Alternative fuels and scrubbers

The only present realistic, technically feasible alternative fuels for IMO 2030/ 2050 carbon emission targets are LNG/ LPG.  All alternative fuels have drawbacks over conventional diesel fuel in terms of energy density, storage requirements and safety.  

The most likely future scenario is dual fuel engines with capability for LNG for the next generation of ships.  All the major marine engine makers - particularly Wartsila and MAN - are ready for this.  Longer term it is likely there will be a range of fuels depending on size and trade of the vessel.  

The scrubber story has fizzled out with very small fuel spreads and drop in fuel prices.  Technically scrubbers are an absurd option:  

• You are burning dirty fuel with heavy residues over a cleaner fuel LSFO that is better for the engine with less wear and lower maintenance costs.
• You have to maintain and operate a complicated exhaust cleaning system that leads to higher carbon emissions from the main engine as well as additional maintenance costs, risks of breakdown and a burden on the crew.

The only motivation was cheaper fuel costs, which presently is nearly zero differential.  Turning off the scrubbers is a no-brainer and scrubbers are a stranded investment for the time being. Obviously, publicly listed companies like Star Bulk and Scorpio tankers, who have been selling the scrubber story to their investors argue that the fuel differentials will widen and their decisions are justified.  Time will tell.

The companies that held back on scrubbers like Euronav or installed them selectively upon charterers request and share in expenses like Safe Bulkers and Danaos have been justified and shown as more prudent management for their shareholders.