Marine Emissions Control

by
Mar 15, 2010, 10:47AM EST
Marine Emissions Control
The technology is there, costs are high and then there are the logistics of the systems. Note : Photo courtesy of Hamworthy

We have been driving cars and trucks for years with catalytic exhaust converters and now particulate filters which have been fitted to diesel trucks and industrial equipment.  During a visit to the MAK works in Kiel I noticed the efficient system of particulate filters that was employed on all of their transport equipment and the convenient filter exchange stations located about the plant. As for the average person little thought is given to the emissions control systems of their vehicles as they are relatively problem free.  In the early years there were some fuel related issues with catalytic converters as well as their performance impacted by poor engine maintenance related issues.  Nowadays instances of problems are few.

We now see the debate from the marine side. The elemental form of exhaust scrubbing has been in use for many years in the form of inert gas plants aboard tankers. Exhaust effluent was scrubbed and cooled with sea water in a simple pass through system.  Little was said about the effects of the effluent even though many scrubbers were used with HFO burning steam boilers using heavy fuel.  Inert gas plants aboard motor ships on the other hand were a bit more forgiving with respect to the effluent as they generally burned distillate fuel in the IG generator.

The stumbling blocks to acceptance by the ship operating community?

Any system will require a monitoring element and the associated maintenance and training.

From an engineering standpoint the obvious choice with respect to simplicity and logistical support is the open loop scrubber.  Other than maintenance of the internals of the spray chamber and salt water pump and associated piping we see significant reductions in the common pollutants including particulate matter. What we are lacking here is definitive data on the contaminant level and effects of the wash effluent as well as development of an internationally accepted limit for such effluent which will help  a ship operator to make a cost effective conclusion and selection of such a system. Scrubbing is applicable to the large majority of plants in the handy sector with current limits of application being plants up to 20mW. When we look at the large, high power plants of container ships scrubbing might not be possible due to the size and weight of such systems as well as the large water volumes,  if from one point alone the stability question.

Next we see closed loop scrubbers, much the same as open loop however, now we have an effluent treatment system and the logistics of  supplies and disposal  of both solid waste and contaminants from the wash system. One more point? The  human element and the added maintenance requirement of control systems.

Next we see the sophisticated systems such as Selective Catalytic Reduction and Particulate Filtration. While every operator should strive to keep his/her plant in line with it's design operating parameters we all know this is something that is unfortunately subjective and not always the case. The basic nature of these more sophisticated systems require "controlled and efficient engine operations"  at all times or one will face extensive problems maintaining both the emissions control equipment as well compliance. This was well documented in the early days of catalytic systems in the automotive world. Factor in again the maintenance and  logistics of supply, exchange and disposal of elements of the system and we see this option may be costly as well as inconvenient. Of course, should distillate fuel operation in all types of plants and operating areas be mandated, these systems might be the best choice.

How are we going to get this issue off center and move forward with environmental protection?  We need less debate on the issues of the effects of emissions on the environment, we all know what these are and increased efforts to document the pros and cons of the available technology that is available to enable an operator to make a cost effective decision for refit or incorporation in new building projects.

Let's not put the cart before the horse and implement legislation which impedes commerce when we must first place the costs and logistics issues versus efficiency in pollutant reduction in a simple and easy to read format so operators can move forward and get these systems in place. 
 
Report abuse



Bookmark this page to:Add to Faves Add to MyAOL Add to Simpy Add to Delicious Add to Live Add to Digg Add to Newsvine Add to Reddit Add to Multiply Add to Blogmarks Add to Yahoo MyWeb Add to Slashdot Add to Mister Wong Add to Spurl Add to Furl Add to Link-a-Gogo Add to Yahoo Bookmarks Add to Twitter Add to Facebook Add to Diigo Add to Mixx Add to Segnalo Add to StumbleUpon Add to Magnolia Add to Ask Add to Backflip Add to Terchnorati Add to Google Bookmarks Add to MySpace

Comments
Jon Watson
There are two approaches to SOX reduction, use fuel with a lower sulphur content or use exhaust gas scrubbing.
Exhaust gas scrubbing suffers two problems, cost and a lack of instrumentation.
It has been a long road to the Krystalon solution and much work done by SEAT including marine simulation of emissions trading; the cost is such that it is realistically only suitable for vessels permanently operating in an ECA and even then they depend on being able to recover costs through emissions trading.
The problem with the DRUM trial, as I see it, is that they relied on auditors to provide verification. The problem with this is that it depends too much on the integrity of the operators, even within a trading consortioum (and surely this would be more effective if open to all) and we have seen that there have been problems with corrupt Bunker surveyors so why should we not expect a similar problem with emissions trading?
That certainly seems to be the import of the NERA report on market baseed mechanisms prepared foer thee EU in which they suggest a need for monitoring. This would rrequire automated monitoring of the fuel sulphur and the exhaust gas emissions in order for trading to be effective. I note also from the NERA reports that there is a suggestion that not all the benefist would be available for trade and it would be the difference bewteen the actual emissions reductions and the reductions available to trade that would determine the cosst efffectiveness of the scheme.
At least, that is my understanding.
3/15/2010 5:26:22 PM
 
Ron Oyer
Good points Jon. As a "practical engineer" the concept of emissions trading is foreign to me. Can you direct me to a website that breaks emissions trading down in laymans terms?
3/15/2010 5:37:27 PM
 
Brian Geldart
There is another option for SOX reduction which also reduces NOX and based on real world test programs on diesel trucks it reduces fuel consumtion too. It is a catalytic device referred to as a catalytic booster. The inventor's company is Purify Solutions. Details on the device are available on the company's web site, http://purifysolutions.com/
3/26/2010 11:24:54 AM
 
Terry Collins
Jon - You are right on about the need to have verification as it relates to emissions content. Quantum has build a application that will provide this information in a format that will stand up to an audit when coupled with hardware developed by companies such as Alaris Companies, LLC,MICAD Marine and others.
4/13/2010 11:59:02 AM
 

Sign in

Latest blog comments

2/4/2012

dilipan thomas
well there is no job for most people who has finished studi...

2/2/2012

Saunders Jones
Joe, You are right on regarding both GMATS and the Super...

1/25/2012

Joseph Keefe
Mark: You get the prize, indeed. Thanks for weighing in....

1/24/2012

Mark Sales
An apt and appropriate view of the situation. It also shou...

1/24/2012

Eric Goldring
I just wrote an article on my blog about the hype which has...

1/20/2012

Shiran Senanayake
I believe that Cruise Masters are fatigued with so many por...

1/19/2012

Alan Loynd
Absolutely correct. With the largest passenger ships now...

1/19/2012

James Lynch
Well stated. The need for regulation is obvious in any fie...

1/19/2012

Eugene (Gene) Horton
Dear Greg, I read your article on “size matters” and found...

1/19/2012

Laurie Thomas
Joe, to add to John's comment, here's another gem/bad news ...

Post archive

March 2010(1)