Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Future of fast ferries in doubt as cost of fuel soars

Expand Messages
  • brent ns
    High-speed ferries between Ireland and Britain are slowing down by a quarter of an hour per trip to save fuel and face being replaced by conventional ferries
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 23, 2008
      High-speed ferries between Ireland and Britain are slowing down by a quarter of an hour per trip to save fuel and face being replaced by conventional ferries operating at half the speed unless the oil price falls.

      Stena Line has also introduced a fuel surcharge of £10 per vehicle and £2 for foot passengers.

      The crossing time between Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin, and Holyhead, North Wales, will rise from 99 minutes to 115. The trip from Belfast to Stranraer will take 119 minutes, an increase of up to 14 minutes depending on the time of day. The reduction in speed will reduce fuel consumption by 8 per cent.

      Michael McGrath, Stena’s Irish Sea director, hinted that the high oil price could result in the withdrawal of the HSS ferries, aluminium catamarans the size of a football pitch that travel at more than 40mph.

      They would be replaced by conventional ferries operating with a top speed of 25mph, meaning journey times would return to the three hours that was normal before the HSSs were introduced in the mid-1990s.

      Mr McGrath said: “As fuel rises, all ferry operators are threatened with major change. Whether the \ have a life or not depends on the customer’s willingness to pay.”

      Stena blamed high oil prices last year when it withdrew one HSS from the North Sea route between Harwich and the Hook of Holland. The price then was $70 (£38) a barrel but has since almost doubled. The North Sea HSS is being stored in Belfast awaiting a buyer but, like dozens of fast ferries laid up in docks around the world, may never return to service.

      The HSSs were designed in the 1980s when oil was a fraction of its current price and were built to operate until at least 2022. They use more than twice as much fuel as a conventional ferry. They consume gas oil, similar to kerosene used in jet aircraft and double the price of standard marine fuel.

      Container ships are also slowing down to save fuel, adding two or three days to the voyage from manufacturing centres in the Far East to European ports.

      A study has found that the world’s shipping industry wastes almost three million barrels of oil a day by using ageing vessels that have not been upgraded with fuel-saving technology.

      The DK Group found that fitting new propellers and engines and installing devices that allow ships to glide on a cushion of air would reduce global marine fuel consumption by up to 40 per cent.
      http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article4200087.ece


      _________________________________________________________________
    • Frank Holland
      ... Funny old world. The shipping industry s biggest fuel consumer is the drag through the water, the energy consumption goes up proportional to the drag
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 24, 2008
        On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 00:12 +0000, brent ns wrote:
        > A study has found that the world’s shipping industry wastes almost
        > three million barrels of oil a day by using ageing vessels that have
        > not been upgraded with fuel-saving technology.

        Funny old world. The shipping industry's biggest fuel consumer is the
        drag through the water, the energy consumption goes up proportional to
        the drag cubed. The drag is proportional to the roughness of the ship's
        hull, and bio-fouling increases that roughness dramatically. So the key
        is to keep the underwater part of the hull free of bio-fouling
        (barnacles, seaweed etc). But they are living things, so we have to
        poison them to stop them growing on the ship's hull.

        There was a wonderful anti-fouling paint discovered in the 1970's, not
        only did it prevent bio-fouling but it eroded away very slowly so the
        hull was self polishing, thus reducing drag considerably. This was a
        very clever piece of chemistry involving in effect
        polymethylmethacrylate (which in the UK we call Perspex) modified by
        trubutyltin...TBT.

        TBT is toxic, it would not work otherwise, and had a bad effect on
        oysters.....so guess what it was banned, despite the marine industry
        fighting all the way, and the drag has increased, the ships use more oil
        and generate more carbon dioxide. Bringing back TBT would make an
        enormous amount of financial sense.


        --

        Frank
        53.22N 2.07W
      • Arthur Noll
        It makes financial sense to poison oysters? And no doubt a lot of other marine life? Large oyster beds filter enormous amounts of water, which is important
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 25, 2008
          It makes financial sense to poison oysters? And
          no doubt a lot of other marine life? Large
          oyster beds filter enormous amounts of water,
          which is important to other species, they are
          also an important food source to other species,
          and the whole thing in turn feeds people. In
          order to stretch out using fossil fuels just a
          little longer, it makes sense to poison marine
          ecosystems and lose all this? Hm. Sounds
          utterly mad to me. But oh, my, the chemistry was
          just so "clever". It was "wonderful" ! No,
          Frank, I cannot see it as wonderful, though it is
          something of a wonder that supposedly intelligent
          people have such profound tunnel vision.
          Arthur

          Posted by: "Frank Holland"
          <mailto:frankholland3@...?Subject=
          Re%3A%20Future%20of%20fast%20ferries%20in%20doubt%20as%20cost%20of%20fuel%20soars>frankholland3@...
          <http://profiles.yahoo.com/frank50holland>frank50holland




          Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:22 pm (PDT)

          On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 00:12 +0000, brent ns wrote:
          > A study has found that the world’s shipping industry wastes almost
          > three million barrels of oil a day by using ageing vessels that have
          > not been upgraded with fuel-saving technology.
          Funny old world. The shipping industry's biggest fuel consumer is the
          drag through the water, the energy consumption goes up proportional to
          the drag cubed. The drag is proportional to the roughness of the ship's
          hull, and bio-fouling increases that roughness dramatically. So the key
          is to keep the underwater part of the hull free of bio-fouling
          (barnacles, seaweed etc). But they are living things, so we have to
          poison them to stop them growing on the ship's hull.
          There was a wonderful anti-fouling paint discovered in the 1970's, not
          only did it prevent bio-fouling but it eroded away very slowly so the
          hull was self polishing, thus reducing drag considerably. This was a
          very clever piece of chemistry involving in effect
          polymethylmethacrylate (which in the UK we call Perspex) modified by
          trubutyltin...TBT.

          TBT is toxic, it would not work otherwise, and had a bad effect on
          oysters.....so guess what it was banned, despite the marine industry
          fighting all the way, and the drag has increased, the ships use more oil
          and generate more carbon dioxide. Bringing back TBT would make an
          enormous amount of financial sense.
          --
          Frank
          53.22N 2.07W
        • Frank Holland
          Well, Arthur, consider the alternatives. Fouled ships use a lot more oil, and generate a lot more CO2, which in turn heats the planet up, so more species die
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 28, 2008
            Well, Arthur, consider the alternatives. Fouled ships use a lot more
            oil, and generate a lot more CO2, which in turn heats the planet up, so
            more species die off. I suppose you could stop all trade so that there
            would not be a need for the ships.

            Life is messy isn't it.

            Frank H

            On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 10:20 -0700, Arthur Noll wrote:
            >
            > It makes financial sense to poison oysters? And
            > no doubt a lot of other marine life? Large
            > oyster beds filter enormous amounts of water,
            > which is important to other species, they are
            > also an important food source to other species,
            > and the whole thing in turn feeds people. In
            > order to stretch out using fossil fuels just a
            > little longer, it makes sense to poison marine
            > ecosystems and lose all this? Hm. Sounds
            > utterly mad to me. But oh, my, the chemistry was
            > just so "clever". It was "wonderful" ! No,
            > Frank, I cannot see it as wonderful, though it is
            > something of a wonder that supposedly intelligent
            > people have such profound tunnel vision.
            > Arthur
            >
            > Posted by: "Frank Holland"
            > <mailto:frankholland3@...?Subject=
            > Re%3A%20Future%20of%20fast%20ferries%20in%20doubt%20as%20cost%20of%
            > 20fuel%20soars>frankholland3@...
            > <http://profiles.yahoo.com/frank50holland>frank50holland
            >
            > Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:22 pm (PDT)
            >
            > On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 00:12 +0000, brent ns wrote:
            > > A study has found that the world’s shipping industry wastes almost
            > > three million barrels of oil a day by using ageing vessels that have
            > > not been upgraded with fuel-saving technology.
            > Funny old world. The shipping industry's biggest fuel consumer is the
            > drag through the water, the energy consumption goes up proportional to
            > the drag cubed. The drag is proportional to the roughness of the
            > ship's
            > hull, and bio-fouling increases that roughness dramatically. So the
            > key
            > is to keep the underwater part of the hull free of bio-fouling
            > (barnacles, seaweed etc). But they are living things, so we have to
            > poison them to stop them growing on the ship's hull.
            > There was a wonderful anti-fouling paint discovered in the 1970's, not
            > only did it prevent bio-fouling but it eroded away very slowly so the
            > hull was self polishing, thus reducing drag considerably. This was a
            > very clever piece of chemistry involving in effect
            > polymethylmethacrylate (which in the UK we call Perspex) modified by
            > trubutyltin...TBT.
            >
            > TBT is toxic, it would not work otherwise, and had a bad effect on
            > oysters.....so guess what it was banned, despite the marine industry
            > fighting all the way, and the drag has increased, the ships use more
            > oil
            > and generate more carbon dioxide. Bringing back TBT would make an
            > enormous amount of financial sense.
            > --
            > Frank
            > 53.22N 2.07W
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Roger Arnold
            There s another alternative, Frank: cleaning the hulls more frequently. I believe there are already underwater cleaning robots that can scour a hull without
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 28, 2008
              There's another alternative, Frank: cleaning the hulls more frequently. I believe there are already underwater cleaning robots that can scour a hull without putting it into drydock. Scraping the hull three or four times a year should keep it pretty clear of barnacles.

              Roger Arnold
              Sunnyvale, CA

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Frank Holland
              To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 3:28 AM
              Subject: Re: [Bulk] [energyresources] Re: Future of fast ferries in doubtas cost of fuel soars


              Well, Arthur, consider the alternatives. Fouled ships use a lot more
              oil, and generate a lot more CO2, which in turn heats the planet up, so
              more species die off. I suppose you could stop all trade so that there
              would not be a need for the ships.

              Life is messy isn't it.

              Frank H

              On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 10:20 -0700, Arthur Noll wrote:
              >
              > It makes financial sense to poison oysters? And
              > no doubt a lot of other marine life? Large
              > oyster beds filter enormous amounts of water,
              > which is important to other species, they are
              > also an important food source to other species,
              > and the whole thing in turn feeds people. In
              > order to stretch out using fossil fuels just a
              > little longer, it makes sense to poison marine
              > ecosystems and lose all this? Hm. Sounds
              > utterly mad to me. But oh, my, the chemistry was
              > just so "clever". It was "wonderful" ! No,
              > Frank, I cannot see it as wonderful, though it is
              > something of a wonder that supposedly intelligent
              > people have such profound tunnel vision.
              > Arthur
              >
              > Posted by: "Frank Holland"
              > <mailto:frankholland3@...?Subject=
              > Re%3A%20Future%20of%20fast%20ferries%20in%20doubt%20as%20cost%20of%
              > 20fuel%20soars>frankholland3@...
              > <http://profiles.yahoo.com/frank50holland>frank50holland
              >
              > Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:22 pm (PDT)
              >
              > On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 00:12 +0000, brent ns wrote:
              > > A study has found that the world’s shipping industry wastes almost
              > > three million barrels of oil a day by using ageing vessels that have
              > > not been upgraded with fuel-saving technology.
              > Funny old world. The shipping industry's biggest fuel consumer is the
              > drag through the water, the energy consumption goes up proportional to
              > the drag cubed. The drag is proportional to the roughness of the
              > ship's
              > hull, and bio-fouling increases that roughness dramatically. So the
              > key
              > is to keep the underwater part of the hull free of bio-fouling
              > (barnacles, seaweed etc). But they are living things, so we have to
              > poison them to stop them growing on the ship's hull.
              > There was a wonderful anti-fouling paint discovered in the 1970's, not
              > only did it prevent bio-fouling but it eroded away very slowly so the
              > hull was self polishing, thus reducing drag considerably. This was a
              > very clever piece of chemistry involving in effect
              > polymethylmethacrylate (which in the UK we call Perspex) modified by
              > trubutyltin...TBT.
              >
              > TBT is toxic, it would not work otherwise, and had a bad effect on
              > oysters.....so guess what it was banned, despite the marine industry
              > fighting all the way, and the drag has increased, the ships use more
              > oil
              > and generate more carbon dioxide. Bringing back TBT would make an
              > enormous amount of financial sense.
              > --
              > Frank
              > 53.22N 2.07W
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Arthur C. Noll
              ... Yes, Frank, this current situation is very messy. It is like the post I just wrote to Roger, governments are right now being forced to try and chose
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 29, 2008
                ---
                Yes, Frank, this current situation is very messy. It is like the
                post I just wrote to Roger, governments are right now being forced
                to try and chose between evils. Roger writes on this particular
                issue of a solution of robots cleaning hulls- but I'm quite sure
                that these robots are made and maintained with fossil fuels at the
                base, too, and the price of such robots and using them will be
                climbing. Again, we need solar technology to be jumping into the gap
                now, not *maybe* ten, twenty years from now.
                You know my solution to the mess, find the fit and abandon ship.
                This thing is going down.

                Arthur


                In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Frank Holland
                <frankholland3@...> wrote:
                >
                > Well, Arthur, consider the alternatives. Fouled ships use a lot
                more
                > oil, and generate a lot more CO2, which in turn heats the planet
                up, so
                > more species die off. I suppose you could stop all trade so that
                there
                > would not be a need for the ships.
                >
                > Life is messy isn't it.
                >
                > Frank H
                >
                > On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 10:20 -0700, Arthur Noll wrote:
                > >
                > > It makes financial sense to poison oysters? And
                > > no doubt a lot of other marine life? Large
                > > oyster beds filter enormous amounts of water,
                > > which is important to other species, they are
                > > also an important food source to other species,
                > > and the whole thing in turn feeds people. In
                > > order to stretch out using fossil fuels just a
                > > little longer, it makes sense to poison marine
                > > ecosystems and lose all this? Hm. Sounds
                > > utterly mad to me. But oh, my, the chemistry was
                > > just so "clever". It was "wonderful" ! No,
                > > Frank, I cannot see it as wonderful, though it is
                > > something of a wonder that supposedly intelligent
                > > people have such profound tunnel vision.
                > > Arthur
                > >
                > > Posted by: "Frank Holland"
                > > <mailto:frankholland3@...?Subject=
                > > Re%3A%20Future%20of%20fast%20ferries%20in%20doubt%20as%20cost%
                20of%
                > > 20fuel%20soars>frankholland3@...
                > > <http://profiles.yahoo.com/frank50holland>frank50holland
                > >
                > > Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:22 pm (PDT)
                > >
                > > On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 00:12 +0000, brent ns wrote:
                > > > A study has found that the world’s shipping industry
                wastes almost
                > > > three million barrels of oil a day by using ageing vessels
                that have
                > > > not been upgraded with fuel-saving technology.
                > > Funny old world. The shipping industry's biggest fuel consumer
                is the
                > > drag through the water, the energy consumption goes up
                proportional to
                > > the drag cubed. The drag is proportional to the roughness of the
                > > ship's
                > > hull, and bio-fouling increases that roughness dramatically. So
                the
                > > key
                > > is to keep the underwater part of the hull free of bio-fouling
                > > (barnacles, seaweed etc). But they are living things, so we have
                to
                > > poison them to stop them growing on the ship's hull.
                > > There was a wonderful anti-fouling paint discovered in the
                1970's, not
                > > only did it prevent bio-fouling but it eroded away very slowly
                so the
                > > hull was self polishing, thus reducing drag considerably. This
                was a
                > > very clever piece of chemistry involving in effect
                > > polymethylmethacrylate (which in the UK we call Perspex)
                modified by
                > > trubutyltin...TBT.
                > >
                > > TBT is toxic, it would not work otherwise, and had a bad effect
                on
                > > oysters.....so guess what it was banned, despite the marine
                industry
                > > fighting all the way, and the drag has increased, the ships use
                more
                > > oil
                > > and generate more carbon dioxide. Bringing back TBT would make an
                > > enormous amount of financial sense.
                > > --
                > > Frank
                > > 53.22N 2.07W
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.