WELCOME

NEW

DNV GL Statement of compliance, MARPOL approval

Avoid spot checks on the SCR

MES1001 MARPOL CEMS measures NOx, SO2, NH3 gases directly in the exhaust pipe withstanding temperatures upto 500OC. There is almost no maintenance and no special training needed. It is easy to install, requiring only pressurized air, data cable and power.

Key benefits

• Compact In situ CEMS • RealTime measurements using UV light • Easy installation, operation and maintenance by ship’s Crew • Onsite NOx gas calibration by ship’s crew

IXA

www.danfoss-ixa.com

Exhaust out

Data Data

NOx, SO2 and NH3 sensor, MES1001 Marpol

SCR Closed loop only

SCR Control

Urea Nozzle

Engine

• Covid19 has affected the maritime business and sending technicians around the world is not feasible anymore. MES1001 MARPOL design is securing calibration and change of sensor consumables can be performed by vessel crew on site.

• On site gas calibration performed by crew ensures less administrative tasks for the operator, no tech hours invoiced, no travel time and waiting time or rental equipment ensuring less cost for operators for NOx measurements after SCR.

• The MES1001 Marpol is ideal for monitoring NOx and ammonia in maritime SCR applications. The sensor can monitor NOx emissions in open-loop SCR systems as well as in SCR closed-loop systems. In the latter case, the fast response time of the sensor makes it suitable for feeding back the NOx signal to the SCR control unit for fast and optimum dosing of the urea.

marine.danfoss.com

CALLING NGOS TO ACCOUNT

Don Gregory Director, Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association

As this edition of Clean Shipping International is published, the world looks on at the tragedies unfolding in the Ukraine. We are witnessing what will almost certainly be long-reaching consequences to the global economy, and the loss of human rights and hard-fought gains in our worldwide civilisation. Others seeking absolute control will be watching the unfolding roll-back of democracy while observing how the democratic world reacts.

It is no surprise that in a world where we enjoy high living standards, finance and energy can be a greater force for good and influence than guns and munitions.

However, we have witnessed that poor policy and misguided influencing can make the implementation of sanctions (energy) difficult if not impossible in the EU. The EU’s energy policy, often misinformed by misguided non-governmental organisation (NGO) beliefs rather than facts and holistic assessment, has made the EU beholden to an aggressive supplier of natural gas. So in effect, the EU is funding the Russian war effort with little means of effecting sanctions.

Ursula von der Leyen’s call to turn down the thermostats is a good effort and should be implemented immediately, but it will not release the EU from Russian gas supplies. Not for the first time has energy policy driven by poor information and lack of strategic planning come back to haunt the EU. Biofuel directives and the German abandonment of nuclear are all poor decisions that appear to be based on a belief rather than science and strategy.

In general, these decisions have been costly for the tax payer and, overall, increased net CO2 emissions – not ideal given the EU wishes to be at the vanguard of CO2 emissions reductions.

While the benefits of marine diesel engine exhaust gas cleaning technology become more apparent, shipowners face misinformation from prominent NGOs and the EU. An NGO that appears to have the ear of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), based on the number of submissions of papers to MEPC on subjects such as black carbon, has advised this editorial that its sole objective is the banning of the use of high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) on board ships. The NGO seems unable to accept that the input does not need to relate to the output. Low-cost, low CO2 energy does not need to mean higher emissions or pollution. The two components simply don’t equate.

The inconvenient truth is that several studies and the oil industry’s own assessments support the fact that the well-to-wake emissions of CO2 from HSFO is significantly lower than the use of a more refined IMOprescribed fuel such as marine gas oil. Just like turning down European thermostats by 2-3° would reduce natural gas demand massively, we should be promoting EGCS as a short-term but immediate measure that will reduce shipping’s CO2 emissions overnight. A 10% reduction in CO2 today is an easy and significant contribution to slowing the current rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

For shipowners, their contribution to limiting CO2 concentration in the atmosphere comes as a net benefit. With a price difference in excess of $200/t, payback for an EGCS investment is often less than 12 months.

The benefits of EGCS are numerous and as the technology evolves with requirements to limit toxic emissions, emissions of black carbon, further reductions in NOx emissions and reductions in methane slip, the relevance and need for these systems is just not going to go away.

The worrying trend has been that shipowners are nervous and misinformed, and the investment in EGCS technology is lagging where it should be today.

Why is this? Due in totality to misdirected and misinformed NGO lobbying and consequent government policy development based on incorrect information.

Is this state of affairs inevitable? Like the invasion of Ukraine, the democratic world can stand back and allow it to happen, or it can stand up and be counted. Shipowners and the marine industry need to question the acceptability of NGOs’ current level of influence, as well as their underlying objectives.

To do nothing will mean wasted time at IMO, foolish decisions and stranded investments while witnessing no significant reductions in emissions, whether greenhouse gas or pollution.