Ship emission control – what’s your take?

The oil tanker Sonangol Kizomba, approaching the Golden Gate Bridge. (Flickr/http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterkaminski/)

UPDATE:

For those interested in reading more on fuel switching, I recommend reading the recent Marine Log article “Switching Fuels:  The Headaches“.

This past Wednesday marked the implementation of a new regulation in the state of California requiring every commercial  ocean-going vessels over 400 ft in length or greater than 10,000 gross tons to switch to fuel with lower sulfur content before coming within 24 nautical miles of the state’s coast.  California’s rule is now the toughest emission control for ships in the world.  This new rule applies to both domestic and foreign flagged ships. The regulation is part of a greater phased push towards requiring the use of cleaner fuels.  In 2012, another regulation is planned, and will require the use of ultra low sulfur fuel oil.

Clean air advocates are extremely happy with the new regulation, and despite your own personal thoughts on the issue, the regulation is substantial.  Ship emissions have been one of the only industrial emissions left relatively unregulated up until this point.  Commercial maritime shipping is one of the fewer industries that burns large quantities of heavy fuel oil, one of the most dirtiest of fuels, 1,000 times more than the diesel burned in highway trucks.

This new measure will help coastal residents breathe easier and reduce pollution in our oceans and waterways at the same time.  – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Not everyone is happy with the new regulation however.  The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) initiated a lawsuit in the federal courts to challenge California’s authority to regulate beyond the traditional 3 nautical mile limit of state coastal waters but lost the lawsuit on Wednesday.  The PMSA also points out the dangers of creating a patchwork of emission regulations:

The best approach for California, the United States and all maritime nations is to press ahead with international standards for ship emissions that will bring uniform and meaningful emission reductions throughout the world rather than an unworkable patchwork of localized regulations, said John McLaurin, president of the association, in a statement.

The requirement to switch fuels is also reeking havoc in the engine rooms of the ships that are effected.  Most ships that burn heavy fuel oil have large slow speed diesel engines which were specifically designed to operate with the heavy and viscous oil which has entirely different lubricating qualities than the cleaner low sulfur fuel oil now being required.   This has resulted in several instances of ships losing propulsion while entering or exiting California ports, creating a dangerous situation and risk of a large scale oil spill in coastal waters.  On June 16th, the Coast Guard issued a safety advisory on the practice of switching fuels.  The advisory recognized that fuel switching has caused instances of propulsion loss and urges operators to review the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) technical issues working group paper concerning fuel switching.

The API working group found that an unscheduled shut down of the main or auxiliary engine(s) could occur as a result of one or more of the following events

• Fuel Temperature during change over causing sticking/scuffing of high pressure fuel injection components as a result of thermal shock and reduced fuel oil viscosity and lubricity at the high pressure fuel pump inlet.
• Prolonged service with mismatched crankcase or cylinder lubricating oil resulting in accelerated piston ring/liner wear.
• The incompatibility of the fuels being switched causing sticking/scuffing of high pressure fuel injection components, or complete fuel pump seizure.
  
• Liner lacquering resulting in difficulties maintaining a sufficient oil film thickness

What is your take?  Are we trading one hazard for another?  Engine manufacturers are issuing specific guidance, that if followed, specifically and almost scientifically, will likely lessen the chance of losing the engines.  Are the world’s ship engineers adequately trained to follow these regulations?  Do shipboard fuel systems even permit the proposed procedures?   I myself reside in Oakland, one of the epicenters that drove the creation of the California regulation.  I see first hand the soot that collects on my windowsill, but I am not quite convinced that demanding a shift in fuel without some type of engineering solution first is the solution.  Is this the course for disaster?

QUEST on KQED Public Media.

Links

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

LA Times Article concerning the new regulation

Council on Combustion Engines – Comment on use of low sulfur fuel oil in coastal waters

My Life At Sea Blog – Excellent post on Low Sulfur Fuel and its impact on the maritime industry

Sustainable Shipping