The future of fuel
Ensuring that container shipping complies with emissions regulations these days is like trying to hike up a mountain in the fog. You sweat away trying to reach your target but then, when you think you’ve got there, you realise that you haven’t. There’s always another peak in the distance, and there’s always another emissions regulation coming into force in a few years’ time, as container shipping is weaned off its reliance on environmentally harmful fossil fuels.
The peak being climbed at the moment is the global sulphur emissions cap of 0.5%, which is coming into force under International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations in 2020. This follows and complements the 0.1% cap that was introduced in Northern Europe and North America in 2015. All carriers must adapt, and the potential ways in which they can do so are numerous, ranging from the relatively established (liquified natural gas, or LNG) to the more futuristic (lithium batteries and biofuels).
Arguably the most enthusiastic embracer of LNG to date has been CMA CGM, the world’s third biggest carrier. In November 2017, the company announced that its nine new 22,000 teu ships would run mainly on LNG, with only a small amount of marine gas oil
60 | The Report • June 2018 • Issue 84
Diane Gilpin suggests biofuels are only a short-term solution
to be used for ignition in the combustion chamber.
In a statement announcing the decision, the company claimed that the use of LNG, instead of heavy fuel oil, would reduce sulphur and fine particle emissions by 99%, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 85% and those of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 25%. The company claimed that this decision went beyond the requirements of the 2020 sulphur cap.
BY JOE LO
Environmental regulations are constantly forcing carriers to adjust their fuel strategy – so what will power the container ships of the future? Joe Lo investigates.
By contrast, Diane Gilpin, CEO of the Smart Green Shipping Alliance (SGSA), suggested that LNG does not go far enough in reducing other harmful emissions. “LNG as a short- term solution for a long-life asset is a risk,” she told CM. “LNG addresses the 2020 sulphur regulations, but with carbon and other greenhouse gas emission regulations soon to be applied to shipping (probably in 2023), it doesn’t seem to me to be the smartest switch.” Gilpin also had concerns over whether LNG would stay at the same price it is currently. “With divestment from fossil fuels gathering momentum around the world,” she said, “LNG is a big risk so far as fuel supply and cost predictability are concerned.”
Maersk Line also has concerns about the economic viability of LNG. A spokesperson told CM: “LNG-powered vessels are likely to be the next leap forward in terms of engine technology. So far we have not found economically viable LNG designs for our new-buildings (latest orders placed in Q2 2015), but we are continuously working with LNG suppliers and yards to find ways to create a business case for moving into more LNG-powered vessels, and would welcome constructive partners to share development costs.”
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
