By Ryan Skinner (email)
Yesterday's ZERO conference a very small step on the path to shipping's zero emissions future.
Perhaps it was the low turnout. Perhaps it was the ho-hum opening. But ZERO '09 convinced nobody of the future of zero emissions for shipping.Coming to such a seminar, one can't help assessing whether zero emissions is a valid goal for shipping. At a customer seminar for a major marine engine producer last year, I heard the organizers scoff at such a goal. Their scorn for idealism reflected none too well on their green aspirations, in general, but they may have a point. Why waste time and money on starry-eyed idealism, if smaller-scale, realistic improvements suffer?
Wilh. Wilhelmsen, for one, has endorsed zero emissions as a goal, with its zero emissions concept ship, Orcelle. Per Brinchmann of Wilhelmsen was on hand at the ZERO seminar to share the status of Orcelle and the outlook for zero emissions shipping. Neither were very promising.
If Orcelle was a good idea, the follow-up has disappointed. He showed a few slides documenting efforts to trial sails on a PGS seismic vessel (Wilhelmsen's neighbours here in Oslo) and to model a realistic trimaran hull. He concluded that the project was stalled, but hoped the recession would give it new wings as available yard, vendor and engineer capacity all increase.
A particularly interesting slide showed Brinchmann's assessment of different fuel sources for commercial shipping until 2020. Here's a gloss:
- Heavy Fuel Oil: We're stuck with it, but low-sulphur oils, scrubbing and carbon capture are worth exploring
- Distillates: Not easily available at competitive prices, and just as full of NOX
- Natural gas: Not easily available to shipping, and still a source of greenhouse gases
- Biodiesel: Not available to shipping, and rich in NOX
- Wind: Capable of contributing max. 3-10% to ship power
- Solar: Capable of contributing max. 1-3% to ship power
- Waves: Not available to shipping
- Hydrogen: Very expensive to create, and technically very difficult to store
- Nuclear: Very available and possible, but waste issues and a political hornet's nest
Where Brinchmann left off, Hanna Behrens of the Norwegian Shipowners' Association picked up. She asked her two dozen listeners what cargo is greatest by volume worldwide. Umm, oil? Coal? "No, air and water." And two dozen pairs of lips silently formed the words "smart *ss" simultaneously.
Behrens' most valuable contribution to our understanding of the effort to reduce emissions on a global level was this: the UN's climate change committee (UNFCCC) stipulates differentiation between countries' commitments and the IMO's charter demands equal treatment of all countries. Until this is resolved, we're going nowhere. Resolution may be forthcoming, she reported, but don't hold your breath.
Lastly a nice but unconvincing engineer talked us through a technical discussion of the merits of hydrogen fuel cells, which his team was employing on a test vessel called MF Vågen in Bergen. I hate to sound cynical, but our great zero-emissions future looked like a bathtub with bazooka tubes. And after he assured us that they had taken the necessary precautions to prevent Vågen from going up like the Challenger, I mentally reminded myself never to put my daughter on that thing, should we some day visit Bergen.
I believe in a zero-emissions future for shipping, and I believe in the value of aiming for such a future. But, for the time being, I think the biggest battle yet to be fought is in the political arena and in public perceptions from the US west coast to China's east coast. The real solution is less technical, than it is motivational and economical.
C'est très étonnant et blog de l'information fournie par l'article de ce blog est vraiment sympa et utile et je voudrais visiter le blog à nouveau....
Posted by: air max chaussures | April 09, 2012 at 08:54 AM