MEPC Meeting on emission control

[ombugge]

Next week will see the 72nd MEPC meeting at IMO in London.
Norwegian Shipowners Association and the Government has prepared a joint stand to be put forward at the meeting:

Norway makes its position clear ahead of MEPC -

[ombugge]

Another MEPC issue that is hot; ballast water management.
DNV has issued "checklist for preparation of PSC inspection:

DNVGL – Ballast Water Management – checklist for preparation of PSC inspections

Are you up to speed on this when visiting foreign ports??

[ombugge]

Opening statement by the IMO Secretary-General:
http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/SecretaryGeneral/Secretary-GeneralsSpeechesToMeetings/Pages/ISWG-GHG3opening.aspx

[ombugge]

Another subject to be brought up at the MEPC meeting:

Iceland To Propose A Ban On Use Of Petroleum In The Arctic

[Steamer]

I’ll applaud them when they change the rules so that technology firms can certify engines based on what comes out the stack (ala SOx scrubbers) rather than limit NOx and particulate reduction and certification to the engine builders.

Are they interested in what comes out the stack or who gets the money? The current regs are making it virtually impossible for lower power high speed diesel engine end users to obtain certificated engines.

[ombugge]

MARPOL Annex VI sets limits on NOx and SOx emissions from ship exhausts, and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances:
https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/inter/imo.php

Here is a quick and easy guide to Tire II & III SOX and NOX limitations:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/imo-tier-iii-2016-limitations-nox-sox-opti̇ma-marine-ltd-/

[tugsailor]

What are the typical daily emissions from the entire world fleet of ships?

How does that compare to the daily emissions of one major city like LA or Beijing?

I am skeptical about whether worthwhile emissions reduction efforts are being focused in the right place.

[dbeierl]

18 to 30 percent of world NOx, 9 percent of world sulfur oxides, 3-4 percent of world greenhouse gases.

Environmental impact of shipping

[ombugge]

From Fairplay today:

If the IMO dithers on shipping emissions, could legal action follow?
Paul Stuart-Smith, contributor | 9 April 2018
Shipping currently contributes 2.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Pressure on members of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to reach agreement on an ambitious strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships has continued to build ahead of the 72nd meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), which takes place this week at IMO headquarters in London.

Last Tuesday, Kitack Lim, IMO secretary-general addressed delegates at the intersessional working group as they convened to develop a draft text for the strategy to be finalised at MEPC. He emphasised the “great interest – not only within the maritime community but far beyond”, which has been generated by MEPC and he urged member states to work together, not to postpone decision-making and “to rise to the challenge, respond to the expectations and, thus, serve well the worthy cause of protecting and preserving the environment”.

In recent weeks momentum seemed to be building towards support for the ambitious objectives of the Tony de Brum Declaration, with calls for GHG emissions from shipping to be slashed by 70–100% by 2050. Reports from think tanks such as the International Transport Forum gave credence to the idea that almost complete decarbonisation of shipping could be achieved even sooner, by 2035, using currently known technologies. However, other IMO member states, such as Brazil, remain reluctant to set any specific deadline for decarbonisation.

A middle way could be to compromise around Japan’s proposal of 50% reductions by 2060, or Norway’s suggestion on Thursday of a goal of 50% reductions by 2050. But this is unlikely to satisfy Pacific Island states who experience climate change as an existential risk to their countries. Nor is it likely to satisfy the European Union, which has threatened unilateral action if the IMO fails to act decisively.

And if the IMO dithers, will the shipping industry, particularly larger shipping companies, be opening themselves up to possible legal action in years to come? At the moment, shipping accounts for about 2.7% of total annual GHG emissions. Without a decisive move away from use of fossil fuels, this figure is projected to increase to around 17% by 2050 as international trade continues to grow and other sectors of the global economy transition towards renewable energy. Could shipping companies therefore become the targets for environmental groups looking to use the courts to force compliance with climate targets and from individuals, cities, and governments seeking damages relating to the effects of climate change?

At present, the targets of such legal action are the oil and energy companies. On 4 April, Friends of the Earth Netherlands announced via a press release that “it will take Shell to court if it does not act on demands to stop its destruction of the climate”. Royal Dutch Shell has already set itself a target of reducing GHG emissions from use of its products by 50% by 2050 but, according to Friends of the Earth, this would be insufficient to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement to keep global surface temperature to well below 2°C from pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.

Friends of the Earth will file the lawsuit in eight weeks’ time if Shell does not bring its business plan into line by limiting its future investments in oil and gas. Karin Nassen, chair of Friends of the Earth International, added “If we win this case, it has major consequences for other fossil companies, and opens the door for further legal action against other climate polluters.”

The Friends of the Earth case will not necessarily seek damages from Shell, but another lawsuit, brought by New York City in January, against the company as well as against BP, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips and Exxon Mobil seeks “to shift the costs of protecting the city from climate change impacts back onto the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat”. The suit alleges that together, the five companies are responsible for 11% of GHG emissions from the oil and gas products they have sold.

In California, a number of counties and cities, including Oakland and San Francisco, have also filed lawsuits against oil, gas, and coal companies seeking damages running into billions of dollars to pay for infrastructure upgrades to protect themselves against the potential impacts from climate change such as rising sea levels and extreme weather events.

And in one of the longest-running climate change related cases, a Peruvian farmer, Saúl Luciano Lliuya, is suing Germany’s largest electricity producer, RWE, in a German court for “having knowingly contributed to climate change” and therefore bearing “some measure of responsibility for the melting of mountain glaciers near his town of Huaraz”. The risk is that molten ice, which has collected in a glacial lake, could flood the town of 120,000 people. The lawsuit seeks damages for a portion of the costs for building flood defences for the town.

The legal cases against the fossil fuel firms are reminiscent of those against tobacco companies in the 1990s. As in the tobacco cases, the outcomes may depend on when the oil, coal, and gas companies became aware of the dangers of using their products. What is not in dispute is the link between GHG emissions and climate change.

Nor is there disagreement about the need for the world to reduce its net GHG emissions from around 10 giga-tonnes of carbon per year to zero in the next few decades to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. Against this backdrop, it seems that any industry or company responsible for significant GHG emissions and not fully aligning itself with the goals of the Paris Agreement could be putting itself at risk of future legal action.

[tugsailor]

Obvious solutions are:

For the short term, immediately ban heavy fuel.

Countries can become more self reliant and use more locally made goods that do not have large environmental costs due to long distance transport, or

Return to the age of sail.

Sail could become competitive again, if the emissions taxes and fines on petroleum burning ships are set high enough.

As people in California and Europe might say, its for the environment, no cost is too high. Whatever it is, we just have to pay for it.

[Capt_Phoenix]

@tugsailor

For the short term, immediately ban heavy fuel.

I had a 1AE tell me emphatically that HFO gives significantly more miles per volume of fuel so if we switched all our tanks over to diesel we’d lose significant range. (I’d love to hear from engineers whether that’s true.)

@tugsailor

Sail could become competitive again

There are already a few cargo sail vessels trading again as eco friendly, super green alternatives.

[Louisd75]

@Capt_Phoenix

I had a 1AE tell me emphatically that HFO gives significantly more miles per volume of fuel so if we switched all our tanks over to diesel we’d lose significant range. (I’d love to hear from engineers whether that’s true.)

Yes, it’s true. Running at 85% MCR we typically run between 3.3 and 3.5 cubic meters per hour on IFO 380 depending on the batch of fuel. On MGO we peg our flow meter at 3.7 cubes an hour, but we’re probably closer to 3.8 or 3.9 for actual consumption. That’s with an MAN slow speed prime mover. We typically try to get some time under our belt while outside of the ECA so that we can run slower when we’re inside and save some fuel.

[Chief_Seadog]

Heavier Fuel Oils have a higher energy content than distillates.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/energy-content-d_868.html

[Steamer]

@Chief_Seadog

Heavier Fuel Oils have a higher energy content than distillates.

Engineers use heating value, BTUs per pound or kilogram. Heavy fuel oil has less, not more heating value than distillates per unit of weight which is how fuel burns, by weight, not volume.

To complete the silliness, what kind of gallon? US or ? What temperature?

Just stating that heavy oil has more BTU per gallon is meaningless. The 1st A/E was correct about requiring more volume of distillate to travel the same distance is correct but if he had said it took less weight of distillate fuel it would have been a better representation of the heating value of the fuel.

[Chief_Seadog]

@Steamer

Engineers use heating value, BTUs per pound or kilogram. Heavy fuel oil has less, not more heating value than distillates per unit of weight which is how fuel burns, by weight, not volume.

To complete the silliness, what kind of gallon? US or ? What temperature?

Just stating that heavy oil has more BTU per gallon is meaningless. The 1st A/E was correct about requiring more volume of distillate to travel the same distance is correct but if he had said it took less weight of distillate fuel it would have been a better representation of the heating value of the fuel.

Yes, that is true but I was addressing @Capt_Phoenix and @Louisd75 posts. Barrels per mile is not the same as Tons per mile. My counterpart always ordered fuel in Barrels, I ordered fuel in Tons.

[Capt_Phoenix]

@Steamer

Engineers use heating value, BTUs per pound or kilogram. Heavy fuel oil has less, not more heating value than distillates per unit of weight which is how fuel burns, by weight, not volume.

That may be but a tank can only hold a certain volume of liquid so BTU per volume is what really matters to a ship.

[Louisd75]

@Steamer

Engineers use heating value, BTUs per pound or kilogram. Heavy fuel oil has less, not more heating value than distillates per unit of weight which is how fuel burns, by weight, not volume.

For practical day to day operation I’ve always gone by volume, but that’s also how the systems have been set up. All of the TLIs, sounding tables and flowmeters come back with volume, not weight. We’ve got the temperature correction tables on board to convert from volume to weight, but there aren’t any temp readouts on our tanks (yeah, it’s awesome). Our fuel orders are done based off of weight, not volume. I believe that’s per the office’s request.

[ombugge]

Back to the ongoing meeting on MEPC.
Here is a contrary point of view from most:

Fatuous, unrealistic and unnecessary -

[ombugge]

A possible compromise in the MEPC negotiations?:

Spirit of compromise points towards greenhouse gas deal at MEPC -

The US proposal that no outright reduction goal for shipping was needed has been sidelined.

[ombugge]

Bunker quality and several other issues concerning bunkering to be considered at MEPC:
https://ibia.net/mepc-72-several-of-issues-relating-to-bunker-fuel-on-the-agenda/