World Bunkering > News > Autumn 2010 > Going green

Emission Control Area (ECA) realities start to hit home

The shipping and bunkering industries are now coming to terms with the reality of a 1% sulphur limit in the North Sea Emission Control Area and Baltic Emission Control Area (ECA), and also with the inevitability of a similar, strictly enforced regime around North America in two years time.

The latest reduction in the sulphur limits allowed by the revised Annex VI (Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL convention) entered into force on 1 July 2010.

The 1% cap is part of a progressive reduction of SOx emissions which will also see the global sulphur cap outside any Emission Control Area reduced initially to 3.5%, from the current 4.5%, on 1 January 2012 and then in phases to 0.5 % from 1 January 2020. The 0.5% limit is subject to a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018. Within any Emission Control Area the cap will be reduced to 0.10% from 1 January 2015.

The 1% cap does not appear to have caused too many problems so far, and sufficient supplies appear to be available.

The scheduled 2012 introduction of the North American Emission Control Area has, however, prompted cruiseship company Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines to look very carefully at whether to include calls in North America once the North American Emission Control Area (ECA) comes into force in August 2012.

The company says reports that it plans to “drop its Canada/New England itinerary after August 2012” are premature and that nothing definite has yet been decided about schedules after April 2012. However, it reportedly estimates that using distillates to meet the 1.5% cap in the Emission Control Area would cost it an extra $16,340 a day.

One major cruise operator has opted to test out a system that promises to both meet current sulphur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) limits and also dramatically cut emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Royal Caribbean Cruises is to install a pilot test plant of Singapore-based Ecospec’s CSNOx system on Royal Caribbean International’s Independence of the Seas. “Every day, we are actively researching methodologies and technologies that will reduce our emissions of not only SO and NOx, but also CO² as part of our comprehensive strategy to reduce our environmental impact,” said Jamie Sweeting, global chief environmental officer and vice president of environmental stewardship for Royal Caribbean Cruises. He added: “We are optimistic that the CSNOx system will help us to meet our goal.”

The CSNOx technology was installed and tested on the White Sea, a Tanker Pacific panamax vessel, in 2009. The results of this test, published by Ecospec in February 2010, revealed a 99% reduction in SOx emissions, a 66% drop in NOx, and a 77% drop in CO². Additionally, Ecospec says, wash water test results surpassed the IMO’s exhaust gas cleaning discharge criteria. The Royal Caribbean pilot test is expected to be complete by spring next year.

Another North American-based shipoperator, Canada Steamship Lines (CSL), has signed a letter of intent with Ecospec for both parties to work together to develop and install CSNOx technology within the CSL fleet.

While there has been a large degree of industry scepticism about the CSNOx system, it is expected to shortly be type approved by ABS as an SOx and NOx scrubber. The US classification society has also verified tests showing significant removal rates of CO². The willingness of two major North American operators to test the system will be widely seen as a vote of confidence for Ecospec.

Warm words for LNG

The past few months have seen increasingly strong support from several classification societies for the idea of a major switch to LNG as a major, possibly even principal, fuel for the world’s commercial fleet.

Bureau Veritas, Det Norske Veritas and GL have all issued statements flagging up LNG as the possible fuel of the future.

In June last year, IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) lifted the ban on natural gas as a ship fuel by adopting Resolution MSC 285(86), ‘Interim Guidelines on Safety for Natural Gas-Fuelled Engine Installations in Ships’.

The Interim Guidelines are the first step towards the envisioned general code for gas as a ship fuel, the so-called IGF Code, which is currently under development by IMO and is expected to enter into force concurrently with the revision of SOLAS 2014.

Hamburg-based Germanischer Lloyd (GL), which was involved in developing the IMO policy, has now issued guidelines for using gas as a marine fuel. GL says the guidelines are intended to help shipowners and yards prepare for the introduction of gas as a ship fuel in the near future.

LNG takes up a lot of storage space

GL’s head, Hermann Klein, commented: “With new emission control regulations taking effect, gas as a ship fuel, once banned, is now re-emerging as an environmentally and economically attractive option.”

Dr Klein has been vocal for some time in his view that the use of residual fuel should be phased out in the world fleet. He initially strongly supported Intertanko’s approach of switching to distillate fuel. Now, however, he appears to see LNG as a more attractive alternative to residual fuel.

GL says that, compared to oil, natural gas has two key advantages: high efficiency and a lower environmental impact which suits any Emission Control Area. It says that engine problems and damage caused by low-quality heavy fuel oils will be a thing of the past for owners switching to gas as a ship fuel. Risks associated with conventional ship fuels include bunker quality issues, poor ignition and combustion, and uneven heat and pressure distribution on pistons, piston rings and cylinder liners.

“GL believes LNG as a ship fuel may be just the solution the shipping industry has been looking for to cope with the emissions challenges of our time,” added Dr Klein.

In a similar vein, DNV’s executive vice president Remi Eriksen said: “Many believe that gas is tomorrow’s fuel. We at DNV think it is already here. LNG as a fuel offers obvious environmental benefits. These benefits include nearly 100% reduction in SOx and particle emissions, 85-90% reduction in NOx emissions and 15-20% reduction in CO² emissions.”

He added: “For a switch to LNG to happen, certain elements need to be in place. The technology is there, as many manufactures are offering LNG fuelled engines already. A challenge is the loss of cargo space due to cylindrical LNG storage tanks. For newbuildings it is fairly simple to find space for the larger fuel tanks, while this may be more difficult for retrofitting on existing ships.”

Taking a similar tack, French-based classification society Bureau Veritas (BV) told BV’s Nordic Committee meeting in Klaipeda, Lithuania that natural gas (NG)-powered propulsion will be one of the major contributors to greener shipping. BV is about to publish a new edition of the BV Rules Note on Safety Rules for gas-fuelled engine installation on ships, and update BV Rule Note NR 529 to address the use of containerised storage tanks and connection with ships’ gas fuel piping systems and the location of gas fuel tanks.

Bernard Anne, BV’s marine managing director said: “Using natural gas to power ships offers substantial advantages in reducing emissions. It is also abundant in supply and will be price-competitive with low-sulphur fuel. We are already working with shipowners and yards on a number of projects involving gas or dual gas/fuel projects involving a range of containerships, cruise vessels, ferries, ro-pax and ro-ros, as well as inland and coastal navigation ships. We are also engaged in projects to assess the viability of refitting existing ships.”

The classification societies may be enthusiastic about switching to LNG, but implementing such a policy would be a massive undertaking and is unlikely to be without critics.

At the International Bunker Conference in Stockholm earlier this year, several speakers touched on the potential of LNG as a marine fuel. Per Croner, president of Wallenius Marine, said that in Sweden, regulation was pushing shipping into LNG, and that use of the fuel had ‘exploded’ in the last year and a half. However, the problem was that the energy content of LNG was only 50% of HFO by volume. This would mean that vessels would either need fuel tanks of much greater volume, or would need to bunker more often, he said. This concern was echoed by Dorthe Jacobsen, from the marine low speed research and development team at MAN Diesel. Designs showing the fuel tank space needed in containerships showed LNG tanks would need to be 2 to 2.5 times larger than HFO tanks, she said. Nevertheless, “The savings in SOx and NOx are something to consider.”

In response to a question from World Bunkering for this article, OW Bunker’s vice president, Götz Lehsten, also sounded a note of caution. He said: “Whatever decision is taken when it comes to the future of shipping from an environmental perspective, it has to be well thought through, based on practical and measured debate. Clearly LNG has a future role to play, but it is perhaps too early to advocate a total switch, when there are still many questions to answer regarding the potential of supply and associated costs, as well as the storage of LNG in relation to bunkering ports and global oil hubs; there is much that needs to be considered in relation to the whole LNG supply chain and its infrastructure. Naturally, we will continue to remain abreast of the issue, and any decision or viewpoint that is taken will be done with our customers at the front of our minds.”