When it comes to the cost of the shipping industry meeting environmental regulations, the next expensive outlay on most owners’ shopping lists will be the purchase of a ballast water treatment system. That will need to happen within the next five or six years, but very shortly after that, owners will have another expense to consider – that of meeting the final MARPOL Annex VI sulphur in fuel limit.

At MEPC 70 in October this year, the IMO is scheduled to deliver its verdict on the availability of fuel oil needed for meeting the reduction in sulphur from the current 3.5% to 0.5% outside of ECAs that will be required under Annex VI in either 2020 or 2025. Such a significant reduction is only comparable to one in January 2015, when the sulphur limit in ECAs was reduced from 1.0% to 0.1%. Since January 1, 2010, there has been a 0.1% maximum sulphur requirement for fuels used by ships at berth in EU ports.

Fuel Premium

Compared with the 0.1% on sulphur in ECAs, the 0.5% global cap seems quite benign; but the cost implications are the main concern of hard-pressed operators. The premium on 1.0% low-sulphur fuels over standard 3.5% fuels has varied over time between 50% and more than 100%. Even with today’s low bunker prices, doubling the fuel cost of operations is something that no owner can be relishing.

Meeting ECA limits has been achieved in many ways; using distillates, blending fuels and with emission abatement technology or scrubbers. Ships that burn LNG or other alternate fuels are not affected because such fuels rarely contain sulphur.

Because LNG has not taken off as quickly as expected, and because converting diesel engines to run on LNG is an extremely expensive option, scrubbers are emerging as the likely favored option for most ship operators whenever the 0.5% becomes effective. With a potential market of around 60,000 vessels, the opportunities for system makers are extensive.

Reducing the Risk

Ships that currently must switch fuels to satisfy the rules have to manage the process carefully because despite some automatic switching equipment being available, it is fraught with danger and several incidents of fire and power loss have been recorded. Adding a scrubber would reduce the risk and reduce the cost of fuel used into the bargain.

Courtesy of P&O

When Annex VI was first adopted, the use of abatement technology was not envisaged but was later included. Many believe that its use will be essential if shipping is to remain economically viable although the changing bunker price obviously affects the payback period which was once down to as low as a few years.

Scrubbers have improved considerably since the first was installed in 2006 on the P&O ferry Pride of Kent and have now become mainstream proving extremely popular on cruise ships and ferries as well as cargo vessels of varying types.

A Growing Industry

From the initial two or three scrubber makers, the number has gradually expanded and is accelerating. Keeping up with numbers is not easy, as some of the newcomers are not well known names in the marine industry and seem to appear suddenly and without much fanfare. Most have a background in treating exhaust gas streams from shore-based industries.

More importantly, the systems they are producing are shrinking in size and weight compared to first-generation products, making them more attractive to operators of smaller and mid-size vessels. Fuji Electric claims to produce the smallest, with its Cyclone technology allowing a system just 7m tall and 2m in diameter for a 10MW engine but that claim is likely to be contested by several other system makers.

Membrane Scrubbing

Courtesy of Triton

As the name suggests, scrubbers wash the sulphur compounds out of the exhaust stream using water in a wet system or some reactant in a dry system. A third type of technology – membrane scrubbing – is a relative newcomer that employs a combination of the two. One scrubber maker, Triton, has also developed a device called DSOX-20, which removes some of the sulphur from the fuel before ignition rather than from the exhaust as is the conventional way.

For the sulphur oxides in the exhaust to react with the scrubbing water in a wet system the water needs to be alkaline. That means most seawater is usable, but fresh or brackish water needs added chemicals, usually sodium hydroxide (NaOH), but the Yara (formerly Green Tech Marine) system uses cheaper magnesium oxide, as do some others.

Wet systems come in three types; open loop, closed loop or a version that can operate in either mode. Open loop types use seawater whereas the closed loop types use chemically dosed process water.

In Force at SMM

At SMM this September, scrubber makers are expected to be out in force, with at least 13 names confirmed as of mid-June, and more could be present either as unknown newcomers or represented by agents. Other system makers known to be active in the field are not included in the directory of exhibitors on the SMM website. Our listing:

• AEC Maritime (B7-448)
• Alfa Laval (A1-226)
• Andritz (A5-609)
• Clean Marine (B7-132)
• CR Ocean Engineering (B7-312.5)
• DuPont Belco (B7-312.10
• Ecospray (B3UF-140)
• Envairtec (A4-219)
• Fuji Electric (B2UF-101.1)
• LAB (A1-109)
• Saacke (A3-314)
• Wartsila (B6-312)
• Yara (A1-305)

There are many commercial options for shipowners to make their fleet more environmentally friendly and to meet new regulations.  One option on the market is for shipowners to slow down: Opting for slow steaming can cut both fuel costs and emissions.

Over recent years the shipping industry has been hit by environmental regulations that will see shipowners having to ‘green up’ their fleets to meet the new standards.

Reducing CO2 Emissions

Courtesy of DNV.GL

Jan-Olaf Probst, head of business development at DNV GL explains that  slow steaming stemmed from the Kyoto Protocol, where it was put to the industry that shipping needed to reduce its CO2 emissions. This was then handed to the IMO to come up with an industry standard that could be applied to shipping, which has led to the energy efficiency design index (EEDI) standard that is now being applied.

Slow steaming presents an option for owners with older vessels that haven’t been designed to EEDI standards, and could save money. “The largest driver for cutting CO2 emissions for an existing vessel is to drive slower,” Probst says. DNV GL has highlighted that newbuilds have adopted the EEDI in their designs, with a trend towards shorter and wider ships.

New Panamax Vessels

Probst adds that the concept to design and build wider vessels is most prevalent with containerships, since the width will be always enlarged by steps of 2.52m due to the size of a container box. If, for example, the present Panamax class (about 5,000 TEU) with a beam of 32.2m is widened to 37.25m then the stability of the ship will be beneficially influenced. There are even plans to build New Panamax container vessels (about 12,000 TEU), based on the new lock dimensions, with up to 55m in beam.

Probst adds  that “the ‘new’ 5,000 TEU designs had been the so-called baby-Panamax vessel with a beam of 37.2m. All these designs come with a maximum speed of 22.5 knots or slightly slower.”

Slower Rotating Speed

Courtesy of GNV DL

Having a vessel that operates at a slower speed also opens options for propulsion. Probst notes that vessels that operate at a slower speed do not require larger engines, and can have one or two fewer cylinders. DNV.GL says that the main engines built eight to 10 years ago had mostly rotating speeds of 120-135rpm. Nowadays, long-stroke main engines operate at around 80rpm.

The slower rotating speed of the main engine leads to an enhanced propeller efficiency and therefore reduces the fuel oil consumption compared to a main engine/propeller design.

Probst explains that: “A propulsion system will always be designed for the maximum load. However, long-stroke main engines have the benefit that the specific fuel oil consumption is quite equal over a large part of the main engine load. This means that the fuel oil consumption is relatively constant-e.g., over a load of 45% to 75% of the main engines.”

Retrofit Modifications

Engine manufacturers such as MAN Diesel have been looking into what options it can offer shipowners in its own product lines. The company says that low load (slow steaming) operation down to 10% to -20% MCR is possible with the MAN B&W engines and there is an increasing trend to operate in these very low engine load ranges. As the engines were not designed for this operational profile, various retrofit modifications to the engine can compensate.

Peter Dan Petersen, head of marketing and documentation, MAN highlights:

He also adds that all the container operators that MAN co-operate with have opted for slow steaming and have been optimising their vessels for this.

Further upgrades that are available and will also enable other reductions in fuel and lubricating oil are measures such as; turbocharger cut out, slide fuel valves and Alpha lubricator upgrades.

EEDI Tier III

However, having a vessel designed for the benefits of slow steaming and operating a planned slow steaming schedule still seem to be a ways off, according to DNV GL. The EEDI Tier III came into force on January 1 of this year, but as that currently only effects U.S. waters because of its Emission Control Area (ECA), further development is yet to be seen.

Probst says that it is expected that China will come up with an ECA area, which will push the regulation for compliance further for many.

Keeping Costs Down ?

Another conundrum that Probst foresees is the cleaning of exhaust gas, for which they will need to burn more oil. Oskar Levander, vice president of innovation at Rolls-Royce, comments that this is a good time for ships to be burning more fuel while the fuel cost is down, so they can go faster.

But in the current financial climate, owners and operators are looking at options that keep costs down. Probst reiterates the savings that can be made by slow steaming, saying that: “With a speed reduction of only 2 knots, the amount of vessels ‘arrived in time’ has improved and has seen an immediate impact on schedules.”