of time.

I agree with Guest. Interlake's LNG conversion is based price. They must be thinking that the price will remain low for this fuel over many years.

Business 101 states that when supply goes up - as in the new gas fields found in the last 2 years - price goes down.

Guest wrote:I do not agree that using less coal and turning to natural gas will increase energy prices. The US has found large deposits of oil and natural gas in the last few years. These new found deposits have reduced the cost of natural gas over the last few years. Energy prices are expected to remain steady or even drop for natural gas for this decade.

Business 101. When demand increases over available supply prices increase. Our federal government through the epa and dnr will create policies that will make it to cost prohibitive to harvest Natural gas because it still has emissions. The feds will raise the cost of use until it is also no longer viable. The current administration wants us to spend trillions on energy sources such as wind and solar that cannot possibly fill our current energy needs. These same efforts will also make us a non-competitor in the global economy because other non- controlled emission countries will be able to produce goods at a far lower cost. That economics folks. High energy costs will price our products right out the market.

Randy S wrote:

Shipwatcher1 wrote:Also, with the current ban on building new nuclear plants, . There have been great advances in safety procedures following Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters, so I see no reason why new plants couldn't be built. With the waste properly taken care of, the only byproduct is steam.

The whole problem with nuke power is the waste. As of now, it is not taken care of and there are 10s of thousands of tons of it being stored at sites all over the country. Some of the storage containers are showing signs of failure. The Hanford facility in Washington is leaking about 300 gallons of highly radioactive water per year. Yucca Mountain in Nevada - abandoned at least for the time being - has its own problems. The environment inside that place is extremely harsh, with corrosive ground water and the prototype storage containers exhibited signs of corrosion that was thought to be impossible - and the containers had yet to be exposed to radiation. Yucca was proposed for a 10,000 year lifespan, but the materials that were to be stored there would remain deadly to life for millions.

10, 000 years?? Do you really believe we wont have a solution to the nuclear waste problem by then? We have had the ability to fly how long? We only harnessed the power of the atom in 1945. We went to the moon in 1969. Really... kind of selling mankind short aren't you. Who knows we could be hit by a meteor by then so it won't matter.

Shipwatcher1 wrote:Also, with the current ban on building new nuclear plants, ... There have been great advances in safety procedures following Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters, so I see no reason why new plants couldn't be built. With the waste properly taken care of, the only byproduct is steam.

The whole problem with nuke power is the waste. As of now, it is not taken care of and there are 10s of thousands of tons of it being stored at sites all over the country. Some of the storage containers are showing signs of failure. The Hanford facility in Washington is leaking about 300 gallons of highly radioactive water per year. Yucca Mountain in Nevada - abandoned at least for the time being - has its own problems. The environment inside that place is extremely harsh, with corrosive ground water and the prototype storage containers exhibited signs of corrosion that was thought to be impossible - and the containers had yet to be exposed to radiation. Yucca was proposed for a 10,000 year lifespan, but the materials that were to be stored there would remain deadly to life for millions.

This new plan is less than a week old so I doubt any reliable forecast on energy prices has even been done that we have access to right now. We're strictly in the speculation stage right now wondering what's going to happen and what the effects will be.

And with the subject matter itself, it's largely theoretically and adjustments are frequently made and things frequently don't seem to work out as expected. We're still in the early stages of this stuff at least from the perspective of an average citizen looking in instead of a climatologist or whatever they're called. To me that suggests a lot of dead reckoning going on even by the experts.

And if it forces a large shift to natural gas that would've only partially and more slowly happened otherwise, it's going to have an affect on the price of it one way or another in the end.

Furthermore, if this isn't going to cost us and it's actually better all around and is a win-win even on the economic side, then why the government mandate? That the government is forcing people's hands suggests that that isn't quite the case here. It is going to cost us or they wouldn't need to intervene.

I don't know what will happen but I'm sure something more than just cleaner air is going to come out of it. There's going to be a price to pay for this plan one way or another.

I do not agree that using less coal and turning to natural gas will increase energy prices. The US has found large deposits of oil and natural gas in the last few years. These new found deposits have reduced the cost of natural gas over the last few years. Energy prices are expected to remain steady or even drop for natural gas for this decade.

Less coal demand means that electricity demand will shift away from coal plants to alternative means. And that appears for the most part to primarily be natural gas for the bulk of it since wind and solar aren't going to take coal's place and nuclear power is still held in check in this country with no sign of its stigma eroding anytime soon. So Interlake's LNG fuel prices will rise faster under this plan to attack and phase out coal quicker than we were heading towards previously since demand will quickly be growing for natural gas and raising fuel prices as a result.

And presumably it will increase prices on other fuels as well since coal is just one aspect of this plan that is gaining the most attention and they're going after greenhouse gases across the board. Prices for other fuels will also be increasing which could have a direct impact on Interlake since it has been said here that their new Bergens aren't designed to burn LNG. If the existing repowerings can't be retrofitted, a significant portion of their fleet will remain burning more conventional fuel for many more years and that just got unexpectedly even more expensive.

And then there's perhaps the biggest impact of them all. The impact on their customers and their cargos. Less coal to haul, increases in cost for industry, the risk this has with cutbacks in existing businesses and perhaps forcing some of the heavy polluters to close or shift overseas in the tradition of recent decades, and it reduces the chances of new industry locating along the Great Lakes basin for Interlake to potentially serve in the future.

This all increases the cost of doing business and there's no doubt about that. The question which this isn't the place for where this plan is concerned is if it's a bargain with the environmental issues some say we're facing, if it's an economic disaster with little environmental benefit, etc.

Am not sure how coal demand would affect Interlake's decision to do a LNG conversion. None of their boats burn coal. Less coal demands means less cargoes, which could eventually mean fewer boats needed.

Guest wrote:Interlake's plan is to have a LNG fueled ship in service in 2015. They have a contract with Shell in Sarnia who are building a LNG facility for them, and also for the trucking and railroad industries. Probably the vessel to be LNG is the Herbert C. Jackson, though it is still going through the planning and regulatory hoops. Remember, nothing of this type of fuel conversion hasn't been done on the lakes before and the regulations need to be either created, amended or both.
I'm sure that Interlake factored in that coal demand on the lakes would decline when they decided to convert their ships to LNG.

I think part of the problem is there is no cheap method of replacing coal at the present time. Wind and solar can supplement coal, but not replace it entirely. These new technologies need time to develop, while at the same time keeping all available resources in full time use to keeps prices down. Once a clean source is developed that won't force an individual or small business to bankrupt, I'm sure everyone would be happy to switch over to it.

Also, with the current ban on building new nuclear plants, the problem gets bigger. There have been great advances in safety procedures following Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters, so I see no reason why new plants couldn't be built. With the waste properly taken care of, the only byproduct is steam.

Just my thoughts on the subject

This is an interesting discussion. I only have observations. Here in the twin cities of Minnesota we have two nuclear power plants that keep our rates low and air clean. Newer European plants could use our waste rods to generate many more kilowatts of power so new reactors could help us if the new build moratorium were to end, let alone the better safety of modern control systems.
On a side note, I have never been able to find a quantifiable amount of CO2 that a human emits. Why is this so hidden? I primarily bike for transportation but I don't know if I equal a car or not when I'm huffing it across town.
As for the LNG, I hope it stays a low cost fuel option for whoever converts to it because it is so emission friendly.

It's quite clear that we have been adding to global warming by the creation of carbon dioxide from burning coal and fossil fuels. A better method to produce energy will come from wind and solar power. Ontario is leading the way toward this effort. The town of Windsor is getting much of the energy it needs from wind power here along the banks of lake Saint Clair. They are doing a great job.

You are right global warming does exist as does global cooling it has since the Earth was formed. Please visit the following web site and let us get back to boat watching and discussing that on this one.

http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

Denny wrote:Well, our roads are another problem as it seems here in Michigan they are taking them away from us as well. I don't think there is a road in Michigan right now that they are not working on and I just wish they would not work on every road at the same time. If the darn government would just stop giving out the money and also the stimulus money to fix the roads maybe we can all drive on them without any construction chaos. Just my two cents on this.

Well, look on the bright side. If they are fixing every road this year, next year they will all be nice to drive on and construction free.

Nobody has ever said solar and wind can takeover all of the load from the coal plants. But if any of you have driven through Illinois, Texas and a lot of other good wind producing states, you will see thousands of wind mills that take the load off of Coal and gas plants. Coal plants have to be kept on line even when power is not needed, to meet any unexpected demand. Wind generators have no emissions and can be staged on in groups at almost a moments notice. Considering that all of the Coal producers and Oil producers are also getting into wind energy, should be a sign that they have a place in the equation. There are parts of the good wind site where you will see hundreds and hundreds of wind generators almost as far as you can see. When you live in a city and see the health problems caused by coal burning plant emissions, you can see why something else is needed. Older plants can be converted easier and cheaper to gas than what it would cost to scrub or isolate the pollutants from the coal burners. Besides, there is no ash to speak of with gas burners. That has always been another pollutant to have to find a way to deal with on coal burners. As far as global warming is concerned, if you don't believe it is happening, sorry you are wrong. The earth evolved like a teeter totter since it first formed just going in small changes up and down. Mans influence is the weight on one side that is changing that balance and tipping the scales in ways that the Earth cannot compensate for.

Guest wrote:It's clear that Ontario is leading the way to cleaner energy. They are starting to use wind power to generate a large part of their power needs. The shipment of coal to Ontario is down almost 50 %. The Badger started their season 2 weeks early to transport wind mill blades and towers to U.S.A. installations. Global warming because of green house gasses generated by coal is a proven fact. Some folks are slow learners and don't have a plan for our future. I'd prefer to take care of our space and leave a cleaner place for future folks.

Wind and solar? Neither together or separate can they ever meet just our current needs. Those who wish to lead by example can give up their car, furnace, air conditioner, plane travel, anything plastic in and on your home, and how about the fuel that plants and harvests the food they eat.

Interlake's plan is to have a LNG fueled ship in service in 2015. They have a contract with Shell in Sarnia who are building a LNG facility for them, and also for the trucking and railroad industries. Probably the vessel to be LNG is the Herbert C. Jackson, though it is still going through the planning and regulatory hoops. Remember, nothing of this type of fuel conversion hasn't been done on the lakes before and the regulations need to be either created, amended or both.
I'm sure that Interlake factored in that coal demand on the lakes would decline when they decided to convert their ships to LNG.

I 1000 ft vessel hauls 1 ton per gallon. The Speer carries 60000 tons and it takes 60000 gallons. Of course it varies slightly on miles, but this is based on a trip to Gary. The approx. hull speed of a box is between 13.2 and 13.6 Knots. If you see an older vessel doing more than this, it is wasting fuel. The ships are much more efficient than cars and lawnmowers so they are already green. Gas offers a ship owner some big maintenance savings. No more blow-by whooo hooo. Interlake doesn't have to deal with huge corporate boards, 2 year pay offs and side ventures that steals capital and lays up ships. Interlake will probably become more aggressive as LNG becomes more popular. New containerships are currently being built to use LNG as their primary fuel source. If these work Interlake will climb on board. Interlake has a lot of work to do. It would be a lot easier to build a new ship than retrofit an old ship. They have dieselized the steamers so most of the work is already done. In conclusion, it will not happen overnite, but it will happen. It will be a success because of how clean and good the gas is for the engines, and I think the fuel source will be readily available in the near future, Once every politician and business man gets his cut.