Who wants to make a bet that the name of the new bridge that comes in its place will be something like, “Saint George Floyd Memorial Bridge”.
Bridge collapsed
- Thread starter mxz800
- Start date
I did see a video purportedly showing the Baltimore bridge exploding in a huge ball of fire in support of the dynamite claims. It turned out to actually have been the Russian Kerch bridge that the Ukrainians blew up.
I absolutely HATE conspiracists who claim there's a conspiracy behind everything big that happens and those sick individuals who post fake or altered photos and videos claiming it to be something else in support of their extremism.
I absolutely HATE conspiracists who claim there's a conspiracy behind everything big that happens and those sick individuals who post fake or altered photos and videos claiming it to be something else in support of their extremism.
There is visible arcing where the bridge separated no doubt due to electrical lines. And to anyone not familiar with ships a dropped anchor on a moving vessel would certainly look like an aggressive change of direction when it catches and yanks.
Last edited:
Absolutely but that's only electrical arcing. I'm only talking about the video that showed bridge that blew up in a huge fireball that some have claimed to be the Baltimore bridge. Which, again, was actually the Russian bridge the Ukraine drones took out.
I don't know if this has been brought up on this thread yet but I saw on another forum that the ship never regained engine power. The diesel smoke that was seen was from a backup generator starting which didn't have any connection to propulsion.
Understood, those kind of people need to be sent to a remote island with no communication.
Last edited:
One possible source of the problem they're investigating now is contaminated diesel fuel the ship took on while in Baltimore. That could sure cause it depending on how low they were on diesel when the arrived in Baltimore.
Maybe, but I think other ships would have been affected by that?
I have read reports that in the days prior some of the refrigerated containers kept popping breakers causing all power to be lost. They had people working on that but maybe not fully resolved.
Sure but contaminated fuel is a regular cause of problems that aren't problems until they become one. Maybe Baltimore's fuel storage tanks had recently been refilled. They're investigating that possibility so it's a real possibility to those working on possible causes for the crash.
I was reading that they also have to switch fuel types at least on the generators when they enter US waters due to the EPA. Instead of heavy diesel oil they have to run marine diesel oil which is more expensive which can cause issues.
A lot of ships use Bunker fuel or HFO when out to sea and switch to marine diesel when coming into port
Does this mean we have a chance of blaming the EPA on this?
Does this mean we have a chance of blaming the EPA on this?
Good luck with that
The fuel switch is true I think. I took a mechanical tour of a cruise ship once (except for that, I was sooo bored on that ship). They mentioned they burn essentially unrefined crude oil away from shore but switch to diesel when within 12 miles for environmental compliance reasons as you stated. They didn't say the diesel was problematic but did mention the crude requires a lot of filtering.
If you're interested in this sort of thing you can subscribe to this forum: https://enginetechforum.org/ It used to be "Diesel Technology Forum" but recently changed to "Engine Technology Forum" no doubt due to "diesel" being a dirty word now days. One of their recent newsletters told how cleaner diesel fuel technology is largely being pushed aside in favor of electrification:
It's confounding that the EPA chose to keep renewable fuel volumes at a virtual status quo rather than issuing a robust and growth-oriented future volume set rule. It is a missed opportunity to expand the use of renewable diesel and biodiesel fuels, as well as achieve faster and easily achievable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through a means that doesn’t require investment in new engines or infrastructure.
Renewable fuels offer many significant benefits. They reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease dependency on fossil fuels, help promote rural economies, as well as drive technological innovation and research.
Delivering these biofuel benefits to society demands an effective public policy. The EPA’s administration of the Renewable Fuel Standard and its latest Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO’s) isn’t delivering. We’re experiencing the outcomes from that policy today which include
Mandating biofuels (via the RVO policy) at levels below the biodiesel industry capacity is hindering progress to meeting climate and environmental goals. The economic ramifications of the EPA’s policies are having negative economic consequences for workers and communities.
We can’t rely on the luck of Irish to deliver carbon reductions. So, let’s hope that this time next year we can celebrate EPA having revised its fuels policies to deliver rational biofuels levels that reflect true industry capacity and what society needs.
The public in general seems to think the electrification is the answer when in reality clean burning fuel burning equipment often has a smaller carbon footprint than much of the electric, not to mention we need fossil fuels and biofuels for commerce. When it comes to the carbon footprint I'll put my SCR TDI up against a Tesla any day.
BTW new tugs made for the US market now use SCR technology and carry something like 5,000 gallons of DEF.
It's confounding that the EPA chose to keep renewable fuel volumes at a virtual status quo rather than issuing a robust and growth-oriented future volume set rule. It is a missed opportunity to expand the use of renewable diesel and biodiesel fuels, as well as achieve faster and easily achievable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through a means that doesn’t require investment in new engines or infrastructure.
Renewable fuels offer many significant benefits. They reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease dependency on fossil fuels, help promote rural economies, as well as drive technological innovation and research.
Delivering these biofuel benefits to society demands an effective public policy. The EPA’s administration of the Renewable Fuel Standard and its latest Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO’s) isn’t delivering. We’re experiencing the outcomes from that policy today which include
- Delaying environmental and climate benefits: By keeping RVOs low, EPA is standing in the way of progress towards faster greenhouse gas reduction. It also extends reliance on fossil fuels, exacerbating climate change and environmental degradation.
- Creating uncertainty for farmers and producers: Weak RVO policies and fuel volumes are challenging for biofuel producers, making it difficult for them to plan and invest in their operations. This uncertainty has a trickle-down stunting effect on investments in the entire biofuel supply chain, as well as infrastructure from the growers’ fields to the fuel tanks.
- Stifling industry growth: EPA’s latest renewable fuel standards do not mandate biofuels to the level of current US biofuel capacity. This hinders the growth of the industry, as well as discourages innovation and expansion in the biofuels sector which slows the nation’s progress towards achieving renewable energy goals.
- Slowing farm economies: Recent announcements of two biodiesel plant closures in the Midwest turn concerns with EPA’s renewable fuel policy from a possibility on paper to a negative economic reality for workers and their two communities. Low RVOs deliver negative economic repercussions for stakeholders throughout the biofuels supply chain, including farmers, producers, and consumers. Agricultural markets and rural economies are the most affected.
Mandating biofuels (via the RVO policy) at levels below the biodiesel industry capacity is hindering progress to meeting climate and environmental goals. The economic ramifications of the EPA’s policies are having negative economic consequences for workers and communities.
We can’t rely on the luck of Irish to deliver carbon reductions. So, let’s hope that this time next year we can celebrate EPA having revised its fuels policies to deliver rational biofuels levels that reflect true industry capacity and what society needs.
The public in general seems to think the electrification is the answer when in reality clean burning fuel burning equipment often has a smaller carbon footprint than much of the electric, not to mention we need fossil fuels and biofuels for commerce. When it comes to the carbon footprint I'll put my SCR TDI up against a Tesla any day.
BTW new tugs made for the US market now use SCR technology and carry something like 5,000 gallons of DEF.
This won't help slow down the conspiracies. Not the first accident recently with black box and recording gaps. Ask Epstein.