Foxm, i believe the environmentally friendly feature of recycling its engine exhaust has been a feature on this vessel long before the new structure aft of the funnel appeared, im happy to be corrected but if this is the case then what else could it be ?
I think there might be some confusion here, I personally don't think that Emma Maersk or these other ships have been fitted with scrubbers, I think it is being mixed up with the waste heat recovery system which I posted a link about last week. They reduce emissions (but probably not SOx to 2020 compliance) and increase the fuel efficiency by around 12%.
My first understanding from reading these links was that the unburned carbon was redirected back into the ship's main engines -
Maersk are spending a lot of money on these, they cost up to $10m a pop and they will have 78 ships fitted in total. The bad news for QFI is that MSAR might not actually be suitable for ships fitted with these. Because of the increase in engine efficiency using MSAR and because of the water decreasing the exhaust temperature, it would probably make these units much less efficient - virtually no soot and much lower temperatures = much less wasted energy to recycle.
The good news is that only 78 ships are being fitted, so that would still leave 87% of the rest of the fleet suitable for MSAR. And as I said before, if Maersk are prepared to spend up to $10m on one of these, with a pay back time of 5 - 10 years, why the hell are they going to be so against fitting scrubbers at $3m - $5m a time with a payback time of probably less than 2 years.
Another thing which hasn't been mentioned before, given the vast difference in the exhaust gas of an engine running on MSAR vs one running on traditional HFO (virtually no particulate matter, 50% less NOx), I would imagine a scrubber towards the cheap end of the scale would suffice. The amount of exhaust gas cleaning that will have to be done will be very significantly reduced. As well as the CAPEX of an MSAR scrubber, the OPEX would also probably be much lower.
Wartsila have been heavily involved in scrubber design over the last few years, they are pushing them hard. Given the close work done between them, Maersk and QFI over the last 5 or 6 years, it wouldn't surprise me if they have been working on a scrubber model specifically for an engine running on MSAR. I certainly can't see Wartsila holding up the issuing of the Interim LONO, it would be great news for their business if MSAR was widely adopted across the marine industry, they could also potentially be very big winners in this.
The SI was an ideal candidate for a 1st stage trial as i would imagine due to its age it was low risk and will soon be destined for the scrapyard. If the part lono/wartsilla comes good i believe Maersk will commit in full one of the larger newer vessels now fitted with a scrubber and this trial will be full on prior to the ultimate decision on MSAR
Ah, so these aren't Triple E's but the class' predecessor, the ' Class' Vessels. All of which are being upgraded. 4 of which already have the Scrubber from recent images I've found. (Yes, Ship spotters are as prevalent as their Plane brethren)
Prep H The size, shape & position on the Eugene Maersk of this additional piece of superstructure is identical to that on the Emma which has been confirmed to have had a scrubber installed. Stock images do not show the vessels with these massive structures added.
If I follow this correctly, Maersk, who see their initial compliance with the new sulphur regs as low sulphur fuel, not scrubbers, as per the RNS of 7 April, and are concerned (or is it others in the industry?) that there aren't scrubbers yet large enough, have already retro fitted scrubbers to at least two triple E's.
Now I understand!!!!
I think I'll retreat to the warmth of a decent bottle of Chilean Red and let it all flow over me. Will someone please wake me in a few months when all this Dick swinging posturing has finished.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.