How Cruise Ships Bring 1,200 Tons of Toxic Fumes to Brooklyn a Year:
"Well, that's good," [Mr. Armstrong] finally said. "That's the way it should have been for the last decade since they built this thing."
"This thing" is the $21 million plug-in station that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey agreed to introduce in Red Hook several years ago in an effort to eliminate 1,200 tons of carbon dioxide, 25 tons of nitrous oxide and tons of hazardous particulate matter spewed out each year by cruise ships idling off Brooklyn's coast.
When not using shore power, a single cruise ship docked for one day can emit as much diesel exhaust as 34,400 idling tractor-trailers, according to an independent analysis verified by the Environmental Protection Agency. When a ship is plugged in, the agency said, its exhaust is nearly eliminated.
But the system has hardly been used after going into operation in 2016. And New York City is expected to announce design plans next year that would expand and modernize terminals in Brooklyn and Manhattan to accommodate the world's largest cruise ships, and more of them.
Yet there is no plan to further expand the shore power system.
Neighborhood residents, led by Mr. Armstrong, are sounding the alarm. They want the pollution controls that were promised by the Bloomberg administration. They fault the city and state for failing to force the matter, and the cruise line companies for failing to use the system.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday December 27 2019, @03:50PM (12 children)
No, its exhaust is rolled up with the rest of the electrical grid's pollution - maybe a little more efficient and clean, but the net CO2 emission isn't much different - just exhausted at the power generation plants instead of dockside.
Now, if we were to really go nuclear, solar and wind for electric production - then we could deal with the much smaller problems of solid/liquid radioactive waste handling, toxic materials involved in solar panel production/disposal, and dead birds / maintenance workers - which, on balance, are a lot easier to manage than the CO2, mercury, and other emissions of coal fired power plants.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by RS3 on Friday December 27 2019, @04:40PM (2 children)
You're correct, but the point is: there are many very toxic pollutants besides CO2 being spewed by the diesel engines (which are running diesel-powered generators on the docked ship). And they're being spewed right in the heart of the city, rather than somewhat farther away. Even stationary coal-burning plants have scrubbers to remove most of the crud. You get CO2 no matter what you burn, so like you said, getting away from burning things is what's needed.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday December 29 2019, @12:10AM (1 child)
Just imagine what is coming out of all those passengers, fresh off the buffet lines.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday December 29 2019, @12:42AM
I'd rather not, but since you brought it up (sorry), which end?
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @05:18PM
I'm not really sure why people bother to post this kind of dribble. The point of switching to electric for a lot of these things is simply because rather than having a relatively large number of devices that need to be fixed, they can fix the source. And, as new technology comes online to generate power, there's little impact on random people and businesses other than whatever changes there are in terms of cost and pollution.
Ships are large enough that cleaning them up is a worthy goal, but due to the way that maritime law works, there's not much that can be done to force the companies to clean up their ships that wouldn't require all nations on the planet agreeing to enforce the rules.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sourcery42 on Friday December 27 2019, @06:58PM
While you're correct, that power plant probably isn't burning marine diesel. Ship's fuel oil is some nasty shit, although it is about to get somewhat better http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/10-MEPC-74-sulphur-2020.aspx [imo.org]
Even if the incremental power generation is coming from a coal fired producer, that plant is likely to at least have some subset of SO2 scrubbers, combustion promoting catalyst, and an SCR for NOx conversion. Not to mention the exhaust is likely from a very, very tall stack to allow for dispersion of pollutants that aren't converted or captured. Whereas that ship is burning stuff possibly barely higher quality than asphalt and spewing it in the harbor not too high above grade. The change in air quality for the downwind population is very real.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 27 2019, @07:00PM (6 children)
NEW YORK New York Profile - State Profile and Energy Estimates [eia.gov]
Taking nothing else into account (like all the toxic crap in diesel fuel that ends up in the air), emissions are reduced by about a third.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 27 2019, @07:03PM
Actually, that might be 2/3. Not sure if they're including the nukes in their renewable number.
Technically they're not renewable, but they are emission free.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 28 2019, @01:40AM (4 children)
It is better, no doubt. What really torqued me once upon a time was a posting by a Seattle resident, so proud of his urban electric bus system - absolutely pollution free, and so many people really believe that. It's out of sight, so it doesn't exist in their minds.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Saturday December 28 2019, @06:22AM (3 children)
And what torques me is just how ignorant some people are. Seattle gets about 90% of its electricity from hydroelectric power, and about half of the remainder comes from nuclear, with only a small fraction coming from fossil fuels. So yes, an electric bus system in Seattle would actually be pretty damn clean, compared to something like diesel.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 28 2019, @01:25PM (2 children)
Tell all the unborn salmon how clean your electric power is, oh, wait, you can't, can you?
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Saturday December 28 2019, @02:55PM (1 child)
That's some great logic. Hydroelectric isn't completely perfect, so might as well just give up and burn oil to power those buses?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday December 28 2019, @04:26PM
No, the point is: smug "we've got it all figured out and are soooo superior" Seattle-ites need to get off their high horse, stop sharing needles in the street, and maybe acknowledge that they, like the rest of the world, still have a ways to go before calling game over we won.
Maybe 5% of hydro installations are win-win scenarios, and another 10-20% aren't too bad overall, while the rest are varying degrees of ecological train wreck.
As for who has generated the most electric power with the least (net, total, still imperfect but leading by a wide margin) ecological and human health damage - I'd give credit to the French for that, as un-likeable as they are in so many dimensions, they made some damn good tires for a while (Michelin), and they definitely got the clean electric power generation thing going on - perfect? No, but actual harm done? Pretty impressive record so far.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by barbara hudson on Friday December 27 2019, @04:28PM (3 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @05:13PM (2 children)
no, no, no, cruise ships from Brooklyn
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday December 27 2019, @05:20PM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday December 28 2019, @01:18AM
It will become that way very soon -- The racist Orthodox Chabadniks who run Brooklyn are trying to drive out the Blacks, unfortunately, they are no match for the Blacks' strength and stamina and get slapped and bopped upside the head [npr.org] on a regular basis.
The simmering race war between the Chabadniks and Blacks started with the Crown Heights Riot: [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @05:04PM (6 children)
How much shore power can you provide to a floating city of 10k people? Safety systems, restaurants with their freezers and ovens, drinking water generation, air conditioning, heating, toilet operation, hot water - probably goes into the 10s of megawatts.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @05:10PM (2 children)
It's fine, they use one of those thick orange extension cords.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @05:16PM
Unfortunately the different cruise ship lines use different connectors and no one bothered to spec the adapters when the shore power service was installed...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday December 28 2019, @01:11AM
I have worked with shore power before. The cables are huge donkey-dicks that are literally the diameter of fat pythons and there are frequently multiple connections from shore stations to a single ship. One of my jobs back then was to use a clamp-style current meter to measure the juice flowing through those cables to help provide fast estimates of ship power consumption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @05:26PM
> ... probably goes into the 10s of megawatts.
On the same order as a large Tesla Supercharger station -- 150KW per car (peak) x 40 cars = 6000KW (6MW)
https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-supercharger-kettleman-city-pictures-details-2017-12 [businessinsider.com]
Even efficient cars use a lot of power. Now, imagine if every couple getting off the cruise ship got into their electric car...
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday December 27 2019, @06:16PM (1 child)
This is pretty good and fairly quick skim through:
https://sfport.com/ftp/uploadedfiles/meetings/supporting/2006/Item%204a%20Presentation.pdf [sfport.com]
TLDR: 7-11 MW @ 6.6 or 11 KV.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 28 2019, @05:29PM
Thanks for finding that. So it looks like max draw, with a substation nearby and cables dug right up to the water, delivered to a crane next to the dock, is about 15 MW. Conversely, the ship can apparently generate up to 5 MW for land users.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 27 2019, @05:50PM (1 child)
New York is a major harbor. There are many ships bringing in stuff every day. Most of them dock on the Jersey side. Their fumes float over Manhattan. The 1-2 cruise ships that dock at the pier in Red Hook, Brooklyn, are about it. Their fumes float over the ultra wealthy in Brooklyn Heights and DUMBO, so who cares?
A person who is really concerned about air quality in the Tri-State area would push for Nadler's rail tunnel under NY Harbor to be completed, so that freight trains can roll right out to Long Island. That would eliminate a huge chunk of the semi trucks required to do the job instead, and which sit in traffic in NYC.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday December 27 2019, @06:30PM
What's all that snickering I hear in the back of the room?
Trying to be funny... but I do take this stuff very seriously. I personally HATE diesel fumes.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @05:55PM
Foot on the pedal, never ever false metal
Engine running hotter than a boiling kettle
My job's ain't a job, it's a damn good time
City to city, I'm running my rhymes
On location, touring around the nation
Beastie Boys always on vacation
Itchy trigger finger but a stable turntable
I do what I do best because I'm illing and able
Ain't no faking, your money I'm taking
Going coast to coast watching all the girlies shaking
While you're at the job working nine-to-five
The Beastie Boys at the Garden cold kicking it live
No sleep till
Another plane, another train
Another bottle in the brain
Another girl, another fight
Another drive all night
Our manager's crazy, he always smokes dust
He's got his own room at the back of the bus
Tour around the world, you rock around the clock
Plane to hotel, girls on the jock
We're trashing hotels like it's going out of style
Getting paid along the way 'cause it's worth your while
Four on the floor, Ad-Rock's out the door
MCA's in the back 'cause he's sleeping with a whore
We got a safe in the trunk with money in a stack
With dice in the front and Brooklyn's in the back
White boys got more rhymes
No sleep till
No sleep till Brooklyn
No sleep till Brooklyn
Ain't seen the light since we started this band
So, MCA, get on the mic, my man!
Born and bred Brooklyn USA
They call me Adam Yauch but I'm MCA
Like a lemon to a lime, a lime to a lemon
I sip the def ale with all the fly women
Got limos, arena, and TV shows
Autograph pictures and classy hoes
Step off, Holmes, get out of my way!
Taxing little girlies from here to L.A.
Waking up before I get to sleep
'Cause I'll be rocking this party eight days a week
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @06:00PM (3 children)
"...each flash of lightning on average in the several mid-latitude and subtropical thunderstorms studied turned 7 kilograms (15.4 pounds) of nitrogen into chemically reactive NOx. "In other words, you could drive a new car across the United States more than 50 times and still produce less than half as much NOx as an average lightning flash," Ott estimated."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091030100022.htm [sciencedaily.com]
Ignorance is bliss, but in this world of random sure-sounding claims, it comes too dear.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday December 27 2019, @06:35PM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @07:16PM
Will it ever be possible to bottle lightning? For example, put up a nice tall lightning rod and use the lightning strikes to charge super-capacitors or batteries?
I have no idea--sounds hard to do, but many things we do now looked like SF to people 50-100 years ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @10:46PM
The problem with NOx from cars is strictly an urban one. Photochemical smog is a bitch, and the health effects absolutely justify significant regulation.
But it's incredibly aggravating that I can't buy a diesel truck that gets decent fuel economy, because the regulations can't make a distinction between NOx emissions in the city (where it matters) and in the country (where it doesn't).
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27 2019, @07:36PM (3 children)
Manhattan has 1.6m residents not including commuters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan [wikipedia.org]
A person breathes somewhere between 900g of CO2 ( https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived-posts/sciblog/index.html_p=183.html [globe.gov] ) and 2.3lbs of CO2 ( https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/carbon-oxides-and-carbonates/ [lumenlearning.com] ) per day. Let's go with a middle figure of 1kg per day.
The residents of Manhattan exhale -- not talking about electricity or gas or anything else, just breathing -- 1,600,000 kg of CO2 per day. That's 1600 metric tons per day (1763 silly tons). Manhattan's humans exhale 643,000 silly tons of CO2 per year.
The problem is not the ships. It's the people.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday December 28 2019, @01:21AM (1 child)
Damn right, but specifically the people of not only New York city but Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and now apparently Denver and Austin. Those populations are the biggest and most worthless collections of hot air in the country and the U.S. would be doing itself a favor to gas them or nuke them.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 28 2019, @04:14AM
And yet people are flocking to those regions from areas like, most of the South. Perhaps. your definitions are in need of revision as it's mostly the rest of the country that's populated by lazy people who don't contribute to society. And yet, they somehow have the arrogance to suggest that they know what's best for the rest of us.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 28 2019, @02:09AM
Humans don't exhale carbon monoxide or sulphur dioxide or any of the other nastiness that diesel engines spew when they have no pollution controls. But as always the monotonic chant of CO2CO2! drowns out any discussion of other pollutants.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Friday December 27 2019, @08:56PM
1200 tons is the CO2 mass, which is not toxic in those concentrations. The mass of the total exhaust fumes, which are toxic due to other constituents, will be much larger. Another environmental journalist who cannot get the facts right, but we trust these people tell us the future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 28 2019, @02:47PM
hmmm ... them ships don't look like they were built much for shore-power. well obviously they're not at shore alot ... but it looks "makeshifty" when they connect that shore-power.
it would probably be easier to use a crane to dump a plug in the shape (and function) of a cargo container which contains a GAS-turbine on deck. (like a container with three (four?) long feet that plug into the deck)
the cable carrying NATURAL-gas to the turbine is probably less dangerous and massive then direct shore-power-AC?
once the ship leaves just un-plug the container from the deck with a crane ...
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Monday December 30 2019, @07:52PM
I am very not an expert on this topic, but this statement doesn't pass the sniff test:
An idling diesel truck engine consumes about 3/4's of a gallon per hour. 34,400 of those is ~ 25,000 gallons per hour. A 2,000kw diesel generator, a very big boy, consumes ~150 gallons of fuel per hour at 100% load. Are the power requirements of a docked cruise ship really in the neighborhood of ~350 Megawatts? That's an astounding amount of power. For scale, that's more than most of New York's onshore power plants.