cleaner fuels in container shipping pros and cons

Cleaner fuels to reduce emissions of CO2, Nox and PM10 by container ships:

A solution or a box of Pandora?

Dr. Jaap Vleugel & Dr. Frans Bal

1

Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences

Dpt. of Transport & Planning RISSK

Agenda

1. Introducing the challenge

2. Research questions

3. Application

4. Scenarios and main findings

5. Evaluation

6. Conclusions and recommendations

7. Future research

2

1. Introducing the challenge

3

Sea transport dominates global trade with 95%, corresponding to 3%, 30% and 10% of global CO2, NOx and SO2 emissions.

Transport volumes are rising. Rotterdam: pre-2008 forecast = tripling until 2033. More transport >> more energy consumption >> more emissions.

[IMO:] CO2-emissions may rise to 2600 mln ton without and 1600 mln ton with innovative technologies.

Policy making -> stricter regulation (MARPOL, local) and subsidies.

Technical innovations: Alternative fuels and fleet renewal.

Key trends

4

Key trends

5

CO2 emissions (in metric ktons) by transport, storage and communication industry in EU-27 1999–2008

Key trends

6

Emissions (in metric tons) to the air by transport, storage and communication industry in EU-27 1999–2008

2. Research questions

Does the use of cleaner fuels allow stabilization or even reduction of the emissions of CO2, NOx and PM10 in the year 2033 under a scenario of triple growth in container throughput?

What are the pros and cons of the use of cleaner fuels?

7

3. Application

In scope- Rotterdam Delta terminal at Maasvlakte I + ship movements in the port.- Ship fuels (conventional and alternative).

Not in scope/fixed- Terminal equipment, energy consumption and emissions.- Secondary terminal process (heating, ventilation, air conditioning, offices).- Hinterland transport.

8

ECT Rotterdam Delta terminal by night

9

A container terminal - overview

10

Rotterdam port area

11

Maasvlakte I and II areas

12

3. Methodology – model summary

Excel input-output model allows to vary input parameters:

- Container volumes, ship sizes and calls per period.

- Terminal equipment.

- Energy consumption and emission parameters.

- Fuel alternatives and their costs.

Calculates energy consumption and air pollution generated by a set of equipment h used in handling n million containers (per year) transported by m ships of specific sizes (= fleet composition).

13

4. Scenarios and main findings

14

- Options for ship owners/operators:

- (Partial use of) alternative fuels (biodiesel, LNG).

- Electric power/cold ironing (mooring).

- Larger ships.

- Combinations of the foregoing.

4. Scenarios

15

Reference scenario (2008).

4. Alt. scenario I (2033) : triple growth, same fleet

16

4. Alt. scenario II (2033) : triple growth, larger ships

17

4. Alt. scenario III (2033) triple growth, larger ships, shore power

18

5. Evaluation

19

A technically achievable reduction

Side-effects- Biodiesel from organic sources is problematic (food: scarcity, monoculture/plagues, biodiversity).

- LNG comes with massive leakages, extreme GWP, fracking solvents threat to water supply.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

Available technologies allow a substantial reduction in energy consumption and emissions per container ship.

Effective technical options may create new environmental and social problems. Biodiesel from organic sources is a bad idea on all accounts. LNG is also questionable.

Environmental policy should solve and not shift problems to other (poorer, more vulnerable) parts of the world.

20

7. Future research

- Using dedicated terminal data and data about hinterland transport to evaluate life tests with seagoing vessels.

- Fill some gaps in data and improve the financial module of the model.

21

Thank you. Any (other) questions?

22