NYK signs up for direct air carbon capture scheme
Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS), derided as one of the least efficient possible ...
FDX: ABOUT USPS PRIVATISATIONFDX: CCO VIEWFDX: LOWER GUIDANCE FDX: DISRUPTING AIR FREIGHTFDX: FOCUS ON KEY VERTICALFDX: LTL OUTLOOKGXO: NEW LOW LINE: NEW LOW FDX: INDUSTRIAL WOESFDX: HEALTH CHECKFDX: TRADING UPDATEWMT: GREEN WOESFDX: FREIGHT BREAK-UPFDX: WAITING FOR THE SPINHON: BREAK-UP ALLUREDSV: BREACHING SUPPORTVW: BOLT-ON DEALAMZN: TOP PICK
FDX: ABOUT USPS PRIVATISATIONFDX: CCO VIEWFDX: LOWER GUIDANCE FDX: DISRUPTING AIR FREIGHTFDX: FOCUS ON KEY VERTICALFDX: LTL OUTLOOKGXO: NEW LOW LINE: NEW LOW FDX: INDUSTRIAL WOESFDX: HEALTH CHECKFDX: TRADING UPDATEWMT: GREEN WOESFDX: FREIGHT BREAK-UPFDX: WAITING FOR THE SPINHON: BREAK-UP ALLUREDSV: BREACHING SUPPORTVW: BOLT-ON DEALAMZN: TOP PICK
Now there’s a headline from Bloomberg, via gCaptain, that should make you sit up and take notice. A few years ago the European Union introduced its sulphur emission control area (SECA) which dramatically reduced the amount of sulphur content in ships’ fuel. The IMO has adopted similar rules for global shipping – in 2020 all vessels will have to burn fuel with a maximum sulphur content of 0.5%, compared with today’s proportion of 3.5%, although they can continue to use the higher-content fuel if using so-called “scrubbers” that clean the exhaust fumes. But the cost of scrubbers is currently prohibitive while at the same time the amount of refined fuel that fulfils the less-than-0.5% sulphur rule is unlikely to be enough to meet the requirements of the global fleet. All in all, its gonna costs a lotta dollars!
Comment on this article