WELCOME

IS DECARBONISATION THE RIGHT PATH?

Don Gregory Director, Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association

The term decarbonisation is becoming a popular expression in the maritime climate change debate. It is simple to understand and, as such, can be universally recognised. Carbon is bad as it creates CO2 and we want less of that in the atmosphere. But as I am sure you all know, decarbonisation means the removal of all greenhouse gas (GHG) agents from the atmosphere and also those GHG agents that multiply the effects of GHG agents. An example of the multiplication factor is leakage of hydrogen into the atmosphere, which multiplies the lifetime of methane in the upper atmosphere.

So is it simply enough to discuss decarbonisation or is the focus on decarbonisation a distraction that risks failing to achieve the climate change goal, which is in the main halting the build up of CO2 and then taking active global steps to reduce the concentration in the atmosphere. Clearly, there are other climate change agents as mentioned above, but decarbonisation is principally about halting the increase in CO2 and then taking steps to remove it from the atmosphere.

The real challenge is how we go about tackling climate change. Decarbonisation makes the solution sound simple. Regulators love such simple slogans and simple descriptions of the solution or action needed. The reality involves human beings, habits, behaviours and prioritisation.

There are three key areas that the word decarbonisation and other simple slogans or solutions do not hit. They are: » Ignore industry needs, behaviours or cultures at your peril. » Perception and beliefs that overrule sound science and sound engineering will have a huge societal cost in stranded investments and delayed progress. » Incremental reductions in GHG today will make tomorrow’s targets more achievable. You will all, I hope, have heard of wet scrubbers, or exhaust gas cleaning systems. Today, there are some 5,000 ships fitted with scrubbers to meet the regulated reductions in emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx).

Early scrubber work was undertaken by Shell in the 1990s and then followed up by BP in the 2000s. Selecting scrubbers as a solution to mitigating SOx emissions was not a backof-a-cigarette-packet calculation. At the time, there were some industry associations such as Intertanko, calling for mandatory use of marine gas oil (MGO). Why? Because it was an easy option, but one that had not been analysed in any detailed respect.

The assessment at BP looked at all aspects of marine energy, including the options for future prime movers, energy supply infrastructure and cost, consumption of marine energy, the commercial drivers, and so on. It was effectively an assessment of industry behaviour and reasons for it.

Before the turn-of-the-century high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO), selection was driven by lowest cost energy source that was widely (globally) available. Other considerations included energy density, ease of handling on board, a relatively safe energy source and easily applied as a marine fuel. Ignore these requirements at your peril as it has not changed.

Refining HSFO to remove sulphur, the discontinuation of the supply of HSFO, the use of other fuels readily available – such as liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), methanol – and the application of emulsions and/or additives were all evaluated very carefully and holistically. The two-year study concluded what is still relevant today: all the other options had disadvantages that outweighed their respective low sulphur emissions benefits.

At the time, around 2002, low cost and widespread availability of HSFO used with an environmentally sustainable technology to mitigate or eliminate SOx emissions proved to be the ideal option. Bear in mind that at no time were SOx emissions and the general constituents of combustion of HSFO over the sea considered harmful. The scrubber simply short-circuited the natural cycle of SOx emissions to air and their subsequent washing into the sea by precipitation. The solution prevented SOx emissions precipitating on land, which was the driver back in the early 1990s for reducing emissions of SOx. Let us also be aware that emissions of SOx occur in nature both through biological events and earth events such as volcanic emissions.

I contrast the work done to address the SOx precipitation on land problem with the menu of alternative fuels solutions. There seems to be a paucity of alternative fuels and the

ones which we hear of lack any due diligence or research.

To remind you of the alternative fuels that are currently the only ones discussed; » Ammonia » Methane (actually it is normally not pure methane and has lots of other compounds included) » Methanol » Hydrogen » Biofuels As far as I can ascertain, none pass muster on the criteria of low cost, and wide availability. Add to that the dimensions of energy density, suitability for use on board ship and other considerations and these fuels fail miserably!

Are there no other options for a suitable energy source?

Today we know that cost continues to drive behaviours. Despite ‘green’ credentials, I can example that by the fact that very few dual fuel ships are now burning LNG due to its high cost. LNG is a classic example of ignoring industry needs, behaviours, and so on at your peril.

At the time in the early 2000s when it was reported to the EU that some 40% of the global fleet consume some 60% of marine bunkers, the wellto-wake CO2 footprint of HSFO was calculated to be between 5% to 20% less than an MGO. The figures were reported to the International Maritime Organization’s general in the crossindustry study he had commissioned.

The larger ships with large bunker consumptions have, in many cases, retrofitted scrubbers and many new builds today are fitted with scrubbers as standard. Those decisions have mitigated by at least 5% of CO2 emissions that would have occurred if instead of using HSFO the ships had burnt very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO).

If scrubbers had been universally adopted, the maritime industry would have already decarbonised by at least 5%. Scrubbers met industry needs and as a lucky by-product also significantly reduce CO2 emissions compared with low sulphur fuels.

The foregoing covers my first and third point regarding recognising and creating solutions that meet the industry’s fundamental needs and the outcome has been an incremental and early saving in CO2 emissions.

My second point relates to the worrying trend for sound science, data, expertise and experience to be subsumed by perception and – may I say it without meaning to be demeaning – misguided beliefs.

There is a perception promoted by groups that are against the use of HSFO that scrubbers transfer pollution to the sea, simply shortcircuiting the atmospheric path. The truth is that the assumption is correct, but the perception of harm to the marine environment has not been verified or validated. I can speak on all the environmental assessments that have been done that have not indicated harm.

There is also a perception promoted that there are ‘dirty fuels’ and ‘clean fuels’.

What does dirty mean? Does it mean incomplete combustion? Does in mean soot, condensed organic vapours, or metal oxides? Does it mean laughing gas or hydrochloric acid? Does in mean cyanide? Does hydrogen in the marine environment burn totally clean with no toxic compounds?

The answer is all combustion has a preponderance to produce unwanted and sometimes toxic or harmful emissions.

“The maritime industry is hamstrung by emotional judgements driving business decisions. This is surely a recipe for financial disaster and the road map to failure when attempting to meet climate change challenges”

In the absence of nuclear or some non-oxidation process for creating mechanical power, we have to accept that all fuels are dirty. But we can deal with the various by-products of combustion by exhaust gas after-treatment. One of the very promising technologies uses electrostatic charges to charge particles and fluids to very effectively capture them, remove them from the gas stream and neutralise their harmful effects. Other technologies actually split the harmful, again neutralising the harmful effects of the compounds if released to the atmosphere.

Today, there is cost-effective technology that can reduce unwanted harmful emissions to almost zero, even when using low-cost HSFO which has the added lower CO2 footprint.

However, the perception pervades that scrubbers and HSFO are bad –despite no science or data to back the perceptions.

So, my second point is that the maritime industry is hamstrung by emotional judgements driving business decisions. This is surely a recipe for financial disaster and the road map to failure when attempting to meet climate change challenges.

Capturing some of the CO2 from combustion on board ship, known as carbon capture (CC), is now possible. Will perception and beliefs regarding scrubbers prevent this very effective solution from reaching commercial application? Scrubbers are needed to prepare the exhaust gas for CC.

Behaviours, beliefs and incremental solutions are much more likely to achieve the climate change goals than decarbonisation.