Eng. Ömür Karataş – Ortech Marine Inc.
For many years, work has been carried out all over the world to find solutions for ship emissions.
Almost three percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions are released into the atmosphere by marine vehicles. To reduce emissions from ships and other sea craft, new technologies, penalties, and reward systems are being developed. The clearest result of more than ten years of international meetings on criteria and regulations is this: after 2027, penalties aimed at reducing ship emissions are expected to come into force. Countries that do not want high emissions in their ports are expected to start applying sanctions, beginning with commercial ships. The most influential decisions are made by the European Commission and in the meetings of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) known as MEPC. Decisions taken at the 84th MEPC meeting will have a major impact on these sanctions.
The sanctions that will start in the seas and oceans under the areas created by countries and the European Union—SECA (Sulfur Emission Control Areas) and ECA (Emission Control Areas)—will affect maritime trade. It is clear that smaller players in shipping will transfer their roles to bigger players.
In line with these efforts, countries that influence maritime transport trade are giving incentives to maintain their economic advantage. They are working with relevant organizations to build laboratories and test centers, and to produce fuels and engines that reduce emissions. In this way, they continue their research and development activities.
Saudi Arabia, the largest fossil fuel producer and a close follower of new and synthetic fuels, has started to take its place in synthetic fuel production by establishing the world’s largest King Abdullah laboratory. Germany, France, and China have taken important steps in testing engines that run on synthetic fuels, and in producing and commercializing the measurement devices that will be used in these tests. Brazil stands out as the largest biofuel producer, while Australia, Mozambique, Spain, and others have moved into zero‑emission fuel production.
We, on the other hand, continue to hold meetings with our NGOs, universities, commercial organizations, and authorities.
Because of concerns such as “If we produce biofuel, there is no going back,” “We do not have enough agricultural capacity,” and “We will disrupt the food chain,” we try to use biofuel by importing it. Biofuel is not like the fossil fuels we are used to. In storage tanks, it can become contaminated in a short time, its corrosive characteristics increase, it damages engine components, and it can cause failures quickly. So, instead of using it at 100%, we prefer blending. If it separates in the tank or in the system, ignition delays and flash points can go out of control. This can cause knocking in the engine and require maintenance earlier than planned.
Thinking methanol is more “manageable,” we consider mixing methanol in certain ratios into fossil fuel/diesel, believing it will burn more safely and reduce emissions. But storage and flammability effects create problems.
Hydrogen is still intimidating. Facilities needed for production are still very expensive, and storage problems are significant. If we could produce it and use it immediately, it would seem fine, but suitable equipment has not yet been fully adapted to ships.
Because ammonia production is tied to fossil fuels, it does not seem to offer much emission reduction overall. However, it attracts interest because it reduces emissions when used on ships. Storage and operational problems still continue.
Nuclear energy is seen as the safest, but it is impossible to apply it to all ships. Also, if we consider that a ship’s economic life is 30–40 years, then sending even 10‑year‑old ships to scrap could become an issue.
For this reason, new shipbuilding is progressing very slowly worldwide. Ship engines are being produced as dual fuel‑ready.
Wind power systems are attracting attention due to construction and trials at sea and on ships. In offshore wind farms, storms can cause blade bolts to break, which can take the turbines out of service in a short time. For this reason, the USA froze offshore wind projects and stopped both planned and ongoing ones.
Battery energy and solar‑supported systems have started to be used for passenger ships, short‑route boats, and river vessels. In such craft, the selected battery groups and equipment are extremely important. Poor choices can result in fires and explosions.
While we are watching all these studies and options from a distance and trying to decide what to do, European and other world countries have started to invest in solutions that suit them and to implement them both in their ports and on their ships.
As a way out of our confusion, we can even accept the option of: “Oh come on—how many times will we call at a European port? When we do, we pay the emissions penalty and keep going.”
Academics, authorities, and NGOs try to inform us by putting information collected from around the world in front of us. We are expected to make a choice that feels like choosing between two bad options.
Each time a ship’s keel is laid, its own unique features are defined, and it is built and shaped like fine embroidery. After it is launched into the sea, operators make plans to run the ship at optimal values—economically and with low emissions.
Freight concerns and chartering conditions prevent these plans from being achieved and weaken the follow‑up and evaluation system. Thousands of data points flowing from the ship become waste if they are not evaluated. They simply keep piling up somewhere.
But if systems were established to evaluate incoming ship data immediately and organize it to support decision‑making, that data could help the ship sail safely with optimal performance and lower emissions. Evaluating ship data on time not only extends the maintenance life of the ship, it can also reduce emissions by up to 25%.
In our case, the information on board can change depending on continuity of the staff. Seafarers who must hand over quickly do not provide enough information to the ship office; they can barely even transfer information properly to each other.
Evaluating and sharing information in real time—information that affects navigational safety and emission performance—supports the fastest reaction and action both on board and in the office.
Shipping companies that influence global maritime trade have started to apply cost‑effective real‑time management systems to their ships. In these systems, onboard data is fed into artificial intelligence to gain an information advantage for ship operation and management.
These AI‑based systems, developed through fleet‑level modeling, can be installed on other ships easily with a plug‑and‑play (ready‑to‑use) structure, with almost no adaptation process.
These systems are not affected by short‑term personnel changes. Their ability to collect information depends completely on system integration. AI‑based real‑time management systems reduce the use of incorrect or incomplete data to near zero. They also reduce emissions by influencing route optimization and engine fuel use.
In the period where existing ships are reaching the end of their service life, these AI‑based ship management systems can provide major support. The fact that service providers openly declare trial periods such as six months can be a striking example for reaching target emissions.
If you want, I can also produce a short, simple English “front-page version” (headline + 3–5 key paragraphs) from this translation, without changing the meaning.
Source: www.denizhaber.com