The market of scrubber manufacturers is quite fragmented. Do you expect any consolidation? What might be the role of[ds_preview] Clean Marine therein?
Alan Linderoth: Yes, we expect consolidation. Synergies can be differences in products, fabrication and sourcing, after sale, business model and location. Clean Marine will be open for proposals and actively pursue good opportunities.
What is your ambition?
Linderoth: We believe that the competitive elements will be the capital and operational costs of the installations, but also the flexibility the system can offer, for instance a switch to hybrid and closed loop operation and not the least the serviceability and support of the system. This needs to operate all the time and should be such that the onboard crew and management can solve any shortcomings themselves. In other words the uptime may be the most relevant competitive element.
There is an on-going debate about oil/fuel prices as important aspect for the chance of scrubber manufacturers and their business case – combined with huge efforts on alternative propulsion systems. What is your expectation?
Linderoth: This is a complex topic. First of all, we believe compliant fuel, operation on distillate, LNG, LPG, Amonia, Methanol, electricity are complementary initiatives. And all are needed to achieve the goal to reduce health damages from particulate emission. Common for all initiatives are that they have pros and cons and price tags. Perhaps the compatibility issues related to complaint fuels will be as important as the price between heavy sulphur FO and compliant FO. Perhaps the some 10% extra CO2 related to conversion of heavy sulphur FO to distillate will count.
What do you expect in terms of technological evolution of scrubbers?
Linderoth: The objective of Annex VI (both NOx and SOx removal) are to reduce particulate matters and number of premature deaths caused by particulate matters. To remove both NOx and SOx in one go may be one evolution, another may be to address other particulate matters – nano particles and black carbon which is as much caused by burning distillates and even gases. And finally no emission to sea could be a target.
The politics seems to be not very open for the arguments of scrubber manufacturers. What should be done in this respect?
Linderoth: We believe the scrubbers should be seen in a wider perspective. When IMO debated Annex VI back in 2005–2010 it was said that 50,000 premature deaths in Europe were caused by particulate matters. Onshore activities had addressed this issue by introducing scrubbers, filters and alternative fuels for decades and now shipping was called to do the same. It was recognized by IMO that to convert an industry in one go, you must let »all roads to Rome« be open. And that is why we have equivalent solutions like scrubber, LNG, compliant fuels etc.
The elegant equivalence by scrubber is that this washing machine efficiently removes harmful particulate matter to be – the SO2 – and convert same into harmless sulfate that the ocean is full of and needs.
Yes, other species like soot and ash are captured in the washing process and ends in the sea. But so does the abundant quantity of sub 100 nano particles from burning distillate and also the identical amount of particles from burning compliant FO that may even land ashore and cause additional health damages.
