Mardi Gras engines started for the first time

[Biker19]

AIS transponder has been turned on so you can follow her on your favorite tracking app/site.

[CJHAN]

On 9/1/2020 at 4:18 PM, dan4182 said:

 

 

If the Mardi Gras is LNG powered, why so much dark smoke?


Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

Was wondering the same thing.

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, CJHAN said:

Was wondering the same thing.

Given that there is likely no LNG fueling at the shipyard, and the engines run on liquid fuel as well as gaseous fuel, and the fact that LNG is more expensive in Europe than here in the US, they are most likely running on diesel initially.  They may not go to LNG until they get to the US.

[RWolver672]

I always figured they test run the engines at the factory that makes them before installing them in the ships.  At least at the factory, if something was wrong, they could fix it a lot easier than in the bottom of a ship.

 

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, RWolver672 said:

I always figured they test run the engines at the factory that makes them before installing them in the ships.  At least at the factory, if something was wrong, they could fix it a lot easier than in the bottom of a ship.

 

They do, which is why this was really not the first time the engines were started, but I wasn't going to get into that..  However, typically, after test bed trials where baseline performance measurements are taken for comparison throughout the engine's life, preservatives are used inside and out, to keep the engine in new condition during shipping to the shipyard or during storage if the ship is delayed in building.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

From what I read months ago. There is a special fueling ship they will fuel from at sea not in port.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

What I read here is, 3 Florida ports will have the LNG. Why port of Palm Beach is a mystery though.

It also says less expensive.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2020/02/04/Cruise-ships-switching-fuel-to-cleaner-liquefied-natural-gas/9471580331799/

 

[tidecat]

48 minutes ago, ALWAYS CRUZIN said:

What I read here is, 3 Florida ports will have the LNG. Why port of Palm Beach is a mystery though.

It also says less expensive.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2020/02/04/Cruise-ships-switching-fuel-to-cleaner-liquefied-natural-gas/9471580331799/

 

LNG has made slightly further inroads in cargo shipping. While there is a berth for a passenger ship there, I don't know how large of a ship it can accomodate. Most of the traffic at Palm Beach is cargo shipping.

[chengkp75]

4 hours ago, ALWAYS CRUZIN said:

From what I read months ago. There is a special fueling ship they will fuel from at sea not in port.

Since the Florida ports do not have re-liquifaction terminals to take natural gas from the pipelines and cool it down to -260*F for pumping to the ship, they are building small LNG tankers to carry it from the terminal in Savannah, GA (that's where Carnival's contract is with).  While a port may not allow LNG bunkering at the dock, the ship will be anchored just outside the port, not at sea.  I don't know what the Florida ports have decided for LNG bunkering, but it is not much different from conventional bunkering done from a small tanker as is done throughout most of the world outside the US.

 

Jacksonville does have one or two LNG projects underway, both for export and for bunkering, but since they can charge a whole lot more when exporting, I would say they will gear most of their production that way.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

21 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Since the Florida ports do not have re-liquifaction terminals to take natural gas from the pipelines and cool it down to -260*F for pumping to the ship, they are building small LNG tankers to carry it from the terminal in Savannah, GA (that's where Carnival's contract is with).  While a port may not allow LNG bunkering at the dock, the ship will be anchored just outside the port, not at sea.  I don't know what the Florida ports have decided for LNG bunkering, but it is not much different from conventional bunkering done from a small tanker as is done throughout most of the world outside the US.

 

Jacksonville does have one or two LNG projects underway, both for export and for bunkering, but since they can charge a whole lot more when exporting, I would say they will gear most of their production that way.

Ok you corrected me. Guess I need to be more precise. Just outside the port.  As I mentioned. I did read long ago they will not fill up at the dock. They will fill up from a small LNG tanker ship. However, the article did say 3 Florida ports will have LNG plus they named them. Carnival Mardi Gras will be docked at Port Canaveral. So either they get fueled up coming in or going out. Waste of time not being able to do it at the dock.

I think you should start writing you own articles and put them on the internet. Why stay cooped up on here with all your knowledge?

[chengkp75]

33 minutes ago, ALWAYS CRUZIN said:

Ok you corrected me. Guess I need to be more precise. Just outside the port.  As I mentioned. I did read long ago they will not fill up at the dock. They will fill up from a small LNG tanker ship. However, the article did say 3 Florida ports will have LNG plus they named them. Carnival Mardi Gras will be docked at Port Canaveral. So either they get fueled up coming in or going out. Waste of time not being able to do it at the dock.

I think you should start writing you own articles and put them on the internet. Why stay cooped up on here with all your knowledge?

Not sure why you feel persecuted when someone corrects you, but so be it.

 

I would be surprised if the ships bunker outside, especially in the long term.  Jacksonville already allows it from their two terminals, one for Tote and one for Crowley.  The three ports mentioned are investing in LNG bunkering "infrastructure", which unless they are planning on building a large re-liquifaction plant, means that they will build the pipework and pumps to have the LNG bunker barge tied up in front of or behind the cruise ship and pump to the shoreside station and then to the ship.  The main reason for this is that the LNG tanker is larger than a typical US bunker barge, and will take longer to bunker the ship, and so it may block the slip to other traffic if tied alongside, and the cruise ships may not want a larger vessel tied alongside to mar their pristine white sides.  Port Canaveral has already started the construction of small storage facilities, since not all the LNG brought to the port will be for ships, but some for the space industry.  So, it is likely that the bunker tanker may initially use ship to ship transfers (likely at the dock), but then move to ship to shore, and then tank to ship once the storage facility is up and running.

[quattrohead]

FEC railway have some LNG engine sets running on their Miami to Jacksonville line, smoke free but they do use a little diesel to "spark" the gas apparently.

So I'm thinking they can transport LNG to any of the east coast ports.

[Moviela]

LNG to power ships is really in its infancy now. Sort of like electric cars compared to gasoline cars. So naturally there are scant facilities to "fill 'er up" in ports. Sempra through subsidiaries is about to change that, they have several trains (name for the compression system) along the Gulf of Mexico, primarily to serve the export market, but their antenna is up to propose trains for Florida ports to supply LNG for ships. They are practicing now at the world's largest port (just kidding) Ensenada loading cargo ships to transport LNG to Asia. Sempra sees barges to fill passenger ships as a temporary measure until enough ships that can use LNG are calling at a port to justify the expense of a train and storage tank(s). Port Canaveral has a stick pin in it for development because Carnival will base Mardi Gras there, and the house of the mouse has three new LNG ships due over the next couple of years. 

 

LNG is cleaner burning, and about 25% cheaper than current diesel fuels. It does have a lower energy level, but savings are still there.

[chengkp75]

18 minutes ago, quattrohead said:

FEC railway have some LNG engine sets running on their Miami to Jacksonville line, smoke free but they do use a little diesel to "spark" the gas apparently.

So I'm thinking they can transport LNG to any of the east coast ports.

Well, yes and no.  LNG locomotives use a tender car that uses a vacuum bottle like container to keep the LNG relatively cold, and the tank cars used to transport the LNG are of the same design.  They have no refrigeration system to keep the LNG cold, and rely on the insulation to do this, but they also know that every day of transport, the pressure in the tanks increases by 5 psi, and the tanks have relief valves set to lift at 75 psi, which limits how far it can be transported.  Marine use of LNG requires maintaining the LNG at close to -260*F, which results in a pressure in the ship's tanks at little above atmospheric, and relief valves are set at 10 psi.  A ship can also use the boil off as the tank heats up, keeping the pressure down, and allowing the refrigerated re-liquifaction plant to chill and return excess LNG to the tank.  While rail transport can be used to supply domestic use, fueling a ship would require about 150 train cars per ship.  Unless there is an LNG pipeline (a recompression pipeline like mentioned above, that could keep the LNG at around 40-50 psi, just slightly below ambient temperature) and a refrigeration plant at the port, shipboard transportation of LNG for bunkering ships is the most economical.

 

All dual fuel diesels, like marine and locomotive engines, use diesel to start the ignition, since the autoignition temperature of natural gas is too high.  On road LNG vehicles use spark ignition to do the same.  Diesel usage is 5-10%.

 

The reason that LNG plants in the US focus on shipping LNG overseas, is that while LNG is still cheaper than liquid residual fuels in many parts of the world, the price differential is not as great as in the US, so their profit margin is much higher on exports.

[ninjacat123]

And my head has just exploded with all of this knowledge!  Thank you all for your input!

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

17 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Not sure why you feel persecuted when someone corrects you, but so be it.

 

I would be surprised if the ships bunker outside, especially in the long term.  Jacksonville already allows it from their two terminals, one for Tote and one for Crowley.  The three ports mentioned are investing in LNG bunkering "infrastructure", which unless they are planning on building a large re-liquifaction plant, means that they will build the pipework and pumps to have the LNG bunker barge tied up in front of or behind the cruise ship and pump to the shoreside station and then to the ship.  The main reason for this is that the LNG tanker is larger than a typical US bunker barge, and will take longer to bunker the ship, and so it may block the slip to other traffic if tied alongside, and the cruise ships may not want a larger vessel tied alongside to mar their pristine white sides.  Port Canaveral has already started the construction of small storage facilities, since not all the LNG brought to the port will be for ships, but some for the space industry.  So, it is likely that the bunker tanker may initially use ship to ship transfers (likely at the dock), but then move to ship to shore, and then tank to ship once the storage facility is up and running.

"Not sure why you feel persecuted when someone corrects you, but so be it." I didn't but now I do. No need for the remark.

[rkacruiser]

21 hours ago, ninjacat123 said:

And my head has just exploded with all of this knowledge!  Thank you all for your input!

 

I know what you mean and I still don't fully comprehend what I have read!

[rkacruiser]

On 9/3/2020 at 6:57 AM, chengkp75 said:

hese engines require a spark ignition, for both fuels.  Marine engines are true "dual fuel" engines, that can run on any mixture of liquid fuel (from diesel to heavy fuel) and LNG from 100% liquid to 95% LNG.  Note that these engines cannot run on straight LNG, since LNG has too high an auto-ignition temperature, and requires spark ignition which marine diesels don't have.  The 5% liquid fuel provides a fuel with sufficiently low auto-ignition temperature that the compression in the cylinder starts it to burn, and that raises the temperature to where the LNG will start to burn

 

I'm trying to understand, Chief.  When Mardi Gras is using LNG as her main fuel, either heavy fuel or diesel fuel is still involved at the same time?  

[chengkp75]

53 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

I'm trying to understand, Chief.  When Mardi Gras is using LNG as her main fuel, either heavy fuel or diesel fuel is still involved at the same time?  

Okay.  A gasoline engine does not compress the air it takes in for combustion enough to get the fuel to ignite spontaneously (auto-ignition temperature), so there is a spark plug to "get the ball rolling".  A diesel engine has a much higher compression ratio, so the air is much hotter when compressed, and the fuel is injected.  Because of this hotter air mixture, the fuel reaches it's auto-ignition temperature and combustion starts, without needing a spark.  Gasoline has an auto-ignition temperature of 536*F, diesel 410*F, and residual fuel about 400*F.  So, large diesel engines (those used other than automotive, like marine and locomotive) do not have spark ignition, since their compression ratio brings the air to the required auto-ignition temperature for the fuel being burned.   On the other hand, LNG (which when introduced to the engine is no longer a liquid, it is gaseous natural gas), has an auto-ignition temperature of 1400*F.  So, "to get the ball rolling" in an engine without a spark plug, you introduce about 5% of liquid fuel (diesel or residual), which will auto-ignite and bring the air temperature up to the auto-ignition temperature of the natural gas.  So, a marine dual-fuel engine cannot operate on LNG alone, it must burn about 5-10% liquid fuel as well.  Automotive engines using LNG or LPG use a spark ignition.

 

Further, the SOLAS Safe Return to Port requirements for LNG fueled ships requires a secondary fuel source, typically diesel, of sufficient capacity to get the ship back to a port if the LNG fuel system fails.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

16 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Okay.  A gasoline engine does not compress the air it takes in for combustion enough to get the fuel to ignite spontaneously (auto-ignition temperature), so there is a spark plug to "get the ball rolling".  A diesel engine has a much higher compression ratio, so the air is much hotter when compressed, and the fuel is injected.  Because of this hotter air mixture, the fuel reaches it's auto-ignition temperature and combustion starts, without needing a spark.  Gasoline has an auto-ignition temperature of 536*F, diesel 410*F, and residual fuel about 400*F.  So, large diesel engines (those used other than automotive, like marine and locomotive) do not have spark ignition, since their compression ratio brings the air to the required auto-ignition temperature for the fuel being burned.   On the other hand, LNG (which when introduced to the engine is no longer a liquid, it is gaseous natural gas), has an auto-ignition temperature of 1400*F.  So, "to get the ball rolling" in an engine without a spark plug, you introduce about 5% of liquid fuel (diesel or residual), which will auto-ignite and bring the air temperature up to the auto-ignition temperature of the natural gas.  So, a marine dual-fuel engine cannot operate on LNG alone, it must burn about 5-10% liquid fuel as well.  Automotive engines using LNG or LPG use a spark ignition.

 

Further, the SOLAS Safe Return to Port requirements for LNG fueled ships requires a secondary fuel source, typically diesel, of sufficient capacity to get the ship back to a port if the LNG fuel system fails.

Where did you find this information? I want to read more.

[d12j28]

1 hour ago, ALWAYS CRUZIN said:

Where did you find this information? I want to read more.

This should hold you over.

 

https://www.onthemosway.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Marine-Engines-running-on-LNG-for-submission-Ioannis-Bakas.pdf

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, ALWAYS CRUZIN said:

Where did you find this information? I want to read more.

You can google "dual fuel engines", "Otto cycle", "Diesel cycle", "auto-ignition temperatures of fuels comparison" as a start.  And the presentation linked above is a good primer.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

12 minutes ago, d12j28 said:

This should hold you over.

 

https://www.onthemosway.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Marine-Engines-running-on-LNG-for-submission-Ioannis-Bakas.pdf

Thanks. Reading this tells me it must be handled with much caution. Special and safe storage and special piping. It also sounds like several different types of diesel engines can be retrofitted such the direct injection but requires extensive rebuilding. Considering new engines and the installation of such are far more expensive than a diesel but still give a greater return on the investment. I wonder if retrofitting would also be a better return for the money invested. Especially cleaner exhaust into the atmosphere. As far as I know, diesel fuel is about the safest fuel we use. Hopefully all the precautions needed are taken and the crew and the passengers are safe from any mistakes, especially when refueling while the ship would have passengers onboard. What are your thoughts?

[chengkp75]

40 minutes ago, ALWAYS CRUZIN said:

Thanks. Reading this tells me it must be handled with much caution. Special and safe storage and special piping. It also sounds like several different types of diesel engines can be retrofitted such the direct injection but requires extensive rebuilding. Considering new engines and the installation of such are far more expensive than a diesel but still give a greater return on the investment. I wonder if retrofitting would also be a better return for the money invested. Especially cleaner exhaust into the atmosphere. As far as I know, diesel fuel is about the safest fuel we use. Hopefully all the precautions needed are taken and the crew and the passengers are safe from any mistakes, especially when refueling while the ship would have passengers onboard. What are your thoughts?

While retrofitting the engines is not a difficult task, though some older generation engines are not possible, the major hurdle comes in fuel handling and storage.  Liquid fuel in ships is stored in tanks that are actually part of the hull (i.e. some sides of the tanks are the hull itself), and many are located on the sides of the ships to give clear space in the center for the engineering spaces.  LNG has to be stored in tanks that are essentially vacuum thermos bottles (i.e. a tank within a tank with a vacuum in between as insulation), and then further insulation and void space around it (the tank can not be integral with the hull), and class rules do not allow these tanks to be within 1/4 of the beam of the ship of the side, so they are placed in the double bottom space (space between the bottom of the hull and the lowest deck of the engine room), and so the double bottom of LNG ships tend to be taller than regular ships, so the cost of just making tankage for a retrofit would entail tearing out much of the hull around and below the engine room, and then installing the cryogenic tanks.  Then there is the fuel handling systems, with all the attendant void spaces with leakage alarms around the tanks, leakage alarms in fuel handling rooms, fuel refrigeration systems (to take the excess boil off (even the best vacuum tanks will boil off some LNG every day) gas, refrigerate it to liquid state, and pump it back into the tanks.  Again, a costly investment.

 

And, the cost savings between LNG and liquid fuel depends on where you are.  In North America, the cost benefit is the greatest, lesser in Europe, and much less everywhere else in the world.  In Asia, there is almost no payback on the investment in LNG.

 

LNG tankers have been carrying tens of thousands of tons of LNG around the world for 40 years, and using the boil off as fuel for their boilers, and there has never been an accident.  Engineering crew have to receive specialty training and certification to work on LNG fueled ships.

 

Actually, residual fuel is far safer than diesel.  At ambient conditions, I can hold a blowtorch to a bucket of heavy fuel, and it will take hours to ignite, if it ever does.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

21 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

While retrofitting the engines is not a difficult task, though some older generation engines are not possible, the major hurdle comes in fuel handling and storage.  Liquid fuel in ships is stored in tanks that are actually part of the hull (i.e. some sides of the tanks are the hull itself), and many are located on the sides of the ships to give clear space in the center for the engineering spaces.  LNG has to be stored in tanks that are essentially vacuum thermos bottles (i.e. a tank within a tank with a vacuum in between as insulation), and then further insulation and void space around it (the tank can not be integral with the hull), and class rules do not allow these tanks to be within 1/4 of the beam of the ship of the side, so they are placed in the double bottom space (space between the bottom of the hull and the lowest deck of the engine room), and so the double bottom of LNG ships tend to be taller than regular ships, so the cost of just making tankage for a retrofit would entail tearing out much of the hull around and below the engine room, and then installing the cryogenic tanks.  Then there is the fuel handling systems, with all the attendant void spaces with leakage alarms around the tanks, leakage alarms in fuel handling rooms, fuel refrigeration systems (to take the excess boil off (even the best vacuum tanks will boil off some LNG every day) gas, refrigerate it to liquid state, and pump it back into the tanks.  Again, a costly investment.

 

And, the cost savings between LNG and liquid fuel depends on where you are.  In North America, the cost benefit is the greatest, lesser in Europe, and much less everywhere else in the world.  In Asia, there is almost no payback on the investment in LNG.

 

LNG tankers have been carrying tens of thousands of tons of LNG around the world for 40 years, and using the boil off as fuel for their boilers, and there has never been an accident.  Engineering crew have to receive specialty training and certification to work on LNG fueled ships.

 

Actually, residual fuel is far safer than diesel.  At ambient conditions, I can hold a blowtorch to a bucket of heavy fuel, and it will take hours to ignite, if it ever does.

Very interesting indeed. How safe is the refueling compared to diesel?