AIR EMISSIONS
INTERTANKO Asian Panel
Tokyo
18 September 2007
KEY DATES
• 1997: MARPOL Annex VI adopted
• May 2005: Enters into force
• July 2005: IMO/MEPC decides for
revision
• March 2006: MEPC delegates the
revision to BLG
• April 2006: BLG 10 establishes a W.G.
• November 2006: W.G. intersessional
meeting
• April 2007: BLG 11 no agreements
• MEPC 2007: IMO S.G. Group of Experts
is established
OUTCOME FROM IMO/BLG 11
SOx & PM
• A. Base Line - No change in SOx regulations
• B. Global & Regional (SECA):
– Global S cap & lower S cap in SECAs
– USA – [0.1%] S cap up to [200] nm from shore
– BIMCO proposal – 3% global S cap; 1% 0.5% MDO
in SECAs or scrubbers
• C. GLOBAL S CAP (no SECA) :
– Mandate 1% 0.5% MDO for all ships
– Global S cap or emissions limit but leave the
industry to choose compliance method
OUTCOME FROM IMO/BLG 11 - NOx
• Tier I – to apply to pre-2000 engines
• Tier II - from 2011 a reduction by
– 12% - 20% for slow speed engines (n < 130 rpm)
– 20% to 35% for rapid engines (n > 2000 rpm)
• Tier III as from 2015/2016 reductions
– Option A - 80% for all engines when in all sea waters
within 50 nautical miles from each coast line
– Option B - 83% - 85% - for large engines only in
NECAs
– Option C - 30% - 50% with in engine modification
and connected to the use of MDO only
The IMO Group of Experts
• Evaluate the different fuel options’
effects on:
• Reducing SOx & PM emissions and
• The consequential impact fuel options
could have on NOx emissions
• Impact on the environment, on human
health, on the shipping industry and the
petroleum industries
The IMO Group of Experts
• Data collection by mid September
• Meetings – September, November &
December
• Final Report – December
• Funding – IMO, Administrations & NGOs
The IMO Group of Experts
ASSESSMENTS
• The impact on SOx and PM emissions
from ships and consequential impact on
other emissions, such as nitrogen-oxides
(NOx);
• The waste associated with production
and operation of abatement
technologies;
• The consequential impact on CO2
emissions from ships and refineries
taking into account the availability of CO2
abatement technologies
The IMO Group of Experts
WORK METHOD
• 4 sub-groups:
– Shipping group
– Fuel group
– Environmental/health group
– Software/methodology group
• INTERTANKO – Assessment of:
– Total # of ships (12 type categories)
– Total fuel consumption (HFO + MDO)
– Emissions: SOx, NOx, PMs & CO2
• BIMCO – Suggested method for fuel
consumption forecast until 2020
The IMO Group of Experts
INTERTANKO FINDINGS
• Ships 400 GT and above: 59,859
• Fuel Consumption:
– HFO consumption: 350 MT
– MDO consumption: 60 MT
• CO2 Emissions:
– 1,246 MT (if only HFO used)
– 1,214 MT (if only MDO used)
– - 32 MT (if only MDO used)
• SOx emissions: 20.1 MT
• SOx savings from current SECAs: 2.5%
reduction of the total
INTERTANKO ASSESSMENTS ON CO2
• Use of MDO as fuel saves 32 MT of CO2
• Low S content MDO means less ”buffering”
and release of CO2 from the Oceans – potential
saving of 27 MT of CO2
• Further CO2 emissions reductions by use of
MDO:
– Less sludge to burn 2 - 5 MT
– Less heating & onboard treatment 2 MT
– Project to recover CO2 by tankers with zero
“footprint” – potential saving 1.5 MT
• TOTAL CO2 reduciton > 65 MT/year
CO2 FROM REFINERIES
• Total HFO for replacement to MDO: 250 MT
• Refinery fuel used for crude oil processing –
average 6 tonnes per 100 tonnes processed
• Carbon to CO2 factor: 3.14
• Thus:
– 250 MT * 0.06 * 3.14 = 47.1 MT CO2
• Use of MDO only: expected CO2 reduction
by some 20 MT
- 63%
MDO AVAILABILITY
- 65%
- 61%
250 MT means a further reduction by 6.5%
MDO AVAILABILITY
• THE PROBLEM IS NOT SUPPLY OF MDO
• ”Marine Fuel Oils are the last major outlet
for residual fuels although this may in
time be affected by legislation to reduce
the sulphur content in such fuels”
(CONCAWE report 1/07)
HISTORICAL AND FORECAST
PRODUCT DEMAND (EU-25 + 2)
COSTS ESTIMATED ON A SCR*
•
•
•
•
•
Urea consumption ≈ 25 l / MWh
NOx reduction ≥90% @ ≤2 g/kWh
Investment costs 40,000-60,000 USD / MW
Running costs (urea) ≈ 3.75 USD / MWh
Maintenance costs ≈ 0.9 USD / MWh
• For a 7 MW onboard installed power, the costs will be
• Investment
• Running costs
• Maintenance
• TOTAL
280,000 - 420,000 USD**
630 USD/day
for 50 days/year
31,500 USD/year
151 USD/day
7,560 USD/year
39,060 USD/year
* Data provided by WÄRTSILÄ for Sulzer 6RTA52U with SCR system
** 280,000 USD x 60,000 ships = 17 billion USD in capital cost
*** Some 2 billion USD running cost/year for the entire fleet
What’s next?
• IMO Study: July – December
• Intersessional meeting Berlin: 29
October – 2 November 2007
• BLG 12: January 2008
• MEPC 57: March/April 2008
• MEPC 58: October/November 2008
Questions?
[email protected]
KEY ITEMS FROM ISTEC
INTERTANKO Asian Panel
Tokyo
18 September 2007
ISTEC Agenda (selection)
• ENVIRONMENT
– Ship recycling – Ship Recycling Guidance
– Port Reception Facilities
• TANKER STRUCTURES
– IACS CSR - Proposed Rule Changes
– Performance Standards for Seawater Ballast Tanks
Coatings - Industry Best Practice Guide
– Performance Standards for Cargo Tank Coating
– Coating Maintenance and Repair
– Goal Based Standards
– Maintenance standard – Owner’s manual
ISTEC Agenda (selection)
• MARINE, SAFETY AND SECURITY
– Maritime Security
– Pilotage
– Lifeboats
– Marine Instruction/Operation Manuals
– Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
• ENGINEERING AND RELATED MATTERS
– Revision of MARPOL Annex VI
– Reduction of GHG emissions from ships
– Experience with trading in SECA
– IMO Working Group on revision of design and standards of
Shipboard Waste Management handling equipment
• OTHER MATTERS
– Results of INTERTANKO Human Element in Shipping Committee:
Cadet Berth Survey 2007
– Main Engine Bearing Condition Monitoring
– Load Line Zones off South Africa
GHG Redcution
Minimise the energy used by ships
• Reduce the heat losses from all onboard installations
• Minimise onboard operations that are not necessary like
tank cleaning
• Maximising the cargo onboard ships
• Minimise onboard operations that could be more efficiently
done at shore (the HFO treatment should be done before
delivery to ships; instead of 50,000 ships treating the
amount of residual fuel onboard, the treatment should be
done onshore in larger installations with a smaller energy
consumption; use of MDO: no need for onboard treatment
and waste handling; no need for onboard incineration
• Alternative fuels – (biodiesel, fuel cells, solar panels) save/minimise energy from burning fuel oil
• Carbon capture - methodology to capture CO2 from the
exhaust gas form the ship's funnel and re-used it as
methane in auxiliaries
GHG Redcution
Maximise the fuel efficiency
• Larger ships
• More efficient engines
• Smoother hull surfaces - (silica/nanotechnology, air skirts; seachests shape; hull
weld protrusions, other protrusions)
• Reduced wave resistance
• Reduced hull resistance (slime is bacterial
fouling; non biocidal AF paints are proposed they slime bad; the cost of slime in terms of
drag is under researched: we do not have hard
numbers; hard hull cleaning versus soft slime
brushing ... benefits, cost and drawbacks .. )
GHG Redcution
Maximise the fuel efficiency
• Improved propulsive efficiency
(propellers, smoothness, cleaning ...
position ; rudders, shape ... position ....
relation to position of propeller ..)
• Composite materials
• "Air friction" to reduce drag - WAIP (Wing
Air Induction Pipe) technology (would the
degree of drag reduction due to air
bubbles be sufficient to overcome the
increase of drag by injectors/protrusions
of such a system?)
Questions?
[email protected]