Adding fuel to the fire of environmental debate
Posted on | February 18, 2010 | 4 Comments
That law of unintended consequences continues to vex us , as the environmentalist said when a wind turbine blade came through his roof.
Marine fuel, once a relatively uncomplicated matter presided over by Chief Engineers in the quiet of their control rooms, is now a science in which industrial chemists and environmental regulators rule the roost. We have International Maritime Organisation requirements (which ought to be good enough for an international industry) thoroughly confused by directives emanating from Brussels, and made almost incomprehensible by Californians. It’s not ideal.
The same Chief Engineers now find that they are “fuel management systems operatives”, keepers of bewildering records that track the consumption of up to four different qualities of fuels, and which must be ready for inspection at every port. And while engaged in this bureaucratic catch-up, they must somehow keep the engine legal, discovering from the bridge whether the ship is likely to slip across one of the geographic boundaries that will require lower sulphur fuel to be coursing through the combustion system.
They must also keep the engine going, which is apparently not as easy as it once was, with the requirement for different fuels and appropriate lubricants, and an inability to make the boilers work on the lowest sulphur fuels. Meanwhile the purifiers are being forced to work overtime to try and ensure that the engine is not destroyed by an injection of catalytic fines that has come aboard in the latest few tankfuls from the bunker barge. Life has become very complicated, in the cause of a greener planet
Just recently in London, an audience of delighted marine underwriters was told by BMT Marine & Offshore Surveys’ principal surveyor Gerry Williams of a whole range of risks that have emerged from well-meaning green fuel legislation. Apart from that of stopping the machinery in a badly managed fuel changeover, and then not being able to start it again, the lower sulphur fuels produce a greater risk of damage from cat. fines, perhaps through poor fuel management or handling, rather than the fuel itself.
BMT surveyors had catalogued 30 cases of serious engine damage in the past 8 years from this problem, with very expensive repairs requiring renewal of pistons, liners and injectors, at a cost of between $1m to $3m. No wonder the underwriters looked gloomy.
We also are operating in the realms of the unknown with fuel of 0.1% sulphur, in that we don’t know if it will be available, or what it might do to engines that were designed to run optimally on something very different. We have biofuels coming along, with plenty of known unknowns in the risks of contamination, let alone those we don’t know about. “On board engineering skills are critical” said Gerry Williams.
Yet we hear of owners who are actually thinking of reducing further their engineroom complements on the grounds that “modern machinery requires little intervention”.
I suppose that the worry must be that one day a huge ship, disabled by fuel problems, will be washed ashore and cause massive pollution, causing the more thoughtful to reflect on the unintended consequences of environmentalism.
Comments
4 Responses to “Adding fuel to the fire of environmental debate”
Leave a Reply
February 18th, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
I have been fortunate to not have sailed as yet in low sulphur (SECA)areas so I’m not aware of the practical difficulties. But its only a matter of time before that happens. I only hope that they sort out most of the things by then!
Nice post.
Cheers,
Velu
February 18th, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
We have this topic as part of the Masters/Mates and Engineers revalidation course here in Delhi, the initial common classes, and I shall bring it up tomorow with the Chief Engineers present. Having said that, low sulphur fuel is inevitable, so the solutions will need to emerge finally – even if that means an additional GPS and set of charts in the Engine Control room.
On reducing complements on board, reports are already there about Masters and Chief Engineers refusing to join ships if the manning levels on board do not suit their expectations – for example, a Master I know refused to join a ship where the owner/operator had done away with the pumpman and placed only one cook on board. Another report doing the rounds is about some Masters refusing to join certain ships from a particular Hong Kong company, unless they place an administrative assistant (purser) on board.
How soon before ship’s complement becomes something driven by those who sail onboard?
February 18th, 2010 @ 7:35 pm
I couldn’t agree more with this blog post.
Especially changing over between LS/HS fuels is, in my opinion, a risky business: Sucking the day tank and settling tank nearly dry in some of the most heavily congested waters in the world (not to mention prone to severe weather conditions), just to save a few drops of that precious expensive LS fuel.
Frankly, I’m surprised there haven’t been more accidents because of this yet.
And now it seems that NOx and SOx actually cools down the atmosphere, instead of contributing to “global warming”…
Maybe someone should have asked what is technically possible and which substances actually affects the climate, BEFORE imposing a lot of legislation.
March 1st, 2010 @ 6:57 am
[...] more » [...]