240 likes | 451 Views
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.
E N D
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 11SOx & 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 ExpertsWORK 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 ExpertsINTERTANKO 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
MDO AVAILABILITY - 63% - 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)
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 280,000 - 420,000 USD** • Running costs 630 USD/day for 50 days/year 31,500 USD/year • Maintenance 151 USD/day 7,560 USD/year • TOTAL 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? dragos.rauta@intertanko.com
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 RedcutionMinimise 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 RedcutionMaximise the fuel efficiency • Larger ships • More efficient engines • Smoother hull surfaces - (silica/nano-technology, 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 RedcutionMaximise 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? dragos.rauta@intertanko.com