Thoughts On Govenment Fuel Consultations

[Alan de Enfield]

As we all know there are two separate consultations 'happening' at the moment :

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/817231/Implementation_of_CJEU_judgment_on_diesel_fuel.pdf

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/domestic-shipping-air-pollution-call-for-evidence

 

There is a separate thread running on each of them.

 

Having had some thoughts (rare, I know) I wondered what the two taken together meant to us.

 

Red Diesel

Boaters will either have to fit a second tank, or change over to 100% White and pay the premium of Full Duty and Standard rate of VAT (20%) instead of the currently reduced rate of 5%.

Fuel suppliers 'on the cut' will have to either stop selling Red and flush out their system completely and sell only White, or, add a second totally separate system of tanks, pumps etc at a cost of £x,000's

 

Having done all of this and taken the expenditure 'hit' in 2035 we than come under the 'shipping air pollution' Act (to be)

 

Shipping Air Pollution

 

Which basically means that no Internal Combustion Engined UK based boat can operate unless making trips to other countries.

Not only do we now (as an industry) have to write-off all the expenditure incurred in ??? (2025 estimate) meeting the 'Red Diesel' rules but now (2035) we have to rip it all out and replace it with something that meets the new regulations, (which currently looks like 'electric').

 

I wonder if anyone in Government has actually worked through these proposals and linked the two together.

In a business there is normally a single person who is aware of the 'direction' the company is heading, our Government has been 'headless' for decades when it comes to co-ordinated efforts.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/773178/maritime-2050.pdf

 

Suggesting that being at the forefront of technology will allow us to have a hugely profitable marine industry as an 'early adopter'.

One of their proposals is to have autonomous ships by 2050.

 

 

So these are 'ONLY' consultations but the 'Red Diesel' one is simply "How to implement the 2018 judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (case C-503/17)" 

 

The 'Shipping Pollution' consultation is simply looking at potential methods of carrying out the already agreed :

The expectation that the maritime sector will transition away from fossil fuels, as set out in the Department’s Maritime 2050 Strategy (published in January 2019), extends to all parts of the sector, including those vessels on inland waterways and in coastal waters that the Department is seeking to gather information on through this Call for Evidence. 

 

Both consultations appear to be "We are going to do it anyway, but lets ask how it may be achieved"

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[carlt]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

Which basically means that no Internal Combustion Engined UK based boat can operate unless making trips to other countries.

 

 

No emission control regulation concerning private vehicles has required ripping out old engines and installing new ones and I can't see this changing.

 

There will of course be incentives to change (like the scrappage schemes for older cars) but my ropey old Peugeot 205 does not have to meet the same emission requirements as my 1 year old Citroen.

 

I expect new boats may have to have electric motors in future but there won't be a requirement to retrofit.

 

 

 

 

[Captain Fizz]

Will C&RT be positioning lead lined bins for the disposal of my nuclear fuel rods?

[carlt]

2 minutes ago, Captain Fizz said:

Will C&RT be positioning lead lined bins for the disposal of my nuclear fuel rods?

 

No you'll just ring the collection service and they'll be picked up by giant cockroaches driving vans.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, carlt said:

 

No emission control regulation concerning private vehicles has required ripping out old engines and installing new ones and I can't see this changing.

 

There will of course be incentives to change (like the scrappage schemes for older cars) but my ropey old Peugeot 205 does not have to meet the same emission requirements as my 1 year old Citroen.

 

I expect new boats may have to have electric motors in future but there won't be a requirement to retrofit.

 

 

 

 

 

I would hope you are correct, but having read thru the documents, it would look as if 'having certain levels of emissions will be illegal'

It only takes the emission levels to be set below what can be achieved with ICE's and they become 'illegal' and condemned.

 

The targets would currently appear to be set at 'zero'.

 

Extract :

 

By 2050, the UK will actively drive the transition to zero emission shipping in its waters, moving faster than competitor countries and international standards to capitalise on economic benefits and be seen as a role model in the field. Close collaboration between industry, government and different parts of the supply chain, will enable lessons to be learned from other sectors, ensuring new regulation is appropriate and helping maritime companies realise the benefits of research and investment. Ultimately this will lead to the development and swift uptake of clean technologies.

 

It does not suggest Zero emissions from 'new vessels'.

[carlt]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

It does not suggest Zero emissions from 'new vessels'.

 

It didn't when emissions regs were tightened for cars either.

 

It soon became clear that retrofitting was unworkable and not even environmentally sound.

 

An efficient old engine is no further from "zero emissions" to a brand new electric motor and battery bank if you take into account the manufacture and installation process of the new kit and the removal and disposal of the old.

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, carlt said:

 

It didn't when emissions regs were tightened for cars either.

 

It soon became clear that retrofitting was unworkable and not even environmentally sound.

 

An efficient old engine is no further from "zero emissions" to a brand new electric motor and battery bank if you take into account the manufacture and installation process of the new kit and the removal and disposal of the old.

 

 

 

 

As I say, I hope you are correct (but still feel it won't go that 'way')

 

I won't be boating by 3035 (if I am still alive) let alone 2050 so it will have no effect on me anyway.

[carlt]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I won't be boating by 3035 (if I am still alive) let alone 2050 so it will have no effect on me anyway.

 

I suspect you will be dead....or very very old (or a giant cockroach).

 

 

 

[Detling]

The combined effect would seem to signal the demise of hire boats, and trip boats on tidal/river where a fair few knots are required let alone things like the city clippers where maybe something like hydrogen fuel cells could achieve the required power to weight ratio. I suspect they will have to do a fudge as usual, so small, old or existing vessels are exempt and add a tree planting tariff to the license fee.

There is a lot of smoke required at the moment to obscure the lack of any real government for the last few years, and probably the next few as well.

[Machpoint005]

58 minutes ago, carlt said:

(or a giant cockroach).

 

Been watching Starship Troopers again, Carlt? You seem to have developed an obsession with cockroaches!

[carlt]

1 minute ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Been watching Starship Troopers again, Carlt? You seem to have developed an obsession with cockroaches!

 

It's just part of my "Project Fear" campaign against nuclear reactors in personal vehicles.

[___]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Both consultations appear to be "We are going to do it anyway, but lets ask how it may be achieved"

 

Naturally. It’s a consultation, not a negotiation.

 

JP

[tree monkey]

1 hour ago, carlt said:

 

I suspect you will be dead....or very very old (or a giant cockroach).

 

 

 

Could I be a giant horsefly do you think?

There's a few people I would enjoy biting

[MoominPapa]

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

Could I be a giant horsefly do you think?

There's a few people I would enjoy biting

You're not being ambitious enough. Go for a giant seagull.

 

MP.

 

[Chewbacka]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

Naturally. It’s a consultation, not a negotiation.

 

JP

I don’t think I can remember a consultation where I was consulted which was anything more than a softening up exercise.  So by the time they do what they intended all along I am either resigned to it or some of the options they consulted on were so terrible that i am relieved that they have backed off a bit.  Either way they get what they want and I have given up.....

 

[Mike Todd]

8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I would hope you are correct, but having read thru the documents, it would look as if 'having certain levels of emissions will be illegal'

It only takes the emission levels to be set below what can be achieved with ICE's and they become 'illegal' and condemned.

 

The targets would currently appear to be set at 'zero'.

 

Extract :

 

By 2050, the UK will actively drive the transition to zero emission shipping in its waters, moving faster than competitor countries and international standards to capitalise on economic benefits and be seen as a role model in the field. Close collaboration between industry, government and different parts of the supply chain, will enable lessons to be learned from other sectors, ensuring new regulation is appropriate and helping maritime companies realise the benefits of research and investment. Ultimately this will lead to the development and swift uptake of clean technologies.

 

It does not suggest Zero emissions from 'new vessels'.

A 250,000 dwt oil tanker would take a lot of solar panels . . . might do OK leaving Dubai but struggle somewhat around Biscay.

 

However, autonomous shipping is being talked about quite actively already. Part of the world wide drive to eliminate low skilled jobs wherever. Interesting article in press a few days ago comparing this current experience with some previous phases in our economic and political development, not all of which turned out well for all concerned. That said, there is not much evidence to suggest that principle of 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer' is due for a re-write any time soon. Who was it suggested that the government would make work pay?