air emissions l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
AIR EMISSIONS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
AIR EMISSIONS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 24

AIR EMISSIONS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 155 Views
  • Uploaded on

AIR EMISSIONS. INTERTANKO Asian Panel Tokyo 18 September 2007. KEY DATES. 1997: MARPOL Annex VI adopted May 2005: Enters into force July 2005: IMO/MEPC decides for revision March 2006: MEPC delegates the revision to BLG April 2006: BLG 10 establishes a W.G.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

AIR EMISSIONS


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
air emissions

AIR EMISSIONS

INTERTANKO Asian Panel

Tokyo

18 September 2007

key dates
KEY DATES
  • 1997: MARPOL Annex VI adopted
  • May 2005: Enters into force
  • July 2005: IMO/MEPC decides for revision
  • March 2006: MEPC delegates the revision to BLG
  • April 2006: BLG 10 establishes a W.G.
  • November 2006: W.G. intersessional meeting
  • April 2007: BLG 11 no agreements
  • MEPC 2007: IMO S.G. Group of Experts is established
outcome from imo blg 11 sox pm
OUTCOME FROM IMO/BLG 11SOx & PM
  • A. Base Line - No change in SOx regulations
  • B. Global & Regional (SECA):
    • Global S cap & lower S cap in SECAs
    • USA – [0.1%] S cap up to [200] nm from shore
    • BIMCO proposal – 3% global S cap; 1% 0.5% MDO in SECAs or scrubbers
  • C. GLOBAL S CAP (no SECA):
    • Mandate 1% 0.5% MDO for all ships
    • Global S cap or emissions limit but leave the industry to choose compliance method
outcome from imo blg 11 nox
OUTCOME FROM IMO/BLG 11 - NOx
  • Tier I – to apply to pre-2000 engines
  • Tier II - from 2011 a reduction by
    • 12% - 20% for slow speed engines (n < 130 rpm)
    • 20% to 35% for rapid engines (n > 2000 rpm)
  • Tier III as from 2015/2016 reductions
    • Option A - 80% for all engines when in all sea waters within 50 nautical miles from each coast line
    • Option B - 83% - 85% - for large engines only in NECAs
    • Option C - 30% - 50% with in engine modification and connected to the use of MDO only
the imo group of experts
The IMO Group of Experts
  • Evaluate the different fuel options’ effects on:
  • Reducing SOx & PM emissions and
  • The consequential impact fuel options could have on NOx emissions
  • Impact on the environment, on human health, on the shipping industry and the petroleum industries
the imo group of experts6
The IMO Group of Experts
  • Data collection by mid September
  • Meetings – September, November & December
  • Final Report – December
  • Funding – IMO, Administrations & NGOs
the imo group of experts assessments
The IMO Group of Experts ASSESSMENTS
  • The impact on SOx and PM emissions from ships and consequential impact on other emissions, such as nitrogen-oxides (NOx);
  • The waste associated with production and operation of abatement technologies;
  • The consequential impact on CO2 emissions from ships and refineries taking into account the availability of CO2 abatement technologies
the imo group of experts work method
The IMO Group of ExpertsWORK METHOD
  • 4 sub-groups:
    • Shipping group
    • Fuel group
    • Environmental/health group
    • Software/methodology group
  • INTERTANKO – Assessment of:
    • Total # of ships (12 type categories)
    • Total fuel consumption (HFO + MDO)
    • Emissions: SOx, NOx, PMs & CO2
  • BIMCO – Suggested method for fuel consumption forecast until 2020
the imo group of experts intertanko findings
The IMO Group of ExpertsINTERTANKO FINDINGS
  • Ships 400 GT and above: 59,859
  • Fuel Consumption:
    • HFO consumption: 350 MT
    • MDO consumption: 60 MT
  • CO2 Emissions:
    • 1,246 MT (if only HFO used)
    • 1,214 MT (if only MDO used)
    • - 32 MT (if only MDO used)
  • SOx emissions: 20.1 MT
  • SOx savings from current SECAs: 2.5% reduction of the total
intertanko assessments on co 2
INTERTANKO ASSESSMENTS ON CO2
  • Use of MDO as fuel saves 32 MT of CO2
  • Low S content MDO means less ”buffering” and release of CO2 from the Oceans – potential saving of 27 MT of CO2
  • Further CO2 emissions reductions by use of MDO:
    • Less sludge to burn 2 - 5 MT
    • Less heating & onboard treatment 2 MT
    • Project to recover CO2 by tankers with zero “footprint” – potential saving 1.5 MT
  • TOTAL CO2 reduciton > 65 MT/year
co 2 from refineries
CO2 FROM REFINERIES
  • Total HFO for replacement to MDO: 250 MT
  • Refinery fuel used for crude oil processing – average 6 tonnes per 100 tonnes processed
  • Carbon to CO2 factor: 3.14
  • Thus:
    • 250 MT * 0.06 * 3.14 = 47.1 MT CO2
  • Use of MDO only: expected CO2 reduction by some 20 MT
mdo availability
MDO AVAILABILITY

- 63%

- 65%

- 61%

250 MT means a further reduction by 6.5%

mdo availability13
MDO AVAILABILITY
  • THE PROBLEM IS NOT SUPPLY OF MDO
  • ”Marine Fuel Oils are the last major outlet for residual fuels although this may in time be affected by legislation to reduce the sulphur content in such fuels” (CONCAWE report 1/07)
costs estimated on a scr
COSTS ESTIMATED ON A SCR*
  • Urea consumption ≈ 25 l / MWh
  • NOx reduction ≥90% @ ≤2 g/kWh
  • Investment costs 40,000-60,000 USD / MW
  • Running costs (urea) ≈ 3.75 USD / MWh
  • Maintenance costs ≈ 0.9 USD / MWh
  • For a 7 MW onboard installed power, the costs will be
  • Investment 280,000 - 420,000 USD**
  • Running costs 630 USD/day

for 50 days/year 31,500 USD/year

  • Maintenance 151 USD/day 7,560 USD/year
  • TOTAL 39,060 USD/year

*Data provided by WÄRTSILÄ for Sulzer 6RTA52U with SCR system

** 280,000 USD x 60,000 ships = 17 billion USD in capital cost

*** Some 2 billion USD running cost/year for the entire fleet

what s next
What’s next?
  • IMO Study: July – December
  • Intersessional meeting Berlin: 29 October – 2 November 2007
  • BLG 12: January 2008
  • MEPC 57: March/April 2008
  • MEPC 58: October/November 2008
questions

Questions?

dragos.rauta@intertanko.com

key items from istec

KEY ITEMS FROM ISTEC

INTERTANKO Asian Panel

Tokyo

18 September 2007

istec agenda selection
ISTEC Agenda (selection)
  • ENVIRONMENT
    • Ship recycling – Ship Recycling Guidance
    • Port Reception Facilities
  • TANKER STRUCTURES
    • IACS CSR - Proposed Rule Changes
    • Performance Standards for Seawater Ballast Tanks Coatings - Industry Best Practice Guide
    • Performance Standards for Cargo Tank Coating
    • Coating Maintenance and Repair
    • Goal Based Standards
    • Maintenance standard – Owner’s manual
istec agenda selection20
ISTEC Agenda (selection)
  • MARINE, SAFETY AND SECURITY
    • Maritime Security
    • Pilotage
    • Lifeboats
    • Marine Instruction/Operation Manuals
    • Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
  • ENGINEERING AND RELATED MATTERS
    • Revision of MARPOL Annex VI
    • Reduction of GHG emissions from ships
    • Experience with trading in SECA
    • IMO Working Group on revision of design and standards of Shipboard Waste Management handling equipment
  • OTHER MATTERS
    • Results of INTERTANKO Human Element in Shipping Committee: Cadet Berth Survey 2007
    • Main Engine Bearing Condition Monitoring
    • Load Line Zones off South Africa
ghg redcution minimise the energy used by ships
GHG RedcutionMinimise the energy used by ships
  • Reduce the heat losses from all onboard installations
  • Minimise onboard operations that are not necessary like tank cleaning
  • Maximising the cargo onboard ships
  • Minimise onboard operations that could be more efficiently done at shore (the HFO treatment should be done before delivery to ships; instead of 50,000 ships treating the amount of residual fuel onboard, the treatment should be done onshore in larger installations with a smaller energy consumption; use of MDO: no need for onboard treatment and waste handling; no need for onboard incineration
  • Alternative fuels – (biodiesel, fuel cells, solar panels) - save/minimise energy from burning fuel oil
  • Carbon capture - methodology to capture CO2 from the exhaust gas form the ship's funnel and re-used it as methane in auxiliaries
ghg redcution maximise the fuel efficiency
GHG RedcutionMaximise the fuel efficiency
  • Larger ships
  • More efficient engines
  • Smoother hull surfaces - (silica/nano-technology, air skirts; seachests shape; hull weld protrusions, other protrusions)
  • Reduced wave resistance
  • Reduced hull resistance (slime is bacterial fouling; non biocidal AF paints are proposed - they slime bad; the cost of slime in terms of drag is under researched: we do not have hard numbers; hard hull cleaning versus soft slime brushing ... benefits, cost and drawbacks .. )
ghg redcution maximise the fuel efficiency23
GHG RedcutionMaximise the fuel efficiency
  • Improved propulsive efficiency (propellers, smoothness, cleaning ... position ; rudders, shape ... position .... relation to position of propeller ..)
  • Composite materials
  • "Air friction" to reduce drag - WAIP (Wing Air Induction Pipe) technology (would the degree of drag reduction due to air bubbles be sufficient to overcome the increase of drag by injectors/protrusions of such a system?)
questions24

Questions?

dragos.rauta@intertanko.com