Continued from page 12
The existence of environmental standards and biodegradable lubricants is nothing new, but in the past, there were no incentives for operators to switch to environmentally friendly lubricants.
Furthermore, due to a limited palette of components with which to formulate, lubricant developers could do little to sway opinion with finished products that were not as technically competent when compared with equivalent, non-bio products.
This in combination with the higher prices also demanded of environmentally acceptable lubricants (EALs) did nothing to convince an already skeptical end-user market to buy “Bio”.
Today, it is pleasing to see that there is a positive sea-change now facilitating progress in this regard.
The Marine industry has seen the introduction of formal environmental legislation such as the Vessel General Permit; issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 2013, with which fleet operators must now comply whenever visiting US waters in vessels of specified proportions.
This in turn is driving growth, albeit very small, in the development and commercialisation of a new generation of Environmentally Acceptable Greases which, thanks to an improved and growing selection of quality components, are now delivering levels of technical and protective performance equal to the demands of modern applications on-board ship, whilst achieving the necessary EAL status. When it comes to the broader raw material landscape of the grease market and how the Automotive industry is influencing this, there are a couple of key areas to note here.
Greases have traditionally relied upon Gp I base stocks for their balance of cost effectiveness and solvency, but demand for cleaner fuels and improved fuel economy has driven the increased use of Gp II and III base stocks within the Automotive sector, resulting in a depletion of Gp I production and availability in recent years.
Another key aspect of the grease raw material landscape that is experiencing a period of uncertainty is Lithium.
14 LUBE MAGAZINE NO.147 OCTOBER 2018
It remains the dominant thickener technology for almost 75% of all greases produced yet increasing demand from other industries and most notably the lithium battery market means there are currently concerns around future availability and volatile pricing.
Inevitably, changes in a market as “set in its ways” and mature as the grease market has the potential to cause uncertainty and unwanted challenges, however, at the same time one must also recognise the potential scope for opportunity too.
So, as grease producers and consumers consider the implications of change, what of the Grease technology itself? What are the options?
Lithium thickener technology has become the most widely used platform of choice worldwide for good reason; its well balanced combination of performance capabilities, cost and application versatility.
Therefore, when electric vehicle technology is seen to be having a significant effect on pricing whilst also raising questions as to its future availability, it’s inevitably going to be a priority topic for the grease industry and its customers.
For the Marine Industry specifically, important grease attributes for component lubrication and protection such as adhesion, cohesion and water resistance are still commonly achieved using lithium- based thickener technology in combination with appropriately selected polymers.
However, in the face of increased uncertainty around future price and availability what are the alternatives?
Anhydrous calcium thickener technology has many of the physical benefits of lithium whilst also bringing enhanced natural water resistance making it worthy of consideration as a viable alternative. One disadvantage often mentioned is the slightly lower dropping point, however, when considering the relatively low thermal demands of many on-deck applications, this is deemed a minor drawback. The additional benefit of anhydrous calcium technology is that it is featured on the Lusc list of components considered suitable for environmentally friendly formulations seeking Eco Label status.
Continued on page 16
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
