Steam Will Return

George Elder
18th April 2008, 08:47
I have alwas believed that one day steam will return, we are supposed to be running out of oil.
Nuclear steam generation has to come one day but the question is when.

Leccy
18th April 2008, 08:56
About 50 years ago ?

George Elder
18th April 2008, 09:02
Very true, but I should have added - in general use in the MN as a replacement for the Marine Diesel.

kottemann
18th April 2008, 10:02
Here is an interesting article from last months Sail World the future is sails apparently

Sail-World Cruising's Green Prize of the Month goes to Frenchman Frederic Albert, who has started using a 19th century sailing vessel to transport wine from Bordeaux to Dublin to reduce carbon emissions, and on the return journey the three masted barque will carry crushed glass.

This month 60,000 bottles from Languedoc will be shipped in the19th Century barque Belem, saving 18,375lb of carbon.


Belem, launched in 1896 and the last French merchant sailing vessel to be built, will sail into Dublin following a four day voyage from Bordeaux. The wines will be delivered to Bordeaux by barge using the Canal du Midi and Canal du Garonne, which run across southern France from Sète in the east, via Béziers in Languedoc. Each bottle - 60,000 in the first shipment - will be labelled: 'Carried by sailing ship, a better deal for the planet.' Although the whole process will take up to a week longer than a flight, it is estimated to save 4.9oz of carbon per bottle.

The 170ft Belem, which was first used to transport chocolate from South America and is named after the Brazilian port, is the first of seven planned to be working by 2013. Seven private investors have contributed 70 per cent of the business's start-up costs of £40m. Bank loans have provided the rest.

Frederic Albert, founder of the shipping company Compagnie de Transport Maritime à la Voile (CTMV), said: 'My idea was to do something for the planet and something for the wines of Languedoc. One of my grandfathers was a wine-maker and one was a sailor.' Albert said some 250 producers in Languedoc alone were keen to use his ships.


'There is a lot of interest in green investments in France,' said Albert. Ships will return to France with an equivalent tonnage of crushed glass for recycling into wine bottles at factories in Bordeaux and Béziers. Despite the time involved in transporting it, the wine should also remain relatively cheap, at between €7 and €20 a bottle.

Delivery times to Ireland and Britain had been calculated using historic charts. 'We had someone who studied a century of weather conditions to work them out,' he said.

Albert said his fleet would also be used for advertising in the ports they sailed to. He said: 'There will be tastings on board. The Belem can hold around 100 guests, so there will be plenty of room for importers to promote their wines.'


CTMVs second boat, which cost six million euros (8.4 million dollars) to build and is as yet unnamed, will also be launched in March this year. It will measure 52 metres and have 1,000 square metres of sails and a top speed of 14 knots.

With a total of seven ships the investment in the project looks set to be about 40 to 50 million euros. Albert would not confirm the exact investment figure, but said he now has seven private investors and the financing is 70 percent private capital and 30 percent bank loans.

'There is a lot of interest in green investments in France,' he said.

Future ports of call, with Bordeaux as the regular departure point, will include Bristol or Manchester in England, Gothenburg in Sweden, Copenhagen in Denmark, and other towns in Scandinavia.

The next delivery after Dublin, however, is Canada. 'The Canadians want us to come there in June,' said Albert, 'They have already ordered 20,000 bottles, but I think there will be more,'

Dave Wilson
18th April 2008, 10:50
Robbie,
It would take more than a gimmick like this for me to buy French. IMO the new world wines have them beat for quality every time.

Philthechill
19th April 2008, 13:10
I have alwas believed that one day steam will return, we are supposed to be running out of oil.
Nuclear steam generation has to come one day but the question is when. Don't forget the Yanks tried a nuclear-powered cargo-ship (N.S. Savannah) in the 60's but there was so much opposition to it docking in various countries they eventually gave-up on the idea.

Unfortunately people, in their lack-of-knowledge about things nuclear, believe that anything, which uses fissile material, is a potential bomb and could blow-up and, therefore, adopt the "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard) principle as a safeguard.

This is a great shame because there is little doubt that nuclear-generated steam, on Merchant vessels, would be a great asset in the never-ending quest to find a viable replacement for oil.

Fortunately the Armed Navies of the world aren't under the same restrictions, Merchant Navies have to exist under, and can use nuclear-power for both submarines and large capital-ships.

It is this same short-sightedness, with regard to nuclear-power for electricity-generation, holding-up the need to build more nuclear power-stations, in Britain, before we start experiencing prolonged power-failures owing to lack of generating capacity.Phil (Hippy)

John Rogers
19th April 2008, 13:51
Many years ago I was reading about a four mast sailing ship the Japanese had, they had computer operated sails.
Anyone remember this article or ship.

John.

Coastie
19th April 2008, 14:57
I vaguely remember seeing a picture, or at least a drawing of it. Dunno what happened to it however.

surfaceblow
19th April 2008, 16:39
The Savannah had a number of problems, limited ports it was welcome in, large crew, heavy reactor that limited the amount of cargo that could be carried. I was once told that the only cargo that the Savannah could load to fill the volume in the holds was toilet paper.(==D)

doric
29th June 2008, 09:02
I sailed on two steam vessels, 1950/59, the Gothic and the Suevic, both Shaw Savill vessels, also both twin screw turbine ships, I have many happy memories of the voyages on these ships. Terence Williams. R538301.

raybnz
29th June 2008, 09:18
Does this mean as the oil gets to costly to use the noise of clanking fire doors will return. All the redundant coal mines that produced good steaming coal will be reinstated.

Somehow don't think so .

As for Nuclear powered ships none will visit NZ. We have banned them.

Somehow somewhere in the near future perhaps the first tripper will be signing on a sailing ship. Perhaps it wont be like what has gone before.

Tony Breach
29th June 2008, 10:09
With all the fuss over nuclear fuel enrichment in Korea & Iran it is doubtful that, until there is a major - even revolutionary - change in the world's poilitical structure, the traditional nuclear nations will want commercial shipowners having nuclear powered ships in world-wide trade.

In respect of the French wind powered wine carriers I beleive it is a start in the right direction with the current economic fuel situation coupled as it is to the environmental problems of fossil fuels. I wish them smooth sailing. (Will an RYA endorsement or similar be required for OOW manning?)

One would imagine that some of the world's most brilliant technical brains together with the finest electronic equipment are doing their utmost to solve the problems & that as soon a a cheaper, more efficient energy medium is developed the commercial gurus will invest.

I'm sure that many of us remember our cities with thousands of household chimney pots wafting sooty coal smoke while hundreds of factory chimneys belched clouds of noxious fumes as well. I too, loved the steam locomotive, traction engines and the steam ship, but we have come a long way and the internal combustion engine is now the major polluter. Living many years in the LA basin I often heard a light-hearted reference to the ever-present orangey yellow cloud that lies over the county; "Well, would you breathe what you couldn't see?" Sort of sums up the problem.

Bearsie
29th June 2008, 13:08
Don't forget the Yanks tried a nuclear-powered cargo-ship (N.S. Savannah) in the 60's but there was so much opposition to it docking in various countries they eventually gave-up on the idea.

Unfortunately people, in their lack-of-knowledge about things nuclear, believe that anything, which uses fissile material, is a potential bomb and could blow-up and, therefore, adopt the "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard) principle as a safeguard.

This is a great shame because there is little doubt that nuclear-generated steam, on Merchant vessels, would be a great asset in the never-ending quest to find a viable replacement for oil.

Fortunately the Armed Navies of the world aren't under the same restrictions, Merchant Navies have to exist under, and can use nuclear-power for both submarines and large capital-ships.

It is this same short-sightedness, with regard to nuclear-power for electricity-generation, holding-up the need to build more nuclear power-stations, in Britain, before we start experiencing prolonged power-failures owing to lack of generating capacity.Phil (Hippy)

Don't forget the German Ore Carrier Otto Hahn.
While the Savannah was from the beginning built more like a yacht, a show vessel of sorts, the Otto Hahn was all business. Eventually she was rebuilt as a Diesel containership I believe.
Her problems however were similar. While there were never any technical problems, the public attitude towards a nuclear ship with its difficulty of going into ports and all that was a great bother.
Economics were hindered by excessive weight due to somewhat excessive safety precautions. So, while the concept was proven on a technical level, economically it won't be feasible until Oil gets much more expensive.
Which still leaves the political problems to solve....
Btw prices for nuclear fuel are also rising rapidly. By the time we build this nuclear fleet we might find we can't afford to fuel it...

As far as Sail?
There is a reason it slowly disappeared. Sailing is not all that cheap, once the sail replacement costs and the higher crew requirement are figured in. Certainly sail is not conducive to "Just in Time" delivery schedules...
Schooners lasted the longest for economic reasons and their ability to go most anywhere, regardless which way the wind blew, but even they finally gave up.

Coal:
I doubt that it will make a come back, not even in a highly automated system.
Perhaps there is a small chance for gasified coal....

Then there is the Problem of scale.
How many can see a ship like the Emma Maersk as a schooner? or driven by hand shoveled coal???

Greetings, Bearsie :)

gde
19th July 2008, 20:45
George,steam will as you say return.Having the same surname as yourself,Iam very sure that history will repeat itself.Govan is covered by a famous Elder who was one of the first to seize upon steam engines and shipbuilding.
World oil and gas reserves are in free fall,without a new vision we will have no source of energy.

Gavin D Elder

Steve Woodward
19th July 2008, 20:49
Sails will come back before nukes

Ted Else
19th July 2008, 21:53
Many moons ago (when I failed my Chemistry) I was told that water was simply H2O - One part Hydrogen and two parts Oxygen - elements if seperated, and on their own, making two thirds of what is required for fire - the other third being heat. Then I was told that there is so much money, world wide, invested in the oil industry - it would be unthinkable for anyone to place a fuel on the market that would challenge these huge company's - it would bring down the society as we know it - then I was 'told' that the oil company's had already solved the problem of seperating the chemical formula of H2O cheaply and not to worry for when the time comes for oil running out - I still wonder

trevor page
19th July 2008, 21:55
In 1966 I was in British Hazel alongside Rijeka Yugoslavia, also in port was the Nuclear powered cargo ship Savanna, I was privileged to be asked on board.
I recall that the Engine Room was much like any other Steam Turbine powered vessel, ( ive been on a few). the only difference being there was no Boiler Room , the steam being generated by a Nuclear Reactor in No. 2 hatch. I remember that I had to wear a plastic thingy, and if it changed colour you were in trouble.

jimmys
22nd July 2008, 16:31
Thirty years ago when I was sailing on steam turbine tankers with conventional boilers the buzz words were "Fluidized bed boiler technology". It was burn all -coal,wood,oil and even rubbish.
We are now in the second generation and a power station is to be built in Scotland it will burn locally grown waste woods among other fuels. We can now wait and see.
My good lady as always reading over my shoulder says "Why do they not convert the boiler to burn politicians". Women have some very useful technical thoughts.

regards
jimmys

Derek Roger
22nd July 2008, 17:26
Many moons ago (when I failed my Chemistry) I was told that water was simply H2O - One part Hydrogen and two parts Oxygen - elements if seperated, and on their own, making two thirds of what is required for fire - the other third being heat. Then I was told that there is so much money, world wide, invested in the oil industry - it would be unthinkable for anyone to place a fuel on the market that would challenge these huge company's - it would bring down the society as we know it - then I was 'told' that the oil company's had already solved the problem of seperating the chemical formula of H2O cheaply and not to worry for when the time comes for oil running out - I still wonder


Britain had a project going in the early 50s called Zeta . Simply I think the problem is that the enegry ( Electicity ) used is about the same as the energy produced by combustion of hydrogen and oxygen . Pehaps some of our budding "boffins " are able to comment.

Cheers Derek

Lksimcoe
22nd July 2008, 18:24
If I remember my chemistry correctly, while hydrogen and oxygen are great fuels, the problems was that it took more energy to produce the gasses than they returned as a fuel.

If someone can work out a way to split water into H and O2 efficiently, then there's a chance.

Philthechill
22nd July 2008, 18:46
Many moons ago (when I failed my Chemistry) I was told that water was simply H2O - One part Hydrogen and two parts Oxygen - elements if seperated, and on their own, making two thirds of what is required for fire - the other third being heat. Then I was told that there is so much money, world wide, invested in the oil industry - it would be unthinkable for anyone to place a fuel on the market that would challenge these huge company's - it would bring down the society as we know it - then I was 'told' that the oil company's had already solved the problem of seperating the chemical formula of H2O cheaply and not to worry for when the time comes for oil running out - I still wonder E-e-e-e-e Ted lad! I'm not surprised you failed your chemistry! H2O is NOT one part hydrogen to two parts oxygen! It's t'other way round! TWO atoms of hydrogen covalently bonded to ONE atom of oxygen! Now, see me after school!!! Cheers bud! Phil(Hippy)

Ted Else
22nd July 2008, 19:45
(Whaaa) So that's why I failed - been bugging me all these years - cheers Phil - (Whaaa)

Shipbuilder
23rd July 2008, 10:43
For propulsion details etc of SAVANNAH, see my SAVANNAH post. Her cargo-carrying capacity was no different than a similar sized conventionally powered ship!
Bob

cboots
24th July 2008, 04:08
An alternative that no one seems to have considered is that the rising cost of oil fuel, coupled with carbon emissions constraints simply spell the death knell of globalisation and we return to a far greater emphasis on locally produced goods. A recently published report claimed that the largest cost element in many internationally traded goods was now transportation costs. Perhaps I shall soon be able to buy a teeshirt made in Footscray again.
CBoots

George Elder
24th July 2008, 05:49
Ah CBoots that would be nice, try buying Aussie Gas for domestic use, here in the Mid west at $120 a 45 kl bottle last time i purchased.Its all foreign owned businesses now we don't matter any more.

spongebob
24th July 2008, 06:14
You are right cboots,the predicted continual rising cost and availability of fuel oil is eventually likely to make this free trade practice of shipping goods from anywhere to anywhere to provide a cheaper price than local supply or manufacture must eventually surely meet its Waterloo.
There are dozens examples of pointless cargoes to meet the ever growing rapaciousness of the average Westerner, Evian and Perrier water from France to anywhere in Australia is one of many. We are buying green beans from Vietnam while our local farmers are composting cauliflower because it is not this month's flavour. We can all go on and on this tack.

Getting back to the "Steam is King" theme, there are many arguments above and in other threads highlighting the present impracticality of Nuclear powered steam generation for cargo ships, Coal is equally out of the question when you consider the loss of cargo capacity to bunker space and the added stoke hold labour even if modern material handling methods were used from bunker to furnace.
I have heard some cock-eyed arguments that marine boilers could be fired on waste fuels such as sugar cane bagasse or quick grown plantation timber but these are fantasies that some greenies dream of without knowing the realities and that the smoke goes up the chimney just the same

Jimmys post no 18 raises the question of fluid bed combustion whereby all forms of waste can be burnt as long as it has some calorific value.
I have been involved in doing this ashore. All manner of waste products from oat husks,sawdust, wood chips, bark through to paunch contents, ie the contents of a slaughtered cow's intermediate stomach. Believe me they can be burnt but not as readily as coal gas or oil and the equipment requires a lot of attention and maintenance.
No ship's engineering crew would want to be involved with fuel feeding or combustion problems in a heavy sea.

We have even burnt many tons of lanolin from sheep's wool when a market turn down saw the value of lanolin fall below fuel oil and that worked well.
I recall that when NZ heard that Britain's entry into the common market was going to decimate our butter export markets at a time when 99.9% of that product was being taken by the UK we jokingly talked about butter fired boilers!

Queensland is planning new ports and pipe lines to handle the export of Trillions of tons of cheap underground coal seam gas that would be compressed to LNG and shipped around the world. It may prove economic to develop ship's propulsion systems to use the cargo as fuel.
You can bet your life that someone somewhere is doing a lot of research on this topic of marine fuel costs and alternatives.

billyboy
24th July 2008, 06:55
Ah CBoots that would be nice, try buying Aussie Gas for domestic use, here in the Mid west at $120 a 45 kl bottle last time i purchased.Its all foreign owned businesses now we don't matter any more.

Here in the Philippines that would cost only $46.
we buy the 13.2 kilo bottles at $15.3.

billyboy
24th July 2008, 06:58
Were there any nasty fall out things from the savana?...or the nuclear powered subs?
Surely with todays technology they could come up with a way to power turbine ships again so that "Joe public" wouldnt be afraid to let one into His port

JimC
24th July 2008, 17:01
Actually BOC and Air Products have been producing bottled Hydrogen and Oxygen for many years. Main problem with hydrogen is that it is very unstable and has to be handled with care. The old towns gas was mainly hydrogen produced from the burning of coke. It was lethal to humans and had an horrendous explosive range. That and the plentyful supply of methane, propane and butane caused its decline. These gases have a much lower explosive range and are much safer. Their by-products are mainly CO2.(a greenhouse gas).
It has been until recently very difficult to produce Hydrogen in large quantities cheaply enough to dethrone hydrocarbon fuels. Oxygen is not a fuel but supports combustion. It is produced by the fractional distillation of air-much like the separation of carbon products from crude. Which brings me to Steam - it not a true fuel. Since it requires fuel to produce steam - it follows that steam in itself is not the answer. It still boils down (Oh dear!) to producing a fuel which is more efficient and cheaper than hydrocarbons or nuclear and which is environmentally friendly. Incidentally; what is the by-product of burning hydrogen?

Ron Stringer
24th July 2008, 20:48
Incidentally; what is the by-product of burning hydrogen?

Jim,

Dont touch it, it is the most terrible stuff. Be sure never let it contaminate your 'cratur'.

PhilColebrook
19th August 2008, 17:34
Dihydrogen oxide kills thousands of people a year. Dangerous by-product of burning hydrogen.

Philthechill
19th August 2008, 18:25
Dihydrogen oxide kills thousands of people a year. Dangerous by-product of burning hydrogen. Is the chemical formula for this dangerous chemical H2O? Salaams, Phil(Hippy)

waldziu
20th August 2008, 08:21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw&NR=1

There's a lot more.

Philthechill
20th August 2008, 16:06
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw&NR=1

There's a lot more.Just shows to go there's nowt as daft as fervent "Save the Earthers"! Dress something up with dodgy-sounding scientific jargon (it was probably the "monoxide" bit convinced them it just had to be BAD) and those dip-sticks will believe anything!!! Most of them are at the forefront of the "global-warming" myth too!!! Salaams, Phil (Thumb)

Burntisland Ship Yard
22nd August 2008, 20:28
Actually BOC and Air Products have been producing bottled Hydrogen and Oxygen for many years. Main problem with hydrogen is that it is very unstable and has to be handled with care. The old towns gas was mainly hydrogen produced from the burning of coke. It was lethal to humans and had an horrendous explosive range. That and the plentyful supply of methane, propane and butane caused its decline. These gases have a much lower explosive range and are much safer. Their by-products are mainly CO2.(a greenhouse gas).
It has been until recently very difficult to produce Hydrogen in large quantities cheaply enough to dethrone hydrocarbon fuels. Oxygen is not a fuel but supports combustion. It is produced by the fractional distillation of air-much like the separation of carbon products from crude. Which brings me to Steam - it not a true fuel. Since it requires fuel to produce steam - it follows that steam in itself is not the answer. It still boils down (Oh dear!) to producing a fuel which is more efficient and cheaper than hydrocarbons or nuclear and which is environmentally friendly. Incidentally; what is the by-product of burning hydrogen?

On this occasion the correspondant above may have the wrong end of the stick (please dont take this as a critisism)
As luck has it, I indeed work for one of c=the companies listed, and for 10 years now have experience in transporting gaseous hydrogen,
BHY (gaseous hydrogen) is transported in single cylinders / packs of cylinders and tuber trailers, the tube trailers hold circa 300 cylinders at 200bar + pressure, this equates to 3800m3 of gas. Yes the hydrogen is stored in the cylinders at H.P but I can assure the readers that it is perfectly stable, when contained within such.

Indeed, BHY is the fuel of the future both in cars, buses and trucks - it works and watch the media for more news !

johnjames06
21st March 2011, 19:44
I have alwas believed that one day steam will return, we are supposed to be running out of oil.
Nuclear steam generation has to come one day but the question is when.

It already has. (Wave)

lazyjohn
22nd March 2011, 00:12
Just a thought but how about going back to the original Doxford intention?

The air blast injection of powdered coal as fuel in diesel engines.

I think Dr Diesel started the idea before he got round to oil injection.

Modern flue gas washing systems would seem well able to deal with particulate problems and flue gases could be treated as per oil combustion units.

PS.
The combustion byproduct of hydrogen combustion can be nasty, but is a vital ingredient of beer.

Duncan112
22nd March 2011, 01:22
Problem with any kind of solid fuel in a reciprocating engine would be liner, piston and ring wear. Modern ceramic technologies might help this but I think we will see on board gasification before we return to injection of pulverised coal.

lazyjohn
22nd March 2011, 08:44
Problem with any kind of solid fuel in a reciprocating engine would be liner, piston and ring wear. Modern ceramic technologies might help this but I think we will see on board gasification before we return to injection of pulverised coal.

Absolutely correct and accepted.

But cheap will always beat hard to use.

Gasification OK if you have something to use as base material but coal will always be cheap to use in large engines because everybody will be wanting gas for cars and everything else.

Bunker 'C' fuel only used cause its cheap. Nobody else much wants to use it.

jim garnett
3rd August 2011, 12:23
An alternative that no one seems to have considered is that the rising cost of oil fuel, coupled with carbon emissions constraints simply spell the death knell of globalisation and we return to a far greater emphasis on locally produced goods. A recently published report claimed that the largest cost element in many internationally traded goods was now transportation costs. Perhaps I shall soon be able to buy a teeshirt made in Footscray again.
CBoots

As a footscray born and bred boy,I don't remember any t-shirts made in Footscray.It was all engineering or munitions.I worked at Ebelings in adjoining Yarraville,alas now defunct.and worked on ship repairs.
jim Garnett

Satanic Mechanic
3rd August 2011, 13:06
I'll make a prediction here and say that within 25 years most ships will be LNG fueled and still use internal combustion engines for propulsion and lng powered fuel cells for electricity.

Landi
3rd August 2011, 15:36
I'll make a prediction here and say that within 25 years most ships will be LNG fueled and still use internal combustion engines for propulsion and lng powered fuel cells for electricity.

On a recent passage we burnt 2002.11 MT of LNG to travel 8,127 miles at 20.8 knotties and used 21MT gas oil to make the gas go bang.

So the technology is already at sea, LNG will come in to use for other "standard" ships so long as the oil price ratio to LNG remains in favour of the consumption of LNG.

I understand that bulk storage LNG containers with efficient insulation are already being tested at sea on a ferry.

Ian

Satanic Mechanic
3rd August 2011, 16:36
On a recent passage we burnt 2002.11 MT of LNG to travel 8,127 miles at 20.8 knotties and used 21MT gas oil to make the gas go bang.

So the technology is already at sea, LNG will come in to use for other "standard" ships so long as the oil price ratio to LNG remains in favour of the consumption of LNG.

I understand that bulk storage LNG containers with efficient insulation are already being tested at sea on a ferry.

Ian

Gem Class?

I thinking along the lines of Class C storage tanks on deck with either dual fuel on a Otto cycle and diesel electric like yourself or a slow speed gas engine (B&W just ran one on their test bed)

The No.1 biggest driving factor here is emission legislation

Landi
4th August 2011, 14:59
Yes.

Wartsila are testing slow speed LNG engine, and have a smaller DF20 about ready for the market.

Wartsial LNG News: http://www.lnggot.com/tags/wartsila/

Ian.

HSNewYork
30th October 2014, 15:14
10/30/2014

I happen to like steam. It has been running thru my mind on numerous occasions that the demographics might favor a group of people who are not in such a hurry ie a preponderance of retired people and college students who would like to go transatlantic in something other than a sardine can at a reasonable price maybe check their automobile while they are at it.

The current transatlantic schedule is 7 days I think it would be much more attractive if that was cut to 4 days New York to Southhampton reaching Hamburg on day 5. Cunard's current one way fare is very close to air rates I just checked in fact. The other idea is that this transatlantic schedule should include the option of open cabins that is you would be able as a college student to reserve a cabin with more than one separate bed and be assigned a roommate cutting your fare accordingly. Back to Steam.

The power curve for a steam engine is that it is most efficient at high speeds this would also include gas turbines. If it was desirable to cruise at 35 knots with a top speed of 40 knots on a ship that had a waterline of say 800 ft what would be the most fuel efficient would that in fact be steam?

Hamish Mackintosh
30th October 2014, 17:19
Years ago when I was working we converted three of our milk delivery trucks to LNG, and incorporated the need to bring it back to a gaseous state thru the refrigeration system, as I recall, the only problems we ran into was being able to control the rate of flow, the dam thing wanted to freeze everything, they were standard 350 chevs, which didn't live long,LNG being such a "Dry" fuel, much like propane(which was planned we ran the old engines into the ground then repowered with rebuilds having the stelite valves, hardened rings etc)

berbex
31st October 2014, 00:12
Interesting thread, but in some ways also worrying.

First re use of nuclear for raising steam. The biggest danger is the idiot in the works, and there are a few everywhere. See the link below for what can eventually result, principally from idiot management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokaimura_nuclear_accident.

Second and on a lighter note, there seems to be too much fear of H2O. If you don't mind flushing the toilet with H2O and then sitting on it, then its safe enough.

funnelstays
31st October 2014, 01:22
Actually BOC and Air Products have been producing bottled Hydrogen and Oxygen for many years. Main problem with hydrogen is that it is very unstable and has to be handled with care. The old towns gas was mainly hydrogen produced from the burning of coke. It was lethal to humans and had an horrendous explosive range. That and the plentyful supply of methane, propane and butane caused its decline. These gases have a much lower explosive range and are much safer. Their by-products are mainly CO2.(a greenhouse gas).
It has been until recently very difficult to produce Hydrogen in large quantities cheaply enough to dethrone hydrocarbon fuels. Oxygen is not a fuel but supports combustion. It is produced by the fractional distillation of air-much like the separation of carbon products from crude. Which brings me to Steam - it not a true fuel. Since it requires fuel to produce steam - it follows that steam in itself is not the answer. It still boils down (Oh dear!) to producing a fuel which is more efficient and cheaper than hydrocarbons or nuclear and which is environmentally friendly. Incidentally; what is the by-product of burning hydrogen?

Aha this brings me back to the Chemistry lab at secondary school where our chemistry teacher (who had a doctorate and worked at BP before taking up teaching) made water gas by passing steam over a bed of granulated charcoal and flared it off,he almost burned the lab down as a friend of his sent him some Forties crude with which he demonstrated a crude fractionating collumn fashioned in glass.
F*** knws what the safety garden gnomes would have made of that.
(Frogger)

G0SLP
31st October 2014, 05:04
I've recently completed LNG trials on a new Ethylene carrier with a Wartsila 34DF main engine & 2x 20DF auxiliaries; we are now trading & starting to repay the massive investment in her. She & her (slightly) younger sister are fixed on a long term charter in the North Sea area; the problem we have at present is the lack of LNG bunkering facilities, which have been delayed in coming on stream. So, when we're short on LNG, we carry on burning HFO for another few weeks, then MGO after 1st January.