fuels
Interferry pours cold water on scrubbers
Viking Line has given a lead to ferry operators, its latest Baltic ropax newbuilding project specifying LNG-fuelled propulsion
T
rade association Interferry reports that ferry operators in northern Europe face a near-impossible choice in trying to meet the 2015 deadline for ultra-low sulphur emissions from bunker fuels.
Under pending IMO and European Union environmental requirements, ships operating in the Baltic, North Sea and Channel emission control areas (ECAs) will have to comply with a 0.1 per cent limit on fuel sulphur content. Interferry acknowledges the responsibility of ferry operators to reduce emissions and supports the move to lower sulphur limits globally by 2020, but argues that the 2015 timescale is not possible due to unsustainable cost increases. Despite the ferry industry’s efforts to develop alternative technologies and feasible alternative fuels, abatement technologies and financial support will not be available or sufficient enough to avoid a modal shift from sea to road. The alternatives are elements in a toolbox of technical and financial solutions proposed by the European Commission, which suggests the use of LNG fuel or, for vessels that continue to run on heavy fuel oil, the adoption of exhaust gas scrubber cleaning systems. Operators are also guided towards EU funding initiatives and state aid, but Interferry believes that these are not realistic options because: • it is widely recognised in Europe that LNG is only an option for newbuildings due to the
prohibitive cost of converting 122 I Marine Propulsion I February/March 2012 existing vessels, and in any case the LNG fuel supply
Interferry warns that low sulphur legislation will prompt an environmentally damaging modal shift from shortsea shipping to overland transport, with severe financial implications for the overall European economy
by Doug Woodyard
infrastructure is inadequate • scrubber technology is not a miracle cure; Interferry notes that ferry operators are pleased to have contributed financially and operationally in developing the technology and says it is a solution that seems able to remove sulphur particles from the exhaust gases on some ships; however, a new feasibility study covering 108 vessels from six leading operators reveals that scrubbers would not be technically or financially viable for 60 per cent of the existing fleet; furthermore, trial installations among Interferry members have shown that it will not be possible to have scrubbers in operation in time for 2015 for the other 40 per cent of the fleet. • EU funding is virtually non-applicable as
it applies largely to newbuildings and
new routes: a low priority among operators who have invested heavily in new tonnage in recent years, and who will now face a
desperate economic climate that also reduces the likelihood of state aid.
“There is no financial support for existing ferries, while LNG and scrubbers are not feasible,” says Johan Roos, Interferry’s executive director of EU and IMO affairs. “In effect, the toolbox is completely empty. Our only option is to use marine gas oil, which is technically straightforward but very costly and potentially counter-productive in environmental terms. Operators have warned that they will not be able to pass on the 70 per cent or more fuel cost increase to customers with a choice of transport modes, which will inevitably push up to 50 per cent of shortsea ships’ freight back on the road network.”
Apart from cost, he adds, availability is also an issue with marine gas oil: “At the very least, the IMO must bring forward its availability review from 2018, as mandated in Marpol Annex VI, to 2012 or 2013. It is also clear that the ongoing revision of the EU Directive must put provisions in place as to what should happen if low sulphur fuel is simply not available to operators in 2015.” The SOx scrubber feasibility study was
conducted by Johan Roos among six Interferry members operating in north European ECAs: Brittany Ferries, DFDS, Grimaldi group, P&O Ferries, Stena Line and TT-Line. The conclusion that more than half their existing ships could not be fitted with scrubbers was based on five key parameters: • ship age and the consequent commercial ›››
www.mpropulsion.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132