Propulsion & Emissions Conference offers shipowners and industry viewpoints
The main issues facing our industry remain the same in 2013 as they were in 2012. Oversupply in most market sectors keeps rates at rock bottom, while fuel costs continue to rise, and regulatory pressures mean that owners and operators face even higher costs to make their ships comply with upcoming regulation changes. And those changes don’t only apply to emissions to the atmosphere; there are considerations such as ballast water treatment, still fraught with uncertainty, which must be implemented very soon.
The first focus, though, is 2015. That is when the first impact of emissions legislation will be felt, when ships operating in emission control areas (ECAs) will be limited to 0.1% sulphur content in the fuel. The seemingly simple solution, of course, is to change to fuel with sulphur content below 0.1%. However, this is not so straightforward as it may seem. The mathematics of supply and demand will inevitably lead to an even wider price gap between the present heavy fuels and the light distillates that meet the new rules. And this will not only impact on shipping but on other transport which uses similar types of fuel. Some say that the oil industry will not have sufficient refining capacity to cope with the leap in demand for light diesel fuels caused by a wholesale switchover by shipping on 1 January 2015.
That may be an alarmist view, but it cannot be ignored. Ships presently operating on heavy fuel but entering ECAs on part of the voyage will be faced with the dilemma of whether or not they can afford to switch to distillate fuels entirely, or whether economics will force them to continue with heavy fuels and change to distillates when entering ECAs. And changing from one type of fuel to another causes problems. The two types of fuel are, basically, incompatible, so mixing them is not simple. Auxiliary equipment like boilers, set up to operate on heavy fuels, may not operate reliably on different fuels. And engine lubrication requirements are different when running on low-sulphur fuel compared with heavy fuels with higher sulphur content.
So the alternatives start to look attractive. Exhaust gas scrubbers can mean that even when running on cheap high sulphur heavy fuels, emissions can be brought down below the equivalent obtained when running on distillates, so it is no surprise that IMO, under the Marpol amendments, allow scrubbers as an alternative. But scrubbers are, mostly, bulky, heavy and expensive. And although the technology is well-proven in land-based applications, many feel that it has yet to prove itself suitable for the very different conditions onboard ship.
A further question arising from either of these solutions is how can the rules be enforced, or how can shipowners be certain that they comply. Is the scrubber actually working? Or does the fuel supplied actually contain the claimed sulphur content? And is the exhaust coming out of the funnel compliant, or are remnants of heavy fuel or other contaminants bringing it outside the limits? Some form of emissions monitoring is needed, to reassure owners as well as to enable enforcement.
The third alternative, using gas as fuel, now starts to look like the answer. But converting existing ships, although technically possible, is not simple. There are matters such as storing gas onboard, the lack of bunkering infrastructure, and still unanswered questions of safety and fuel cost. Although it now seems generally agreed that in the future a significant proportion of the world fleet will use LNG as fuel (though experts cannot agree on what proportion that will be), this will not happen overnight. Even if all new ship orders from now on were to be gas fuelled, it will be two or three years before these ships can be delivered – beyond the 2015 deadline in fact, so a shorter-term fix is needed for the existing fleet. And in the current market, new orders are still relatively scarce.
There is, additionally, the controversial question which caused so much discussion at The Motorship’s last Gas Fuelled Ships conference in Bergen in 2012. Should owners go for dual fuel or gas only? Pure gas engines are, almost by definition, more efficient, as they can be optimised for a single fuel rather than having to be a compromise. And only having to carry one type of fuel onboard sounds much simpler, and less costly. Dual fuel engines are, additionally, more complex and more expensive; they have to be able to change from the Otto cycle when running on gas to the Diesel cycle, and back again, as seamlessly and quickly as possible. This invariably means sophisticated automatic control systems and complex electronics. So it may be worth sacrificing fuel flexibility on grounds of simplicity, cost and efficiency? Not so, say the proponents of dual fuel. They point – among other things – to the class and flag state requirements for redundancy which mean, in effect, that large and expensive onboard gas storage and handling systems have to be duplicated. And the fact that moving ships from one gas-equipped area to another involves complex and expensive temporary gas tanks on deck, or towing.
It’s a similar story with lubrication of engines running on different fuels. Is it better to use proven, lower-cost, cylinder oils with alkalinity and other properties tailored to a particular sulphur content, or are the claims of some oil companies offering a premium single oil, capable of operating over a wide range of fuels, more valid? Has lubrication technology advanced so much as to allow a single oil to cope with all fuels, or is this yet to be proven?
So, there is no easy answer. Different ships and different operational patterns have different needs of course. The market is full of vested interests, all claiming their respective benefits for their products and services, but which to believe, and which will suit the individual application?
Magazines like The Motorship can help owners make decisions. We can present the different products, different solutions, and different claims for evaluation. But we have to do so with care. We always rewrite press releases and so on to make sure that claims are presented as such, rather than as fact. We cannot endorse one solution over another, and neither can we tell owners which answer will suit them best.
What is needed is not only industry figures presenting their own particular solutions – we need, in addition, to hear from those who have actually tried, and succeeded (or failed of course, but that’s more difficult) these solutions on real ships in real conditions.
And that is the philosophy behind the 2013 Propulsion & Emissions Conference. We have managed to attract shipowners to talk about their experiences, and encouraged manufacturers and suppliers to invite their clients to join them in their presentation, and to bring practical experience as well as theoretical solutions to the discussion.
Among the high profile shipowner figures attending the conference are director or senior management personnel from Maersk, CMA CGM, Hapag Lloyd, Columbus Shipping (a subsidiary of Hamburg Sud), Wilh. Wilhelmsen and Brise Hamburg. In addition, Torm is sending a senior project engineer and an engine specialist as delegates.
Speakers from shipowners willing to share their experience and knowledge at the conference include: VP Marine Management – Bore; Senior Mechanical Engineer – Maersk Maritime Technology; Vice President – Technical – Wilhelmsen ASA and Superintendent – Britanny Ferries. Shipowner interest is maintained through both conference chairmen being ex-senior management at Maersk.
Of course, the industry has to look beyond 2015, and neither must we forget the more immediate concerns ahead of that date. Regardless of regulatory issues, the need to cut costs is paramount. And this means using less fuel. Any small reduction is significant; even a tiny percentage can represent thousands of dollars over the course of a year. And here again there are many claims that need to be substantiated; it has often been pointed out that there are so many measures offering 5% or 3% fuel savings that if all were implemented a ship would only need to bunker once per year – or could even feed fuel back into the barge. So who do we believe, and could some of these measures cancel each other out? That’s the sort of question that will be asked, and, we hope, answered, in Copenhagen.
Then there is the question of ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP) and energy efficiency design index (EEDI). These have been reality since the start of this year and owners are finding they have to implement one or the other of these. Designed to address efficiency, with the goal of reducing shipping’s carbon footprint, they are seen by many as yet another paperwork exercise, but in reality they can help owners achieve real fuel and cost savings by focusing on the energy saving design, equipment and operational issues that are really effective for the particular vessel.
It wouldn’t be a Motorship conference without addressing the more general propulsion issues too. Alternatives to the conventional propulsion solutions will of course be explored, in particular hybrid technology, that shows particular promise for future ship propulsion. And of course, it’s not only the engine that can be optimised for efficiency, hull design and, especially, propellers can offer savings.
The conference will wind up with a discussion on what other issues will face the industry in the future, including IMO Tier III emissions limits, and how carbon and other greenhouse gases, plus particulate matter, can be controlled.
The conference will be chaired, for the first sessions, by BIMCO deputy secretary general Lars Robert Pedersen, while the final afternoon will be in the hands of Jakob Buus Petersen, director of vessel performance at ABS. A welcome address will be given by Christian Breinholt, who as well as being deputy director general of the Danish Maritime Authority, chairs the IMO’s MSC. The theme of setting the scene for 2015 and beyond will form the topic of the keynote addresses , to be given by Arsenio Dominguez, vice chairman of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee, and Hideaki Saito, director for international regulations, Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Maritime Bureau.
As is customary, the packed conference programme will be supplemented by social and networking events, beginning with the pre-conference welcome reception on Tuesday 23 April, when we re-visit the Diesel House Museum in Copenhagen, courtesy of MAN Diesel & Turbo. The Diesel House houses, among other exhibits, a vintage large MAN engine, used until comparatively recently as part of the city’s power generation infrastructure. The Wednesday evening sees the conference dinner, this year being held at Restaurant Allegade 10, one of Copenhagen’s oldest restaurants, dating back over 230 years. These events, plus the networking lunches and coffee breaks, are free to registered delegates.
A novelty for 2013 is that delegate places can be shared between two people, meaning that a company can send one person for one day, and a second person for the other day, solving the problem of having a key member of staff away for two days in a row.
The venue, as in 2011, is the Hilton Copenhagen Airport hotel. The hotel is in a highly convenient location, being directly connected to the city airport’s Terminal 3 by a covered walkway, and is located adjacent to the Airport Metro station, 12 minutes away from the city centre and its attractions. Special delegate rates have been arranged for those wishing to stay at the hotel.
Finally, thanks are due to the event’s sponsors and supporters. These include ABB, ABS, Aqua Metro, Bureau Veritas, CMT, Germanischer Lloyd, Kyma, Wärtsilä, Rolls-Royce, MAN Diesel & Turbo, Sauer Compressors, Shell Marine Products, Total Lubmarine, Siemens, Danish Shipowners Association, VDR, BIMCO, IBIA, European Shortsea Network, SEAaT, InterMahnager, Danish Maritime and the SSA.
