EurActiv Logo
EU-Nachrichten & Politikdebatten
- durch Sprachenvielfalt -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Réseau

ALLE SEKTIONEN BROWSEN

Sehr geehrte Leserinnen und Leser!

Auf Grund des großen Erfolgs von EurActiv Deutschland findet die komplette deutschsprachige EU-Berichterstattung des EurActiv-Netzwerkes nun über Euractiv.de statt.

Die deutschsprachige Fassung von EurActiv.com wird nicht mehr aktualisiert, alle bisherigen übersetzten Texte bleiben aber im Archiv für Sie verfügbar.

Wir freuen uns, Sie künftig auf EurActiv.de begrüßen zu dürfen!

Marine fuel rules could cost billions, analysts say

Druckversion
Send by email
Veröffentlicht 21. August 2012

A European crackdown on pollution from ships will require billions worth of investment by shipping firms on filter technology and by refineries on upgrades to produce cleaner fuels - burdens the industries say they can ill afford.

The shipping industry is already struggling due to poor global demand and overcapacity, which have pushed freight rates to unprofitable levels for many operators. European refineries are under pressure from high crude costs, cheap refined product imports and weak demand.

To comply with new European Union laws, shipping companies now face extra costs of €2.6 billion to €11 billion to switch fuels or to fit exhaust filters that would scrub out the sulphur in marine fuel oil.

The new rules require that the sulphur content in shipping fuels fall to 0.1% from 1% by 2015 in "sulphur emission control areas" in the Baltic, North Sea and English Channel. In other EU waters, they will be limited to 0.5% sulphur by 2020, in line with global International Maritime Organization rules.

EU rules have already forced ships to cut sulphur emissions in harbours.

Burning cleaner marine diesel would be a quick fix that would meet the requirements, but it currently trades at a €284 per tonnes premium to fuel oil, which has 1% to 3.5% sulphur content and which most ships use.

Diesel shortage

What's more, Europe is structurally short of diesel, and its older, less complex refineries cannot retool to produce more diesel without significant investment and lengthy shutdowns. Upgrading plants to produce more diesel could cost at least €400 million.

Switching back and forth between fuels as ships enter the low-sulphur zones could damage a ship's engines, said Sigurd Jenssen, director of Exhaust Gas Cleaning at engineering firm Wärtsila Environmental Solutions in Helsinki.

Another option is for ships to use exhaust filters or "scrubbers" to prevent the sulphur in fuel oil from entering the environment. It transforms the harmful gaseous oxides into neutral sulphates, which can be dumped in the sea.

Scrubbers resemble big car exhaust systems and range in price depending on the size of the engine. A scrubbing system for a 14 megawatt engine of a 150,000 tonnes suezmax oil tanker would weigh over 22 tonnes and for a 55 MW engine around 86 tonnes.

Lindsay Sword, a senior analyst at Wood Mackenzie in London, expects scrubbing to become fairly standard on ships.

"It's not a really proven and well used technology yet, but we cannot see how the refining industry globally would be able to cope otherwise," she said.

"What would they blend into their existing fuel oil pool to get the sulphur content down from 3.5%? It would need something very low sulphur. It just would not make any economic sense for them to do it."

The technology has passed regulatory hurdles and is starting to be used.

Scrubber-maker Hamworthy, a UK subsidiary of Finland's Wärtsila, sold its first systems for commercial use at the start of this year. Its main competitor, Sweden's Alfa Laval, has also recently sold its first systems.

EurActiv.com with Reuters

COMMENTS

  • This article could have been somewhat more critical.

    “EU rules have already forced ships to cut sulphur emissions in harbours”
    Is there any reason why a ship, apart from when it is entering or leaving a harbour, should emit anything – after all it could connect to the local power network for electrical power? In answer: ship owners and port owners have been reluctant to invest in such connections – thus exporting the pollution the ships emit when in harbour to us. These facts place the word “forced” into context. “Tax-dodging ships owners have been “forced” to do something about their ships’ emissions” would have been a more appropriate line a fairer phrase.

    The other failing is the implication that this is all a surprise – oh dear suddenly the refineries and ships have to invest. These proposals have been in the legislative pipeline for years (at least a decade) – there is zero excuse either for ship owners or refinery owners. What it shows is that both groups have a reluctance to invest – after all, doing so would reduce profits and hence tax-optimisation (or would that be tax dodging?) activities.

    Doubtless, both groups will run whining to governments or the EU for “help” (i.e. a handout). Hopefully they will be told to sod off.

    By :
    Mike Parr
    - Posted on :
    21/08/2012
  • Balderdash.

    Everyone knows and the Shipping Industry has been fully aware that this has been here for years.

    I agree with Mr M Parr, the Shipping Industry must reconfirm its actions to clean up its act.

    And it will not cost €Billions that is scare mongering. Using cleaner fuels in shipping would work out cheaper.

    By :
    Karel
    - Posted on :
    21/08/2012
  • Just one step above asphalt, bunker fuel is one of the dirtiest fuels burned on the planet. The international shipping industry takes a huge toll on public health and the climate as it transports goods around the globe. A University of Delaware study (“Mortality from Ship Emissions: A Global Assessment,” Environmental Science & Technology, American Chemical Society: November 2007) concluded that marine air pollution causes up to 64,000 annual premature deaths each year worldwide, mostly in coastal port cities.

    Among the many fuels and technologies competing for a new role in shipping liquefied natural gas (LNG) is pre-eminently attractive. There are more than 300 ships powered by LNG, ranging from small coastal ferries to large oceangoing fuel transport ships. When bunker fuel is replaced by LNG in ships emissions of particulate matter and sulphur dioxide are virtually eliminated. Nitrogen oxides emissions drop by more than 70 percent and carbon dioxide emissions decline by 30 percent.

    More marine engine manufacturers are building dual-fuel (LNG/diesel) engines and the availability of LNG in Europe will rise significantly in the next decades. Meanwhile, ports around the world (i.e. including Rotterdam and Hamburg) are looking to reduce their emissions footprint using LNG. The transition to LNG in shipping – and to heavy duty trucks serving ports – will not be immediate or cheap but governments need to move in the same direction with the shipping industry to focus on new standards, regulations, and incentives that will help speed the transition to a cleaner and more sustainable marine fuel.

    Dr. Jeffrey Seisler
    CEO
    Clean Fuels Consulting

    By :
    Jeffrey Seisler
    - Posted on :
    22/08/2012
  • I personally agree, that it is time to put every mode of transport on equal grounds regarding the fuel quality. Sulphur has been removed from land traffic fuels long time ago. It is good to have some further standards for marine fuels, other than "if it burns, we can use it". If business in some short sea routes is not able to survive these changes, then it is bad business and should be terminated.

    However, there are some complications regarding the use of shore side electricity. First, electrical systems of ships' may work on different frequencies, some on 50 Hz others 60 Hz. This means that there have to be frequency converters on shore, which cost about 800 000 EUR/each. Second, there is no standard power plug to connect a ship to shore system. Third, how are the power plants of a port city able to cope with the suddenly increased electricity demand? Large passenger cruisers may require several megawatts of power while in port. These restrictions can be overcome, however, check the Gothenburg port in Sweden, for example.

    LNG is one option, but it needs expensive infrastructure and ship owners have to be convinced that they can sell their ships if they want to. Dual fuel engines look like a good option, which should remove "can I sell the ship, if I do not have use for it?" -dilemma. Buyers for a used ship may disappear if it can only be operated on LNG and not on diesel.

    Stick and carrot -approach will work if there are suitable economic incentives.

    Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen

    By :
    Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen
    - Posted on :
    23/08/2012
  • Brave words from supporters-who feel they are immune from the costs of these unnecessary requirements. You people think that someone else will pay for everything, but it is YOU who will pay, through higher taxes and higher prices. Change the headline to "Food And Fuel Prices Skyrocket Due To Stricter Fuel Rules" and think about how this affects you and your family. The whole European economy is sinking under the weight of UNNECESSARY environmental regulations. Yes, UNNECESSARY. The little bit of sulphur these ships emit out in the vast oceans doesn't hurt anything. Besides that, there isn't even enough diesel fuel around to meet the planned regulation!! Talk about wishful thinking! Smarten up people, before it's too late.

    By :
    Geoff Sander
    - Posted on :
    25/08/2012
  • This is a response to Geoff Sander's comment.

    Yes, we all will pay the increased cost of transport, but this is really an order-of-magnitude issue. Let us imagine that you are buying a TV set from your local dealership, which are brought to you by a containership from China to Rotterdam. Largest of these can carry about 15 000 TEU containers of cargo. How many TV sets will fit in to a TEU, 200-300?

    The SECA leg of the trip where the new fuel requirements will apply is about 1000 km of the total length of 12 000 kilometers. The additional cost will apply only for max 10 % of this trip, so you will be affecting only 10% of the total fuel cost, because high sulphur fuel can be used for the most part of the journey. The cost of shipping one TEU from SHnaghai to Rotterdam is about 1000 USD (http://www.jctrans.net/Freightshow/details-2062.html, OOCL is the carrier). The cost increase of freight price has been estimated to be 30-40% at maximum on some short sea shipping routes, but for the sake of the argument let us assume that this increase would also apply to long-haul cargo. The SECA would increase the 10 % of the freight cost (length of SECA leg when compared to the total length of the trip) which is 100 USD. The new price of this leg is 140 USD and the total cost of the trip is 1040 USD and this has to be still divided by the number of TV sets inside the one container TEU. So, before the new requirements you would pay 5 USD/TV set as transport cost, after the new requirements 20 cents more. I do not see a problem in this, do you?

    I would say that the impact of increased fuel cost is highly dependent on the type of ship traffic and short sea routes are hit the hardest. However, he/she who will consume the less fuel will win. Remember, the fuel consumption will increase as a cube of speed for ships and if you can afford to wait for 1-2 days longer for your TV set, fuel cost is significantly reduced. I would say that yes, you will get large percentages for cost increase, but this will have a negligible impact on the consumer prices.

    "Little bit of sulphur" is actually quite a lot. The combined SOx emissions from the Baltic Sea shipping are for example larger than those of Finland, Sweden and Denmark combined. If lives can be saved by reducing the sulphur I would say that the benefits outweigh the costs by a large margin. Of course if you can cap a volcano, you could reduce much more than that, but this is hardly feasible. Or convince people not to use coal for energy production.

    Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen

    By :
    Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen
    - Posted on :
    27/08/2012
  • The following refers, not to container ships, of which I know little, but to the passenger ferries.

    If I wish to cross from UK to Ireland, I now have to travel on a huge vessel, that pumps out black (sooty) smoke until the engine heats up. The huge size could only be justified for the very occasional movement of football crowds, for I have never been on a boat that was more than half full, the worst offender being the company that has taken over most of the routes and set up its own port facilities where-ever it has gone.

    What I, and most other travellers require on such a crossing is: a seat - preferably protected from the weather; toilet facilities; to be able to see the sea and the birds i.e. experience the pleasure of a sea crossing and not be confined to a moving Retail Park; have adequate space to park a car etc. and as cheap a fare as is possible.

    Some also require Tea, Coffee and sandwiches i.e. some food for those who have already being travelling for several hours and been unable to stop en route. We do NOT NEED a full 'high street' of food outlets; a shopping mall; a cinema and a recreation area; all of which are provided at the highest financial costings. We do NOT NEED a cinema and recreation areas - parents should be expected to be capable of looking after their own 1 or 2 children. We do not need a vessel with any cabins, never mind 3 levels of same.
    Smaller more appropriate vessels would use less fuel!

    By :
    Alison Tottenham
    - Posted on :
    27/08/2012
IMO photo
Hintergrund : 

The European Commission in July 2011 proposed amendments to bring the 1999 marine fuels directive into compliance with standards set by a UN body, the International Maritime Organization. In May, EU governments agreed on legislation to limit sulphur content in shipping fuels.

The IMO regulations – which took effect in 2010 and are designed to cut sulphur dioxide emissions in some of the world’s most congested ports and shipping lanes - apply to Europe’s northern waterways, much of North America and parts of the Caribbean. Ships travelling in the designated maritime emissions areas had to use fuels with a sulphur content of less than 1% by mid-2010, and on the open sea 3.5% by this year.

Those restrictions fall to no more than 0.1% sulphur content by 2015 in the heavily travelled areas and 0.5% in other coastal areas.

The shipping industry supports lower emissions targets but says there are not enough low-sulphur fuels being produced to meet today's needs. Meanwhile, the Roundtable of International Shipping Associations says steady improvements in efficiency, ship design and the development of alternative fuels will lead to more environmentally friendly shipping.

More in this section

Advertising

Sponsors

Videos

Video General News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Transport Promoted videos

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising