NOx and SOx control Facing up to reality
As shipowners prepare for emissions reductions in the near future, SOx and NOx control are high on the agenda
by Malcolm Latarche
North Sea ECA
even levies on output of CO2 but thankfully for them there appear to be many obstacles for the IMO and other regulatory bodies to clear before that situation arises. In the meantime, operators have more pressing matters to deal with as regards other exhaust gases.
A
Of these, the one that is occupying minds most is the advent next January of the final sulphur limit reduction in ECAs to 0.1 per cent. Then, as things stand, there will be only one more reduction in sulphur levels to face and that is the far more difficult cut to 0.5 per cent from the current 3.5 per cent limit in the open oceans. Another is the issue of NOx which, after the surprise decision of MEPC 65 to push the Tier III implementation date back by five years, was high on the agenda of MEPC 66, taking place as this issue went to press. That has pushed NOx towards the back
burner, making future sulphur limits the bigger issue of the two. The concerns are over both the available technology and the future availability of suitable fuels.
As far as the transition to the 0.1 per cent limit in the Baltic and North Sea SECA is concerned, there has been a degree of a managed change brought about by an EU directive that applies a similar level on vessels in port. That said, most ships would have been running only auxiliaries during port stays and they tend to be mostly burning MDO or MGO in any case, but when the IMO ECA limit comes into force it will apply to ships transiting the areas as well. In the two ECAs in American waters, the will be sudden and clear-cut
transition in
most ports and could well come as a shock to operators of ships that have not yet experienced the financial and operational ramifications of the reduction from 1.0 per cent to 0.1 per cent. Ships that trade between the EU and the US would already be aware of the matter although the additional cost of compliance at both ends of the voyage will inevitably have an impact. As things stand there are just two ways to reduce SOx levels – burning fuel with
80 I Marine Propulsion I April/May 2014
t some point in the future, shipowners may find that they have to face up to new regulations other than EEDI or
62 North
North American ECA
Operators should be aware of the differing attitudes in the North American and European SECAs (credit: Oceanox)
a low or no sulphur content or installing a
scrubber. The first option has many
potential solutions with LNG and dual-fuel engines being one, although even the most enthusiastic proponents of LNG will admit that it
is unsuited to most existing vessels and, even for newbuildings, would require a massive investment in infrastructure. While it would certainly solve the sulphur issue, the use of LNG is supposed to have other benefits and its use is being promoted for a variety of reasons that not all within the industry fully agree with. Time will tell if LNG does become a fuel of choice or whether it enjoys a brief spike and then fades into obscurity. The low sulphur fuel oil or distillate choices are the other fuel alternatives to LNG for existing vessels and newbuilds alike but, while they present an easy temporary fix on a practical level, the cost is very likely going to be an issue that will force many to look long and hard at installing a scrubber. More importantly there are doubts as to whether sufficient quantities will be available to meet deadlines. The International Chamber of Shipping is posing this question
MARPOL ANNEX VI SOX LIMITS Outside an ECA
established to limit SOx and particulate matter emissions
4.50 per cent m/m prior to 1 January 2012
3.50 per cent m/m on and after 1 January 2012
0.50 per cent m/m on and after 1 January 2020*
Inside an ECA established to limit SOx and particulate matter emissions
1.50 per cent m/m prior to 1 July 2010
1.00 per cent m/m on and after 1 July 2010
0.10 per cent m/m on and after 1 January 2015
*alternative date is 2025, to be decided by a review in 2018
once again at MEPC 66 and asking for the review into the availability of appropriate fuels in time for future deadlines to begin immediately and without further delay. Putting a price on meeting the sulphur emission standards is a complex task and one fraught with uncertainties. As reported in the last issue of Marine Propulsion, an attempt to do this was made in January at the opening of the new Alfa Laval Test and Training Centre in Aalborg where scrubber technology was at the core of the day’s events. A presentation by Tamio Kawashima, managing director of Monohakobi Technology Institute (MTI), a subsidiary company of NYK Line, about the likely cost of the 0.5 per cent global cap on sulphur gave a great deal of food for thought. According to Kawashima, the cost for a world fleet of just 40,000 ships with a consumption of 50 tonnes per day for 200 days per year each and a price differential of US$300 between present fuel oil and low sulphur or distillate fuels would equate to an extra US$120 billion on the fuel bill each year.
That is a staggering sum and yet it is difficult to argue with Kawashima’s figures for they are easily recognised as being perhaps a little on the conservative side.
Mr Kawashima also addressed the criticism of wash water from scrubbers being discharged at sea. He pointed out that the sea already has a natural sulphur content and, although the annual amount of sulphur that might be discharged if every ship was fitted with a scrubber and continued burning standard fuel oil would be as high as 9 million tonnes per year, that would be only 0.00000072 per cent of the naturally occurring sulphur in sea water. At that rate it
www.mpropulsion.com
5 west 4 west
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