Air pollution from ships: recent developments by Lex Burgel by Lex Burgel

A large 10 cylinder marine engine Picture removed due to copyright control

Particulars of this 10 cylinder engine Maximum power: 78,000 hp Maximum power: 78,000 hp (14 cylinder version hp) (14 cylinder version hp) Fuel consumption: 9 tons of heavy fuel oil/hour; 216 tons/day Fuel consumption: 9 tons of heavy fuel oil/hour; 216 tons/day Round trip Far East: 10,000 tons Round trip Far East: 10,000 tons Application: large container vessels Application: large container vessels

Recent developments Annex VI Marpol 1997, e.i.f Annex VI Marpol 1997, e.i.f MEPC decision 2005: revision MEPC decision 2005: revision Addressing CO 2 emissions of international transport (shipping and air transport) Addressing CO 2 emissions of international transport (shipping and air transport)

Some numbers ( indicative ): 90,000 merchant ships of over 100 GT 90,000 merchant ships of over 100 GT Consumption 250 million tons/year of which 80% heavy fuel Consumption 250 million tons/year of which 80% heavy fuel Equals 1000 VLCC’s Equals 1000 VLCC’sEmissions: 800 million tons of CO million tons of CO 2 15 million tons of SO 2 15 million tons of SO 2 10 million tons of NO x 10 million tons of NO x

Fuel type Prices in US$/metric ton IFO IFO LS LS MDO518 MGO575 Fuel prices (10/05/07) Rotterdam

Revision of Annex VI Primarily SO X and NO X Primarily SO X and NO X At what price? At what price?

SO x Four options, ranging from ‘do nothing’ to Intertanko’s proposal: Use distillate fuels Use distillate fuels From [2010] max 1% S (BLG: 2012) From [2010] max 1% S (BLG: 2012) Ships’ engines installed after [2015] max [0.50]% S Ships’ engines installed after [2015] max [0.50]% S Global SECA Global SECA

Pro’s and contra’s of Intertanko’s proposal Pro:Simple Large reduction of SO x and PM Reduction of NO x Far less fuel treatment on board Far less fuel waste on board No more switching

Pro’s and contra’s of Intertanko’s proposal Contra: Insufficient production capacity for distillates Insufficient production capacity for distillates High fuel costs High fuel costs Energy penalty Energy penalty Strong oil lobby? Strong oil lobby?

NO x Tiered reductions proposed: Tiered reductions proposed: Tier I values of present Annex VI (NO x curve (17.0 g/kWh at 130 rpm curving to 9.8 g/kWh at 2000 rpm) Tier II reduction of %, ‘simple’ engine technology (2011) Tier III reduction of 50 or even 80-90%, after treatment (SCR) (2015) Will emission reduction standards also be applicable to existing engines? Research needed. Should not be an ‘enforcement nightmare’. Possibly differentiation as to year of build ( ) and engine type (slow speed 2 stroke) Will emission reduction standards also be applicable to existing engines? Research needed. Should not be an ‘enforcement nightmare’. Possibly differentiation as to year of build ( ) and engine type (slow speed 2 stroke)

CO 2 Indexing as a first step: performance of ships as to GHG emissions Indexing as a first step: performance of ships as to GHG emissions Strong lobby of Kyoto Annex I states + US Strong lobby of Kyoto Annex I states + US Should be linked to measures Should be linked to measures Emission trading among them Emission trading among them EU getting restless; short track to local measures? EU getting restless; short track to local measures?

Emission trading Is an option for all kinds of emissions but still premature in shipping.

Local air quality EU-proposal sulphur content in port: ships at berth 0.1% (2010) EU-proposal sulphur content in port: ships at berth 0.1% (2010) Cold ironing: shutting off main and auxiliary engines in port; supply of power from shore Cold ironing: shutting off main and auxiliary engines in port; supply of power from shore

Conclusions Lots of ideas and developments Lots of ideas and developments Interesting links between Annex VI and GHG developments; will Kyoto annex I countries move? Interesting links between Annex VI and GHG developments; will Kyoto annex I countries move? History seems to repeat itself: NO x less contentious than SO x History seems to repeat itself: NO x less contentious than SO x NO x approach: technical issues NO x approach: technical issues SO x approach: lobbies and politics SO x approach: lobbies and politics