Ecospec CSNOx - Anybody aware of details?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by BPax2311 on February 3, 2009 at 3:15pm

My co-worker called them to get more information. It seems they use an electorlyzer to increase the alkalinity in the water to reduce the emissions. We are hoping to get more information but you could reach out to the company directly too.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by gustavo Morton on March 22, 2009 at 12:17pm

I am working with the technology in Latin America it is a reality, the process is simple and it is the only technology that removes very efficiently in one single process CO2, SO2, NOx and PMs using sea water if need further info my email is mmorton@prodigy.net.mx I will be glad talk to you or to tell you to whom to talk to.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Andrew Bartocci on July 8, 2009 at 10:08pm

Hello Gustavo. I'm curious if you happen to know what gases are in the vent stream from the ULF treatment process? I sent you an email earlier and would be interested to speak to you. Regards! ACB

gustavo Morton said:

I am working with the technology in Latin America it is a reality, the process is simple and it is the only technology that removes very efficiently in one single process CO2, SO2, NOx and PMs using sea water if need further info my email is mmorton@prodigy.net.mx I will be glad talk to you or to tell you to whom to talk to.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ruben Brouwer on September 1, 2009 at 12:54pm

To my knowlegde, electrolysis of the seawater (which contains NaCl) will produce chlorine gas (Cl2) which is quite toxic. Also they claim that the CO2 in the water will be absorbed as carbonic acid, and later binds to the calcium ions in seawater to form the more stable calciumcarbonate. I wonder if anyone knows if there will be enough calcium in the seawater to absorb all the scrubbed CO2. Thanks in advance

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Think twice on January 13, 2010 at 11:24pm

It is hard to beleive, Ok for the SOx and the PM they will be wash down with the water as any scrubber do but for the CO2...

The chemical reaction involved in this 'Voodoo' system are not supported scientifically. Any one who claimed to magnetised the sea water to 'line-up' the molecules or change the chemical property of the water loose all credibility in my book...

Magnetising water systems has been around for years and this pseudoscience has been claiming to reduce calcium deposition, corrosion and now it is absorbing CO2. But in reality all those systems has been proven as ineffective than costly.

Using a scrubber to clean Diesel engine exhaust gas and throw-it back to the ocean without any impact on the environnement...well let me say I would not eat the fish that live in it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Think twice on April 5, 2010 at 8:15pm

Since when can we change water alkalinity by electrolysis?

Something is not working there. Am I missing something. Did we just found some process that will save the planet? No more CO2 in combustion gas???

Or we are in front of a big joke.


BPax2311 said:

My co-worker called them to get more information. It seems they use an electorlyzer to increase the alkalinity in the water to reduce the emissions. We are hoping to get more information but you could reach out to the company directly too.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Miele on June 14, 2010 at 10:11am

Ruben:

From what I've been told, the Ecospec scrubber had a problem that, though the CO2 was removed from the exhaust, ove half of the CO2 removed returned back into the atmosphere in the sludge.

At STI, we are working on an electrolytic removal system, though we are still researching the chemical treatments for the seawater. I say this because our initial test system on a Hyundai vessel showed a reduction of 63% of the CO2. The problem arose in a hydrogen byproduct, which we were concerned about as far as safety. We feel that it can be done, and that is why the research is ongoing.

Ruben Brouwer said:

To my knowlegde, electrolysis of the seawater (which contains NaCl) will produce chlorine gas (Cl2) which is quite toxic. Also they claim that the CO2 in the water will be absorbed as carbonic acid, and later binds to the calcium ions in seawater to form the more stable calciumcarbonate. I wonder if anyone knows if there will be enough calcium in the seawater to absorb all the scrubbed CO2. Thanks in advance

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Henning F on July 26, 2010 at 9:28am

If a renown classification society, research institutions, government agencies, ship owners and consultants have already seen, tested, verified, and permitted publication of performance of the criticized system under their name, any such misinformation and doubt directly translates to questioning that class society's authority, those scientists and engineers' ability and integrity. Who would try to prove those scientists, doctors, engineers who have seen, worked and verified the performance wrong? Seeing is believing, how can one comment on such a complex system without even seeing it?

My past experience tells me, whenever uninformed parties resort to spread negative information, assumptions and lies on a new technology in public, the conclusion is close that a hidden agenda is the reason.

Especially if authors of such comments work with or for companies dealing with products or systems potentially disturbed or threatened by the criticized new technology. The educated reader will know how to judge it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Miele on July 26, 2010 at 9:47am

Henning:

One thing that is important to note is that ABS did not test the removal efficiency. They only type approved the system. OK. So it won't vibrate apart. This says nothing about the CO2 removal effectiveness.

We are currently working with KR, ABS, and CCS on the testing of our new CO2 removal. We should be announcing our system next month. The delays are several fold, not least of which is the reporting by class societies themselves, publishing the test results in technical journals (maritime and academic), and the patent process. We handled the waste issue by producing a solid compound.

As a company, we compete with Ecospec, Wartsila, Aalborg, and a few others. Our products are not released without multiple testing, and STI's customers normally are not charged for the first system on a prototype, like the CO2 removal. At present, we are working with several potential customers to provide adequate test platforms (a working vessel).

Henning F said:

If a renown classification society, research institutions, government agencies, ship owners and consultants have already seen, tested, verified, and permitted publication of performance of the criticized system under their name, any such misinformation and doubt directly translates to questioning that class society's authority, those scientists and engineers' ability and integrity. Are you trying to prove those scientists, doctors, engineers who have seen, worked and verified the performance wrong? Seeing is believing, how can one comment on such a complex system without even seeing it?

My past experience tells me, whenever uninformed parties resort to spread negative information, assumptions and lies on a new technology in public, the conclusion is close that a hidden agenda is the reason.

Especially if authors of such comments work with or for companies dealing with products or systems potentially disturbed or threatened by the criticized new technology. The educated reader will know how to judge it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Think twice on July 26, 2010 at 11:30am

I think all those new technologies will eventually lead to break thru. There will always be companies that will try to take advantage of this big demands for reducing green house gasses to make money. Some will be honest and other not. The ship owner must be very carefull when taking the 'new and unknown trail'. Shipping companies cary materials and people, they don't have expertise in R&D. The risk is then higer for them even if some goverment subsities can be available for such project.

In this I agreen with J.Miele, a good way to reduce yiur risk is to deal with companies that are willing to split the risk between the shipowner and themself. I you are confident in your technology you should give some kind of waranty and/or share the capital risks.

In an environemental point of view, I think that there is still a lot of ways to reduce fuel consumption, a technology that would absorb CO2 but in a other hand would need more fuel to run it doesn't sound right to me. How much energy and electricitiy is needed to run a scubbers, magnet, instruments and all the maintenance it need, with engine crew that can actually barely do there normal maintenance with all the cuts most shipping and management companies do today...

If we are to save the remaning non renewable fuel ressources it is not a matter of cutting the green house gasse by cleaning the fumes but it is in reducing the fuel consumption with more effective machines and heat recovery systems. CO2 reduction will naturally follow.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This