PRESSURE on the maritime industry to reduce its emissions and take a more sustainable approach to operations has warranted an increase in the availability and types of technologies that claim to reduce emissions and ensure regulatory compliance.
Understanding the current market of these technologies, what technologies are available, customer feedback and their place in the future of competitive technologies, and indeed an increasingly demanding regulatory landscape, can be ingrained with complexities.
Structural transformations within the industry, resulting in reduced freight rates, overcapacities and increased vessel sizes requires a tighter regulatory approach and information hub to ensure the industry maximises efficiency, while giving ship owners the tools to do so.
In this first edition, fathom-news investigates the current market state of the technologies that claim to reduce SOx and NOx air emissions from ships and looks at how they fit into the current market infrastructure.
In subsequent insight pieces, fathom-news will delve deeper into the control and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and CO2. Fuel enhancement through methods and technologies that may also reduce emissions will be subject to further analysis.
Regulation recap
Regulation is the leading driver. Air emissions are heavily regulated, and growing in stringency all the time.
While ship owners and operators are battling to remain competitive in terms of the impact they have on the environment, for both chartering purposes and the provision of incentives including reduced port dues, technology manufacturers are plying the industry with options to facilitate this.
Sulphur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM) are globally regulated through the IMO’s revised MARPOL Annex VI. There are rules in force for designated emission control areas (listed below) and for the rest of the world. In an ECA vessels need to use a fuel which has a sulphur content of less than 0.1%. For the rest of the world this is currently 3.5%, but drops to 0.5% in 2020. There are regional exceptions. European waters outside an ECA are subject to the EU’s sulphur in fuel legislation which mirrors the IMO ECA limit. Passenger vessels in Europe have a 1.5% limit currently until 2020. China is also in the process of creating similar limits.
Emission control areas:
- Baltic Sea area
- North Sea area
- North American area (includes SOx, NOx and PM)
- United States Caribbean Sea area (includes SOx, NOx and PM).
- China’s Pearl River Delta, Yangtze River Delta and the Bohai Bay rim area.
PM refers to small particles and liquid droplets that are trapped in the air and are directly emitted when fuel is burned.
While fuel selection, namely low sulphur fuels such as distillates and LNG, meets the direct meaning of the regulations, there is the option of equivalence in the rules. This gives the option to install exhaust cleaning systems so fuels with higher sulphur limits can be used. These and other options can be read about below.
With regards to legislation on NOx emissions, this too has increased in rigour over time. Again, regulated by the IMO through its revised MARPOL Annex VI, permitted NOx emissions are determined by the construction date of the ship. NOx Tier I and II are applicable globally, while NOx Tier III is aimed at ships with a keel laid on or after January 1, 2016, with an engine output of more than 130kW, and sailing within the North American and the US Caribbean ECA. In November 2016, the IMO designated the Baltic Sea and the North Sea as NOx ECAs, applicable to new ships delivered from January 2021.
While NOx tier I and II limits were achieveable through engine design improvements, tier III is such a significant reduction target that new solutions are needed.
The technologies
To meet air emissions there are a variety of different technologies and techniques available. These include:
- Marine Scrubbers, also known as Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (EGCS) for the reduction of SOx. The majority of them also reduce Particulate Matter (PM).
- Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) for the reduction of NOx.
- Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) to prevent formation of NOx.
- Shore power to reduce all emissions while at berth.
- Battery power to reduce all emissions while near to ports or at berth.
- Fuel cells, which use hydrogen to power a ship continuously.
Operational strategies, such as vessel speed reduction is also a common practise, but has faced some scrutiny for the benefit:cost ratio. For this report the focus is on scrubbers, SCR and shore power solutions.
Exhaust gas cleaning systems
Marine scrubbers are a widely accepted method of reducing SOx emissions from the engine of ships. A surge in the scrubber market occurred prior to the 0.1% sulphur cap in ECAs, however, due to the drop in fuel prices, the market has been tough. To encourage ship owners to consider marine scrubbers, many technology manufactures now provide hybrid scrubbers, providing maximum flexibility through the use of either seawater or freshwater for global operation. About 300 vessls are believed to have systems installed or about tohave them installed.
The majority of scrubber manufacturers listed in Table 1 now offer the hybrid option.
Introduction of inline scrubbers where a silencer is replaced with a scrubber to save space indicates a trend towards multipurpose and space-saving technologies. Inline scrubbers today include those manufactured by Wärtsilä, Alfa Laval, and Yara Marine.
Current costs of scrubbers are around the US $3-5 million mark. Financing packages are available to help overcome the costs. Since March 2015, Wärtsilä and Clean Marine have offered a fuel adder, enabling ship owners to repay the cost of the scrubber installation via a fuel premium on the price of HFO.
DuPont also now offers financial assistance on an individual basis.
Some concern has arisen that a 2020 sulphur cap will result in an over demand of scrubbers. However, in June 2016, the Exhaust Gas Systems Cleaning Association stated that it heavily believes that the capacity of marine scrubbers will easily meet demand and supported the 2020 sulphur cap as an essential move to limiting shipping’s environmental impact.
Table 1 – Scrubber technologies and manufacturers
All marine scrubbers listed here are validated to remove SOx down to 0.1% for compliance in ECAs when using marine fuel with a content of 3.5% sulphur.
Selective catalytic reduction systems for NOx removal
Engine makers have met Tier I and Tier II emissions requirements by modifying existing engine portfolios. However, in order to meet Tier III levels of compliance, engine manufacturers had to work harder to find additional solutions. The two main options are selective catalytic reduction and exhaust gas recirculation. EGR is a method that is largely integrated into engines provided by the engine makers and is therefore not widely discussed as part of this report.
Other technologies and fuel additive solutions such as water-in-fuel emulsion to reduce emissions of NOx and provided by companies like Quadrise, will be discussed in Fathom’s following insight piece on fuels later in the year.
SCR is a post-combustion technique that is used to eliminate 90-95% of NOx emitted from the engine following combustion. The International Association for The Catalytic Control of Ship Emissions (IACCSEA) reported in 2015 that over 500 marine SCR systems have been installed onboard ships within the last 20 years. SCR systems require the vessels to have a steady supply of urea which is used as a catalyst in the system
The current market of SCRs is not as strong as marine scrubbers, largely due to the fact that Tier III is only applicable to engines built after on or after January 1, 2016 or 2021 for the Baltic and North Sea ECAs. However, in order to drive the reduction of NOx to Tier III level, ports have introduced financial incentives. Norway, for instance, uses a NOx tax whereby a charge of US$2.5 per kilo of NOx emitted is in place. Ship operators can however reap financial benefits from NOx reductions that are greater that Tier III requirements. By installing an SCR system, ship owners and operators can achieve such rewards, whether or not their ship is required to meet the Tier III requirements legally.
Engine manufacturers estimate that costs for SCR technologies range anywhere between €20-63/kW, while installation costs for small engines below 5MW are approximately €20/kW and for larger ones about €5/kW.
For more information on the above and the NOx Regulations, please see The Ship Operator’s Guide to NOx Reduction.
A number of awards and incentives also exist to encourage emission reductions:
- The Swedish Environmental Differentiated Fairway Dues System to reduce NOx emissions. A new fee model was due to enter into force on January 1, 2017 in order to reduce the cyclical fluctuations in the waterborne freight volumes, thereby creating more revenue for the Swedish Maritime Administration. The proposal to change the fairway dues and pilotage fees is aimed at charterers (and their customers) whose vessels make calls to Swedish ports and vessels that engage Swedish pilots. At the current time, the entry into force of the new system has been postponed until January 1, 2018.
- The Norwegian NOx Fund
- The Environmental Ship Incentive
- The Green Award
Some companies now offer optimised SCRs to meet incentives, such as the Norwegian NOx Fund. Wartsila’s as an example offers SCR to meet specific needs if required by the ship owner. One of the disadvantages of SCRs is that the catalyst may deteriorate due to the sulphur content in the fuel, which can form surface deposits hindering the catalyst’s performance. This is something which manufacturers of catalysts are working on to reduce the likelihood of it happening.
The SCR market has also taken some hit from the introduction of integrated EGR into marine engines. Although only used to meet Tier II requirements previously, engine manufacturers are now working on using EGR for meeting Tier III legislation, which will require less additional technology integration.
There is also still some uncertainty as to whether integrating a combination of technologies, such as SCR and EGCS would be less cost efficient than installing a dual-fuel engine to use both low-sulphur fuel or LNG when necessary and regular diesel fuel when sailing in less regulated environments.
More recently, Danish company Exilator has released a 3-in-1 integrated emissions reducing filter system that claims to lower emissions of CO, PM and NOx as well as reduce acidification of oceans and damage to ecosystems.
Table 2. NOx-specific reducing technologies and manufacturers
All of the technologies in the table remove between 90-98% of NOx from the exhaust gas unless stated.
Shore power
A relatively recent concept, shore connections to the ship enable the provision of electrical power. In February 2016, Shanghai announced it is to build six electric generators at its cruise ship terminals to provide onshore power, while China’s Ministry of Transport revealed in July last year the country is to trial shore power at container terminals in Lianyungang, Guangzhou, Shenzhen Yantian, Shanghai and Ningbo-Zhoushan.
In India, the first shore power solution was commissioned by ABB at V.O.Chidambaranar Port in September last year. In terms of shore power in Asia the market is looking bright, with trials and investigation into the technology relatively widespread. However, the manufactures of shore power connections and cables is not as widespread in Asia, with more concentrated focus in Europe.
In Europe shore power has been widely acknowledged by ports. The Smart Ports concept has arisen, giving ports the opportunity to power and automation solutions for vessels and port infrastructure. Port electrification and ship-to-shore power is part of the concept, endorsed heavily by ABB across European ports.
In July 2016, the Baltic Ports Organisation signed an MoU to help Helsinki, Stockholm, Tallinn, and Turku implement shore power and encourage other ports and ship owners to do the same. In May 2016, ABB and Cavotec entered a partnership to offer complete ship-to-shore power solutions globally.
There have also been numerous studies carried out on the feasibility of shore power implementation, particularly within the last few years. MaritermAB, Massport, the World’s Port Climate Initiative conducted research into the current and future demands, all showing similar trends that indicate an increased interest by ship owners and particular by ports in providing shore power for environmental benefit.
Cost of installation to vessels is high, reaching up to US $400,000 for crude tankers up to 10,000 GT and US $750,000 for those more than 100,000 gt. It can cost bulk carriers up to $3m for ships 25,000 – 49,999 gt and container vessels up to $750,000.
To help combat costs, some ports now offer incentives to those ships plugging into the grid. The Port of Long Beach, California, USA, has featured widely in the media regarding its efforts to become greener and offers ship owners free dockage if they comply with its Dockage Reduction Incentive Program for Green Calls.
Table 3 – shore power technologies and manufacturers
Concluding remarks
While there are a wide range of technologies to lower the environmental and social impact of shipping, the switch to greener technologies will not occur overnight. Efforts from all parts of the shipping industry are required to advance the development of technologies, build on their infrastructure and present case studies so that user experience grows.
Fuel price uncertainties challenge the use of marine scrubbers and SOx technologies over low sulphur fuel. Lack of infrastructure in the case of shore power only hinders its progression. For those operating in the current market, research remains a key factor. There is a huge selection of technologies that can make operations more fuel efficient and less environmentally damaging, but stakeholders need to understand the market landscape in order to select which technology best suits their operations.
fathom-news.com
editor@fathom-mi.com
