Will LNG Bunkers Solve Shipping’s GHG Emissions Problem? And Tyndall Centre Academic Says ‘No’
While switching to liquefied natural gas (LNG) bunkers may solve the shorter term problem of reducing certain ship emissions such as SOx, they will not address the wider challenge of reducing the sector’s GHGs, Dr Michael Traut, Research Associate at the Tyndall Centre,University of Manchester, has told Ship & Bunker.
The remarks will doubtlessly come as an astonishment to numerous in the business as impressive support, including a lot of state subsidizing in Europe, has as of now been put into creating LNG as a practical contrasting option to traditional bunkers.
In reality, resounding remarks from numerous others as of late, finally month’s LNG Fuels Summit in Amsterdam, Michael Shaap, general supervisor of Titan LNG announced that “I think everyone agrees at this point LNG is the future marine fuel.”
The focus is still on SoX but time to watch out for more!!!
Regulations tending to ship discharges to date have been overwhelmingly centered on diminishing SOx. Taking after MARPOL Annex VI’s coming into power in 2005 we now have emissions control areas (ECAs) in Europe and North America restricting the sulfur substance of bunkers to 0.10 percent, and not long from now the IMO will settle on whether the current 3.5 percent worldwide sulfur cap will drop to 0.50 percent in 2020 or 2025.
LNG bunkers are being touted as the ideal answer for marine to fathom the test of meeting these undeniably more tightly emanations limits, and with regards to MARPOL Annex VI it is anything but difficult to see why. LNG not just delivers unimportant outflows of sulfur oxides (SOx), which means they will meet all present and any future sulfur caps, nitrogen oxide (NOx) discharges are normally decreased by somewhere in the range of 90 percent, which means proprietors that do the change to LNG would likewise be protecting against the proposed future NOx caps.
A Call to reduce the Green House Gases!!!
With regards to GHGs, shipping as of now has no unequivocal duty to diminish them, and it was not referenced in the late COP21 worldwide climate deal. In any case, Traut clarifies that the IMO is presently under expanding weight to ensure shipping does its part to lessen GHGs in accordance with the objectives of COP21.
Keeping in mind some ship owners, for example, Japan’s NYK Line say they are particularly taking a gander at LNG “so as to meet the fixed directions on CO2 outflows from vessels,” this is one territory where the upside of LNG over customary bunkers is a great deal less claimed.
In fact even the most ambitious estimates of future LNG bunker adoption put emissions levels well above what is needed to meet the requirements of COP21, he says.
A Gap to be addressed!!!
“We need to acknowledge that there’s a gap between where we need to be, and where we’re heading at the moment, and get serious about really tackling it,” said Traut.
In terms of where we’re heading at the moment, he points to the 3rd IMO greenhouse gas study; “There’s a really broad range of scenarios to predict demand for sea transport, and to see how shipping will develop. All of them see growth in emissions and out of 16 presented only one sees emissions drop back to current levels by 2050.”
“So I discount LNG as it doesn’t seem to be a long term solution. While it reduces some greenhouse gas emissions, the CO2 emissions reduction is actually pretty small to non-existent when you look at the complete lifecycle. There are also concerns about methane slip. Also, what savings are made through the use of LNG would also likely be offset by an increase in shipping.”
In terms of where we need to be, Traut says that is a reduction in overall emissions.
“If you look at the Paris Agreement, the goal is to hold the global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees, and ideally 1.5 degrees. You can translate those temperature targets in GHG targets. You can argue that shipping should make the same reductions as other sectors, or you could say because it’s vital – or as it has been called, the servant of world trade – it should be granted more emissions space than, say, aviation where a lot of the emissions come from recreational use – people going on holiday etc.”
“But whichever way you put it, very drastic reductions in shipping emissions must be made. We need to aim for decarbonisation.”
Traut says that one of the greatest difficulties right now is that it is misty if shipping can make the required emissions diminishments. “We lack knowledge about how, and how much shipping’s CO2 emissions can be reduced,” he said.
“Is it possible? My research aims to answer that question, and we’ll only find out if we try.”
Did you subscribe for our daily newsletter?
It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe!
Source: Ship & Bunker
