cleaner fuels in container shipping pros and cons
TRANSCRIPT
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