Не успели еще до конца вступить в силу требования IMO по запрету в использовании судового топлива с содержанием серы выше 0,5% (окончательная дата – 1 марта, когда нельзя будет даже иметь такое топливо в судовых танках без наличия и использования бортовых систем очистки, т.н. “скрабберов”), как ученые бьют новую тревогу: на этот раз на смену сере пришел “черный углерод”. Так называют мелкую сажу, которую при низких нагрузках двигателя дает в выхлопных газах очень популярная замена для судовых мазутов IFO – очень низкосернистое топливо VLSFO за счет насыщения бензолами и толуолами. Концентрация этого “черного углерода” может достигать 85%, а это не меньшая, если не большая угроза нашей атмосфере. кроме того, не все так радужно и с природным газом – LNG – в виде судового топлива. IMO обещает заняться этим вопросом в ближайшее время.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) next month will review concerns that some blends of the new very low-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) emit higher levels of black carbon than the heavy marine oil they are meant to replace.
The global shipping industry since Jan. 1 has been required to comply with the IMO 2020 mandate that caps sulfur emissions of bunker fuels at 0.5 percent, down from 3.5 percent. To comply, carriers can burn VLSFO, marine gasoil (MGO), or install emissions-cleaning scrubbers to continue using high-sulfur fuel.
But just three weeks into the rollout of IMO 2020, research conducted in Germany and Finland in cooperation with DNV GL and engine builder MAN, suggested that black carbon — the term for carbon compounds laden with dark sooty particulates — formed in marine engines using blended fuels high in the aromatics benzene and toluene when combusted at low engine loads. Where these conditions were met, black carbon emissions could increase up to 85 percent.
“If immediate action isn’t taken by the [IMO], the shipping industry’s use of very low-sulfur shipping fuels — introduced to comply with the 2020 sulfur cap — will lead to a massive increase in black carbon emissions,” Sian Prior, lead advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, told Safety at Sea, a sister publication of JOC.com within IHS Markit.
Ned Molloy, an independent shipping consultant, said more testing needed to be conducted into real-world 0.5 percent sulfur blends used in compliance with the IMO 2020 mandate.
“A big question for regulators to clarify is what share of the VLSFO market is aromatic blends, and what share is paraffinic,” Molloy told JOC.com. “If the majority of 0.5 percent blends are paraffinic, then potentially the problematically high black carbon emission aromatic blends are a subset that regulators can deal with without getting rid of the whole VLSFO market.”
A spokesperson for the IMO told JOC.com that submissions received from Germany and Finland under the heading, “Reduction of the impact on the Arctic of black carbon emissions from international shipping” would be on the agenda when the Sub-Committee on Pollution Prevention and Response (PPR-7) meets Feb. 17-21.
The spokesperson said IMO analysts have been looking into how to measure and report on the emissions as part of the IMO’s work to consider the impact of international shipping on the Arctic. Findings of the sub-committee will be reported to the decision-making body of the IMO, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), that will be in session from March 30-April 3.
LNG’s methane problem
The submissions on black carbon emissions were followed this week by a report slamming the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a marine fuel conducted by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) and commissioned by environmental lobby group Stand.earth.
“Using LNG does not deliver the emissions reductions required by the IMO’s initial greenhouse gas strategy, and that using it could actually worsen shipping’s climate impacts,” the study concluded. “Further, continuing to invest in LNG infrastructure on ships and onshore might make it harder to transition to low-carbon and zero-carbon fuels in the future.”
Asked whether the IMO was investigating the LNG report, the spokesperson said she was not aware of a submission being made by the ICCT, and as a rule the IMO did not comment on other organization’s studies.
The ICCT study found that over a 100-year time frame, the maximum life-cycle greenhouse gas benefit of LNG was a 15 percent reduction compared with marine gasoil, but that was only if ships used a high-pressure injection dual fuel (HPDF) engine and upstream methane emissions were well-controlled. However, the ICCT said controlling the methane emissions upstream might be difficult given recent evidence that the methane leakage could be higher than previously expected.
Molloy said if the shipping industry was smart, more shipowners would opt for the less methane-leaky option, with HPDF engines able to transparently demonstrate that upstream methane emissions were monitored and under control.
“Ultimately, though, some shipping firms may decide it’s not worth the hassle of debating exact methane slip numbers and waiting to see if IMO cracks down on it, and just investing directly in scaling up full-size hydrogen and ammonia propulsion for the mid-2020s,” Molloy said.
Greg Knowler, Senior Europe Editor, JOC
https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/imo-review-black-carbon-fuel-emissions-concerns_20200128.html