LA to Clean Harbor Air

What? Eh tu Fredski?

All of a sudden you care?

my perspective is from an economic hit standpoint. the carbon hoax is a sideshow to me

Oftentimes shore power is cheaper than self-generated, plus silence is golden in the engine room. The shore power isn't free of pollution somewhere, but it is normally cleaner than shipboard power.

It can also be noted that some thousands of those containers (out of quite a few more thousands) might be refrigerated, with a total load exceeding shore power capacity. If so, that puts matters right back to shipboard power.

Similar thoughts here inND as well.

California can shut down everything they want and we will be happy add more wind, coal and oil field based natural gas generating capacity to make up for it.

And the latest high capacity HVDC overhead lines to carry that juice to California at a premium price!

They probably need to idle to run the power systems on the ship, shipboard electricity, HVAC, pumps, etc. Making them use CA-supplied electricity merely shifts the pollution somewhere else.

Make'em put a diaper on their smoke stacks (wink,wink)!

San Bernardino seems to be the worst...

US Army National Training center at Ft Irwin by far the worst polluter in that area....

https://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.local_state&stateid=5&mapcenter=0&tabs=0

http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/cap/county.tcl?fips_county_code=06071#maps

Container ships run on Bunker C. This is possibly the nastiest carbon fuel known to run in an ICE. Supposedly, when these transports come into harbor, they are supposed to switch to No.2 fuel oil (nearly diesel), or diesel. IF they would simply get the new and improved hydrogen on demand system (AC electrolysis of bicarbonate solution using iron electrodes (not steel)), they could reduce fuel consumption even while idling through much improved combustion progress each burn (i.e. the flame front keeps up with the cylinder, and there is a lot less left over fuel vapor and particulates). Less BTU's going up the stack translates into the same fuel burn producing more power, or same power, less fuel. Hydrogen has the highest burn velocity known in the combustion arena (other than brisant explosives). Hydrogen from the new system does not contain sufficient oxygen to produce an explosion hazard. Injection takes place at the point of air induction.

I think they should go nuclear.....

Here's a nice study that was done on different methods of propulsion and the results...

http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/future-ship-powering-options

Electric Refrigerated Container Racks: Technical Analysis - Massport

According to the above, diesel reefers cost 4X as much to run as electric reefers do.

Aren't the refrigerated containers electric powered on the container ships? Or are some diesel, so the truck can provide diesel pup engine from its own tanks overland?

Electric powered? Yes. But what generates the electric power?

Probably the 86 KHP diesel engines.

Thanks. Have a great weekend! I am off this weekend, and back on my project.

Thanks!

I've been in Hot Springs all week with the boys fishing and playing.

Back home last night.