Mark Williams
Boxing clever?
Membership Required: Premium £295
You need to be a Premium member to access this content.
All Standard membership options plus:
- Unlimited access to all news stories and podcasts on the website, including ship.energy coverage and the full Bunkerspot archive
- Exclusive access to ship.energy industry insights, online longer reads and analysis
- Six issues per year of ship.energy magazine — the industry’s journal of record — delivering authoritative insight into marine fuels, regulation, and technology. Subscribers receive access to both digital and print editions
- Premium members will also be able to take advantage of a 10% discount on the delegate rates for our Maritime Week Americas and ARACON conferences and a 5% discount on the delegate rates for all of ship.energy’s other conferences and training courses (discounts are solely for the named subscriber and are non-transferable).
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Lesley Bankes-Hughes
Rhys Berry
Ariane Morrissey
Llewellyn Bankes-Hughes
Interesting how LNG has taken off. I assume that it is because it is supposed to be cleaner than existing diesel. The question I have is, has LNG actually been tested for particulates, have not seen any results of the “supposed” tests or who have actually conducted them.
Personally I would agree with the WHO’s recent pronouncements on LNG, until test results are published together with the testing companies names.
Our small company has tested biofuels a number of times, these fuels were supposed to be much cleaner than dirty old diesel. We were put up against the different biofuel companie’s testing agents, who it transpired had only tested their biofuels in a test lab – wonder whether it was similar to Volkswagen? The results obtained for CO2 were not but better than dirty diesel, however the particulates were far worse.