european commission directorate general environment...

European Commission Directorate General Environment

Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments

Task 2 – General Report

Final Report

August 2005

Entec UK Limited

Certificate No. FS 13881

Report for European Commission Directorate-General-Environment Directorate C - Unit C1 B-1049 Brussels

Main Contributors Alistair Ritchie (Entec) Emily de Jonge (Entec) Christoph Hugi (Entec) David Cooper (IVL)

Issued by ………………………………………………………… Christoph Hugi

Approved by ………………………………………………………… Alistair Ritchie

Entec UK Limited Windsor House Gadbrook Business Centre Gadbrook Road Northwich Cheshire CW9 7TN England Tel: +44 (0) 1606 354800 Fax: +44 (0) 1606 354810

13554

h:\projects\em-260\13000 projects\13554 ec ship emissions\task 2 general final report 05241.doc

European Commission Directorate General Environment

Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments

Task 2 – General Report

Final Report

August 2005

Entec UK Limited

Certificate No. EMS 69090

In accordance with an environmentally responsible approach, this document is printed on recycled paper produced from 100% post-consumer waste, or on ECF (elemental chlorine free) paper

Final Report i


August 2005

13554

Executive Summary

This report forms part of the deliverables under Task 2 of the European Commission contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-Based Instruments.

Task 2 requires an investigation of the costs, emission reduction potential and practicalities of ship emissions abatement technologies. The focus of the measures is on abatement technologies for main and auxiliary engines installed on ships. Other potential emissions sources on ships such as boilers etc. are not covered by this study.

The abatement technologies to be considered for main and auxiliary engines are:

• Task 2a: The use of shore-side electricity (see separate report on shore-side electricity);

• Task 2b: NOx abatement techniques (see separate report on NOx abatement techniques);

• Task 2c: SO2 abatement techniques with a focus on sea water scrubbing (see separate report on SO2 techniques).

This report is the ‘General Report’ which describes a number of general or common underlying assumptions and methods employed to estimate the costs and emission reductions results that are presented in the separate reports about the technologies. These separate reports can be read on their own but they refer to this report for a further understanding of how the assumptions and results were derived.

This report also summarises emission reduction efficiencies of the technologies considered in Task 2; as well as the ‘maturity’ of the technologies and their estimated ‘business as usual’ uptake.

The final sections in this report consider the time for application to all EU-flagged ships and EU ports; the experience and details of emissions monitoring for ships; and the references used in the individual Task 2 reports.

Final Report ii


August 2005

13554

Final Report iii


August 2005

13554

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Vessel Details 3

2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Number of Engines per Ship 3 2.3 Engine Sizes 4 2.3.1 Main Engine Size 4 2.3.2 Auxiliary Engine Size 5 2.4 Engine Load Factors 5 2.5 Operating Hours 6 2.6 Total Engine Use 6 2.7 Fuel Consumption 7

3. Approach to Cost Estimations 9

3.1.1 General Assumption 9 3.1.2 Reference Year and Exchange Rate 9 3.1.3 Annualised Costs 10

4. Approach to Emissions Estimations 11

4.1 Baseline Emissions 11 4.1.1 General Assumption 11 4.1.2 Emission Factors 11 4.1.3 Emissions Produced at Berth by AEs 12 4.1.4 NOX and SO2 Emissions Produced by All Engines in All

Operations 12 4.2 Emissions Reductions 13 4.2.1 Impact of Abatement Measures 13 4.3 Impact of Shore-side Electricity 14 4.3.1 Per Ship 14 4.3.2 Per Berth 14 4.3.3 Per Shore-Side Electricity System 15 4.3.4 Operating Hours 15 4.4 Emission Reduction 15

Final Report iv


August 2005

13554

5. Technology Maturity and Business as Usual Uptake 17

5.1 Technology Maturity 17 5.2 Expected BAU Uptake of Technologies 18

6. Time for application to all EU-flagged ships and EU Ports 21

7. NOx and SO2 Emission Monitoring 23

7.1 Experience of Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for Ships 23

7.2 Techniques for CEMS for Ships 24 7.3 Costs of CEMS 26 7.4 Tamper-proofing of Monitoring Instruments 27

8. References 29 Table 2.1 Assumed engine numbers and engine sizes for three different vessel size classes 4 Table 2.2 Main engine size categories and representative engine size 4 Table 2.3 Auxiliary engine size categories and representative engine size 5 Table 2.4 Proportion of installed capacity represented by MEs and AEs 5 Table 2.5 Main and Auxiliary Engine Load Factors 6 Table 2.6 Assumed average operating hours for different activities and locations 6 Table 2.7 Main engine power use per vessel and year 7 Table 2.8 Auxiliary engine power use per vessel and year (there are 4 AEs per ship) 7 Table 2.9 Total engine power use per vessel (1 ME and 4 AEs) 7 Table 2.10 Specific Fuel Consumption 8 Table 2.11 Fuel consumption by AEs at berth per vessel and year 8 Table 2.12 Total fuel consumption per vessel and year 8 Table 3.1 Exchange rates assumed 9 Table 4.1 Emission factors 11 Table 4.2 Total annual emissions produced by AEs at one berth 12 Table 4.3 NOX Emissions produced per vessel and year 13 Table 4.4 SO2 Emissions produced per vessel and year 13 Table 4.5 Estimated times used for shore-side electricity system 15 Table 4.6 Emission reduction efficiencies 16 Table 5.1 Maturity of all measures 17 Table 5.2 Technology uptake rate under business as usual (BAU) policies and economic trends for

EU flagged vessels 19 Table 5.3 Technically viable additional take-up beyond BAU 20 Table 6.1 Practical time required to convert EU-flagged ships to using either shore-side electricity or

additional emission abatement equipment. 21 Table 7.1 Basic principles for CEMS 25 Table 7.2 Approximate costs for CEMS 27

Final Report 1


August 2005

13554

1. Introduction

This report forms part of the deliverables under Task 2 of the European Commission contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-Based Instruments.

Task 2 requires an investigation of the costs, emission reduction potential and practicalities of ship emissions abatement technologies. The focus of the measures is on abatement technologies for main and auxiliary engines installed on ships. Other potential emissions sources on ships such as boilers etc. are not covered by this study.

The technologies to be considered for main and auxiliary engines are:

• Task 2a: The use of shore-side electricity (see report on shore-side electricity);

• Task 2b: NOx abatement techniques (see report on NOx abatement techniques);

• Task 2c: SOx abatement techniques with a focus on sea water scrubbing (see report on SO2 abatement techniques).

A number of underlying assumptions and basic methods to estimate the costs and emission reductions of the different abatement technologies are common for each technology. This report (General Report) describes these underlying assumptions and methods employed to derive the results that are presented in the separate reports about the technologies. These separate reports can be read on their own but they refer to this report for a further understanding of how the assumptions and results were derived.

Final Report 2


August 2005

13554

Final Report 3


August 2005

13554

2. Vessel Details

2.1 Introduction In relation to the specific objectives of this study, it was not within the scope of work to develop new datasets, but to use and programme the emissions database developed under the Entec 2002 ship emissions quantification study for the Commission (Entec 2002). The underlying vessel movements data for that study was based on the most comprehensive databases available at the time1 (the Lloyds Maritime Intelligence Unit (LMIU) ship movements database, in combination with the Lloyd’s Maritime Information System (LMIS) vessel characteristic database), which includes commercial ships > 500 gross tonnes (GT) (approx. 31,000 ships worldwide). Vessels smaller than this are not recorded in the database and are therefore not explicitly covered in this study.

For the purpose of this study, the fleet is divided into small, medium, and large ships according to the installed auxiliary engine (AE) and main engine (ME) power.

For this study it was assumed that vessels which visit a port at least every eight weeks are on regular service. This is a working assumption purely for the purposes of this study, as the abovementioned databases used in this study do not enable a direct identification of such vessels based on the definition in the Sulphur Content of Marine Fuels Directive.

The specific costs and emission reductions per representative ship in each size category are then scaled up to provide an estimate of the cost of installing and using emission abatement technologies on all the engines onboard ships. The focus of this quantification is on EU flagged vessels.

In the following sections the general assumptions used in the study are described in detail.

2.2 Number of Engines per Ship Emission abatement equipment is often fitted on an engine-by-engine basis. Therefore the costs of emission abatement equipment will vary depending upon the size and number of engines.

A search was undertaken on the Lloyd’s Register - Fairplay database to determine how many engines are installed per ship. There are on average 1.4 main engines (ME) and 3.5 auxiliary engines (AE) installed per ship. This study assumes that there are 1 ME and 4 AEs installed per ship as depicted in Table 2.1.

1 Also referred to as the Lloyd’s Register – Fairplay databases.

Final Report 4


August 2005

13554

Table 2.1 Assumed engine numbers and engine sizes for three different vessel size classes

Small Medium Large

ME 1 small 1 medium 1 large

AE 4 small 4 medium 4 large

2.3 Engine Sizes These reports only cover emissions from auxiliary and main engines on ships as reported in the Lloyd’s Register - Fairplay database. Some individual ships and ship types may have significant additional installations, such as boilers on tankers, production facilities etc., but their emissions have not been covered in this study as not directly transport related.

2.3.1 Main Engine Size Three main engine size categories were chosen to represent the range of engine sizes in the EU-flagged fleet. Within each category a rough estimate of a representative size was chosen, as shown in Table 2.2. This table also illustrates the range of engine sizes in each category and the profile for the world and EU-flagged fleet.

Table 2.2 Main engine size categories and representative engine size

Small Medium Large

Class boundaries ME kW rating (kW)

ME < 6,000 kW 6,000 kW <= ME < 15,000 kW 15,000 kW =< ME

Upper and low engine sizes in each range (kW)

75-6,000 6,000-15,000 15,000-146,618

Representative engine size used in calculations (kW)

3,000 10,000 25,000

Fraction of ships using SSD 2-stroke engines

48% 58% 55%

EU-flagged fleet >500GT

Fraction of EU-flagged ships falling into the ME categories

55% 35% 10%

Fraction of total EU-flagged fleet installed capacity

20% 45% 35%

World fleet >500GT

Fraction of world fleet ships falling into the ME categories

60% 30% 10%

Final Report 5


August 2005

13554

2.3.2 Auxiliary Engine Size Three auxiliary engine size categories were chosen to represent the range of installed AE capacity in the EU-flagged fleet. Within each category a representative installed capacity was chosen as depicted in Table 2.3. This table also illustrates the range of engines sizes in each category and the profile for EU-flagged fleet.

Table 2.3 Auxiliary engine size categories and representative engine size

Small Medium Large

Class boundaries AE kW rating (kW)

AE < 1,000 kW 1,000 kW <= AE < 2,000 kW 2,000 kW =< AE

Representative installed engine capacity used in calculations (kW)

530 1,470 3,780

Upper and low engine capacity in each range (kW)

4-1,000 1,000-2,000 2,000-18,687

Fraction of EU-flagged ships falling into the AE categories

33% 33% 33%

Fraction of total EU-flagged fleet installed AE capacity

10% 25% 65%

The proportion of installed engine capacity represented by MEs and AEs is shown in Table 2.4. This outlines the dominant contribution which installed ME capacity makes to total installed capacity aboard ships.

Table 2.4 Proportion of installed capacity represented by MEs and AEs

Small Medium Large

Fraction of ME installed capacity of total ship’s installed capacity (%)

84% 88% 91%

Fraction of AE installed capacity of total ship’s installed capacity (%)

16% 12% 9%

Total installed capacity (%) 100% 100% 100%

2.4 Engine Load Factors Table 2.5 outlines the assumed engine load factors of MEs and AEs for ships at sea, at berth and manoeuvring. Load factors will vary between ship types but for the purposes of this study average load factors are used.

Final Report 6


August 2005

13554

Table 2.5 Main and Auxiliary Engine Load Factors

ME AE

Load factor

(%) Operation (% of time)

Load factor (%)

Operation (% of time)

At sea 80% 100% 30% 100%

Ships at berth 20% 5% (Note 1) 40% 100%

Manoeuvring 20% 100% 50% 100%

Note 1: This assumption underestimates the emissions for tankers at berth since tankers operate MEs at higher operating times.

2.5 Operating Hours Table 2.6 outlines the average operating times at sea and in port (manoeuvring and at berth) assumed in this study. These times are derived from research including:

• a query of the Lloyd’s Register - Fairplay database on ship movements;

• port activity questionnaires from the Entec 2002 report; and

• additional port activity questionnaires collected in 2004-2005.

Table 2.6 Assumed average operating hours for different activities and locations

Average operating hours of engines(hours/year)

Time at Sea 6,000

Time at Berth 700

Time Manoeuvring 20

Total Operating Time 6,720

Not Operating (no relevant load factors on engines) (refurbishment etc. ) 2,040

Total hours per year 8,760

2.6 Total Engine Use Total power used by engines per year was calculated by multiplying the representative installed capacity for each engine size category (Table 2.2, Table 2.3) by the engine loads (Table 2.5) and hours of operation (Table 2.6). Table 2.7 and Table 2.8 show the yearly power consumption by main and auxiliary engines in the different modes per year. Table 2.9 depicts the total power used in the different modes per ship of a certain size.

Final Report 7


August 2005

13554

Table 2.7 Main engine power use per vessel and year

Small Medium Large

(kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year)

At sea 14,400,000 48,000,000 120,000,000

At berth 21,000 70,000 175,000

Manoeuvring 12,000 40,000 100,000

Total Power Use 14,433,000 48,110,000 120,275,000

Table 2.8 Auxiliary engine power use per vessel and year (there are 4 AEs per ship)

Small Medium Large


At sea 4·252,000 = 1,008,000 4·666,000 = 2,664,000 4·1,710,000 = 6,840,000

At berth 4·39,200 = 156,800 4·103,600 = 414,400 4·266,000 = 1,064,000

Manoeuvring 4·1,400 = 5,600 4·3,700 = 14,800 4·9,500 = 38,000

Total Power Use 4·292,600 = 1,170,400 4·773,300 = 3,093,200 4·1,985,500 = 7,942,000

Table 2.9 Total engine power use per vessel (1 ME and 4 AEs)

Vessel Size

Small Medium Large


At sea 15,408,000 50,664,000 126,840,000

At berth 177,800 484,400 1,239,000

Manoeuvring 17,600 54,800 138,000

Total Power Use 15,603,400 51,203,200 128,217,000

2.7 Fuel Consumption Specific fuel consumption factors used are outlined in Table 2.10 (Source: Entec 2002). Expected average fuel use per year by auxiliary engines at berth is outlined in Table 2.11, and is used specifically in the report on shore-side electricity. The total fuel consumption of the different vessel sizes are depicted in Table 2.12.

Final Report 8


August 2005

13554

Table 2.10 Specific Fuel Consumption

sfc (g/kWh)

Shore-side Electricity Report - auxiliary engines using 0.1% sulphur MD 217

Shore-side Electricity Report - auxiliary engines using 2.7% sulphur RO 227

NOx Abatement and Sea Water Scrubbing Reports – Both main and auxiliary engines using a mix of RO and MD

200

NOx Abatement and Sea Water Scrubbing Reports – Ships using MD 196

Table 2.11 Fuel consumption by AEs at berth per vessel and year

Small Medium Large

(t/year/vessel) (t/year/vessel) (t/year/vessel)

Fuel consumption by AEs at berth 32 89 230

Table 2.12 Total fuel consumption per vessel and year

Small Medium Large

(t/year) (t/year) (t/year)

At sea 3,082 10,133 25,368

At berth 40 110 281

Manoeuvring 4 12 31

Total fuel consumption per year 3,126 10,255 25,680

Final Report 9


August 2005

13554

3. Approach to Cost Estimations

3.1.1 General Assumption This study seeks to determine best estimate figures for costs wherever possible. However, in cases where available data is particularly limited or subject to significant uncertainty, the study generally errs on the side of caution. For example, where estimates have been made for the lifespan of particular abatement equipment, but the equipment has not yet been in operational service long enough to demonstrate that lifespan, we may assume a slightly shorter lifespan than that currently predicted. The detailed reports describe the available data sources and the assumptions that have been used in deriving cost estimations for the specific items of abatement equipment of interest to this study.

The costs were calculated per ship or berth and then scaled up to estimate costs for converting all EU-flagged ships.

3.1.2 Reference Year and Exchange Rate The reference year for costs is the year 2000 in order to be consistent with the cost data developed within the RAINS model. Costs from other years were corrected for inflation assuming an inflation rate of 2.5% per year. In a few cases it was not certain which year costs were quoted, although these costs were quoted at most 3 years from the year 2000. In these cases, the costs were not corrected for inflation. Exchange rates assumed are listed in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Exchange rates assumed

Exchange rate assumed

US$1 = € 0.8

£1 = € 1.5

Final Report 10


August 2005

13554

3.1.3 Annualised Costs In accordance with Commission policy, a 4% discount rate is used in the cost calculations. Annualised costs are derived using the following formula:

1)1()1(−+

+=

+×=

n

n

iiifAP

OpexAnnualfAPCapexTotalA

where:

A: annualised costs,

Total Capex: total fixed cost expenditure

fAP: annualisation factor;

Annual Opex annual operating costs;

i: discount rate; and

n: life span of measure

Final Report 11


August 2005

13554

4. Approach to Emissions Estimations

4.1 Baseline Emissions

4.1.1 General Assumption As for costs, this study seeks to determine best estimate figures for emissions estimations and emissions reductions achievable by abatement equipment wherever possible. However, in cases where available data is particularly limited or subject to significant uncertainty, the study generally errs on the side of caution, in order to try to avoid overestimating the emission reduction potential. The detailed reports describe the available data sources and the assumptions that have been used in deriving emission reduction potentials for the specific items of abatement equipment of interest to this study.

4.1.2 Emission Factors Emission factors assumed for this task are shown in Table 4.1. These figures are average figures based on emission factors for individual engine types, load factors and engine type composition of world fleet. As these figures are averages there can be significant variation across individual ships and situations (Entec 2002).

Table 4.1 Emission factors

Emission factor2 NOX SO2 VOC PM (Note 1)

(g/kWh) (g/kWh) (g/kWh) (g/kWh)

Shore-side Electricity Report - Auxiliary engines using 2.7% sulphur RO (current average)

12.47 12.30 0.40 0.80

Shore-side Electricity Report - Auxiliary engines using 0.1% sulphur MD (EU 2010 limit)

11.8 0.46 0.40 0.30

NOx Abatement and Sea Water Scrubbing Reports – Both main and auxiliary engines using a mix of RO and MD

15.0 11.0 0.55 1.2

Note 1: PM in this study is total primary particulate matter. The dominant particle size for diesel engines can be expected to be < 1 micrometer, i.e. smaller than PM1.

2 Perceived inconsistencies in the depicted emission factors are due to variations in specific fuel consumptions (see Table 2.10) and different engine speeds (AE are mainly HSD and MSD whereas ME are mainly SSD)

Final Report 12


August 2005

13554

The use of shore-side electricity will be compared to ships using 2.7% sulphur residual oil, the current mix of fuels used at berth. The use of shore-side electricity will also be compared to 0.1% sulphur marine distillate (MD) at berth – as 0.1% will be the sulphur limit for ships at berth in EU ports from 2010, under the recently agreed marine fuel sulphur directive.

An average figure for NOx of 15 gNOx/kWh was used for engines at sea. This was to reflect the likely emissions in 2010 to take into account the slight drop in NOx emissions from the current average 16 gNOx/kWh due to the IMO NOx code implemented for engines built after 2000.

4.1.3 Emissions Produced at Berth by AEs The expected emissions produced at berth by auxiliary engines are shown in Table 4.2. It was assumed that a berth that provides shore-side electricity has an average utilisation of 70% (i.e. 6,132 hours/year) of the time and serves only ships of a certain size (small, medium, or large). The emissions are shown as the amount produced at a particular berth per year, which refers to the emissions from all the engines on all the ships that visit that berth that year.

Table 4.2 Total annual emissions produced by AEs at one berth

Emission Small Medium Large

AEs using 2.7% sulphur RO (t/year/berth) (t/year/berth) (t/year/berth)

NOX 16.2 44.9 115.7

SO2 16.0 44.3 114.1

VOC 0.5 1.4 3.7

PM 1.0 2.9 7.4

AEs using 0.1% sulphur MD

NOX 15.3 42.4 109.1

SO2 0.6 1.7 4.4

VOC 0.5 1.4 3.7

PM 0.4 1.1 2.8

4.1.4 NOX and SO2 Emissions Produced by All Engines in All Operations Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 outline the NOx and SO2 emissions produced by both main and auxiliary engines in all operating modes: at sea, manoeuvring and at berth. This is based on the fuel mix used by engines in the year 2000, prior to regulations requiring all ships at berth to use 0.1% sulphur marine distillate.

Final Report 13


August 2005

13554

Table 4.3 NOX Emissions produced per vessel and year

NOX Small Medium Large


At sea 231 760 1,903

At berth 3 7 19

Manoeuvring 0 1 2

Total Emissions 234 802 1,924

Table 4.4 SO2 Emissions produced per vessel and year

SO2 Small Medium Large


At sea 169 557 1,395

At berth 2 5 14

Manoeuvring 0 1 2

Total Emissions 172 564 1,411

4.2 Emissions Reductions

4.2.1 Impact of Abatement Measures The emissions reduced per year by applying abatement measures are first analysed for individual AE and ME engine sizes. The emissions reduced can be generically expressed as:

Formula 1 )e (kg/yearith measurmissions w/year) - Eeasure (kg without m Emissions/year) educed (kgEmission r =

The emissions reduced per engine are then scaled up to represent that reduced per ship. The emissions for a ship (without or with measures) are calculated based on Formula 2.

Formula 2

)

(4)

(1

,

,,,

,

portinportinMEportiniAE

manmanMEmaniAEseaatseaatAEat seaiAEportininportMEportiniME

manmanMEmaniMEseaatseaatMEaME,i at se

TLFEF

TLFEFTLFEFAETLFEF

TLFEFTLFEFMEear) ship (kg/yperEmission

⋅⋅

+⋅⋅+⋅⋅⋅×+⋅⋅

+⋅⋅+⋅⋅⋅×=

Where:

ME: Main engine kW rating of ship (kW)

Final Report 14


August 2005

13554

AE: Auxiliary engine kW rating of ship (kW)

EF: Emission factors of main/auxiliary engine for emissions of different configurations i (i.e. SO2 for SWS) in different locations (i.e. at sea, manoeuvring, in-port) (g/kWh)

LF: Load factors of engines (%)

T: Time spent in different modes relevant for emissions (hours/year)

4.3 Impact of Shore-side Electricity There are three different systems for which emission reductions are allocated for shore-side electricity:

1. Per ship (section 4.3.1)

2. Per berth (section 4.3.2)

3. Per shore-side electricity system (section 4.3.3)

4.3.1 Per Ship On a per ship basis, the emission reduction achieved per year by using shore side electricity can be expressed as:

ERper ship (g/year) = AE*LF*TIP*EF

Where:

AE: AE kW rating of ship (kW)

LF: Load factor for AE in ports (%), estimated to be 40% (Entec 2002)

TIP: Time in port using shore-side electricity per year (h/year)

EF: Emission reduction factors i.e. difference between baseline emission factor and emission factor of the abatement measure (g/kWh)

4.3.2 Per Berth On a per berth basis the emissions reduction achieved per year by employing shore side electricity can be expressed as:

ERper berth (g/year) = AE*LF*UR*365*24*EF

Where:

AE: Average AE kW rating of ships at berth (kW)

LF: Load factor for AE in ports (%), estimated to be 40% (Entec 2002)

UR: Utilisation rate of shore-side electricity at berth (%), estimated to be 70%

EF: Emission reduction factors (g/kWh)

Final Report 15


August 2005

13554

4.3.3 Per Shore-Side Electricity System A shore-side electricity system consists of a berth and an average number of ships needed to be converted to achieve a required utilisation of the berth. The emission reduction for the system stays the same as for a berth (see section 4.3.2) – in other words the consideration “per shore-side electricity system” is only relevant when considering overall costs.

4.3.4 Operating Hours This study analyses the cost effectiveness of shore-side electricity systems i.e. ships and berth equipped to use/provide shore-side electricity. It is obvious that only the system can deliver any emission reductions i.e. emission reductions and costs of the shore-side electricity system depend upon the hours of AE power substituted by shore-side electricity. Table 4.5 summarises the relevant operating hours and assumptions that are used.

Table 4.5 Estimated times used for shore-side electricity system

Average

Berth: Berth utilisation (% of year) 70%

Berth: Hours per year (hours/year) 24·365·0.7 = 6,130

Ship: Time at berth using AE (hours per year per ship) 700

Ship: Average number of converted ships needed per berth (-) 6,130/700 = 8.76

Shore-side electricity system usage at berth (hours/year) 6,130

4.4 Emission Reduction Table 4.6 summarises the assumed reduction efficiencies of the technologies in this study. The individual figures are explained and justified in the separate technology reports.

Emissions produced from engines depend upon a range of factors such as load factor, engine speed, engine age, fuel type and type of engine. However, there is generally limited information regarding the variation of emission reduction efficiency of different abatement measures specific to these factors. As such, we have applied single best estimate values for the purposes of this report. In practice there is a range of uncertainty around these estimates that should be explored through sensitivity analysis in any future cost benefit analysis. The expected emission reductions from abatement technologies are quoted as a percentage of the baseline emissions before installing the abatement technology.

Final Report 16


August 2005

13554

Table 4.6 Emission reduction efficiencies

Measure % Emissions reduction (-) / increase (+) per vessel

SO2 NOX PM VOC

Shore-side electricity3 0% -97% -89% -94%

Basic IEM (2 stroke slow speed only) 0% -20% 0% 0%

Advanced IEM 0% -30% 0% 0%

Direct water injection 0% -50% 0% 0%

Humid air motors 0% -70% 0% 0%

Exhaust gas recirculation4 -93% -35% >-63%5 ±6

Selective catalytic reduction (2.7% RO) 0% -90% 0% 0%

Selective catalytic reduction (1.5% RO) -44% -90% -18% ±

Selective catalytic reduction (0.1% MD) -96% -90% >-63%7 ±

Sea water scrubbing -75% 0% 25%8 ±

Fuel switching 2.7->1.5% S RO fuel -44% ± -18% ±

Fuel switching 2.7->0.5% S RO fuel -81% ± -20%9 ±

3 Compared to engines using 0.1% sulphur fuel. This is based on the sulphur content corresponding to the future requirements under the Sulphur Content of Marine Fuels Directive requiring ships at berth to use 0.1% sulphur fuel. Figures will be different for tankers, because they use boilers at berth. The report itself shows the emission reductions when switching to shore power from 2.7% S fuel as well as from 0.1% sulphur fuel. 4 Assumed switch from 2.7% sulphur RO to MD for technical reasons. 5 US EPA 2003 outline that a switch from 2.7% sulphur RO to 0.3% MD reduces PM by 63%. The PM reduction to 0.1% MD will therefore be slightly higher than 63%. 6 ± no or not conclusive information available 7 PM reductions estimated in the same way as for EGR. 8 MES measured sludge production from the Pride of Kent as 0.2 g/kWh and particles suspended in overboard water as 0.05g/kWh. Based on a PM emission factor of 0.8 g/kWh in the exhaust for the type of auxiliary engine used in MES’s trials, the PM removal rate by the EcoSilencer® can be approximated as around 31%. However since this calculation assumed that all the sludge consists of particulates, and that the suspended solids in the scrubber inflow is negligible, the actual removal rate is likely to be lower than 31%. A conservative estimate of 25% PM reductions was therefore chosen. 9 Conservative figure. It is estimated that PM removal will be more than 18% but is likely to be significantly less than the 63% (US EPA 2003) reported for a switch to 0.3% MD. Switching to a 0.5% S distillate fuel (MD) may give PM reductions towards the high end of this emission reduction range.

Final Report 17


August 2005

13554

5. Technology Maturity and Business as Usual Uptake

5.1 Technology Maturity Table 5.1 summarises the discussion on technology maturity of the technologies considered in this study. Justification of this ranking is covered individually in the technology reports. The scale is from 1 to 3, where 1 represents technologies which are currently proven for application, and 3 represents technologies with significant development still required.

Table 5.1 Maturity of all measures

Measure Maturity10 on a scale 1-3

Shore side electricity 1

Basic IEM (slide valves) 1 for engines younger than 15 years,

2 for engines older than 15 years

Advanced IEM 2, engine manufacturers indicate that they may need at least 5 years to achieve complete development of the advanced IEM reviewed in this study

DWI 2, only been developed for certain engine types

HAM 2, only been developed for certain engine types

EGR 2 for engines using marine distillate (lack of commercial installations),

3 for engines using residual oil (unresolved practical issues)

SCR 1, most mature advanced NOx abatement measure, many established manufacturers, many installations and significant operating hours of experience

SWS 2, only two recent trials undertaken on ships however mature technology for stationary land based applications

Fuel Switching to 1.5% S fuel 1, subject to availability of fuel

Fuel Switching to 0.5% S fuel 1, subject to availability of fuel

10 Scale of 1 to 3 where 1 represents technologies which are currently proven for application, and 3 represents technologies with significant development still required.

Final Report 18


August 2005

13554

5.2 Expected BAU Uptake of Technologies Table 5.2 outlines the expected uptake of emission abatement methods under a business as usual (BAU) scenario for EU flagged vessels. Drivers for the uptake of emission abatement methods in a business as usual scenario will be agreed national and international policies, including:

• the IMO NOx Code;

• IMO and EU fuel sulphur limits

• market-based instruments such as the environmentally differentiated fairway dues system in Sweden.

Final Report 19


August 2005

13554

Table 5.2 Technology uptake rate under business as usual (BAU) policies and economic trends for EU flagged vessels

Measure Existing vessels (%) New vessels (%) 2000 onwards 2000 2010 2015 2020 2000 2010 2015 2020 Shore-side electricity <1% <1% <1% <1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Basic IEM (Slide valves, 2 stroke slow speed only) 3%11 3% 3% 3% 36%12 36% 36% 36%

Advanced IEM 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Direct water injection <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% Humid air motors 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Exhaust gas recirculation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Selective catalytic reduction 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Sea water scrubbing 13 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Fuel switching to 1.5% 0% 11%14 11% 11% 0% 11% 11% 11% Fuel switching to 0.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

11 Estimate of current uptake based on correspondence with MAN B&W. 12 Based on correspondence with MAN B&W, it was estimated that the maximum uptake of basic IEM was 70% of 2 stroke slow speed engines. It was also estimated that about 52% (see Table 2.2) of engines are slow speed 2 stroke engines. Therefore, the number of new build engines which are likely to have basic IEM installed is 70% * 52% ≈ 36%. 13 Seawater scrubbing is shown in this study to be a cost effective abatement technique. However, as it is at an early stage of development for commercial application to ships and as there are currently no readily available data or trends available to estimate the BAU uptake of this technology, the uptake is set to 0% under the BAU scenario. In practice, it is most likely that there will be some BAU uptake, although it is considered that any current estimates of this figure would be subject to significant uncertainty. 14 Estimate of SOx emission of EU-flagged fleet operating in area of SOx ECAs in 2000 as a percentage of world wide emissions of these vessels.

Final Report 20


August 2005

13554

Table 5.3 shows the remaining scope for application of emission abatement methods beyond the uptake which is estimated to occur under the business as usual scenario.

Table 5.3 Technically viable additional take-up beyond BAU

Measure Existing vessels (%) New vessels (%)

2010 2015 2020 2010 2015 2020

Shore-side electricity >99% >99% >99% 100% 100% 100%

Basic IEM (Slide valves, 2 stroke slow speed only)

33% 33% 33% 0% 0% 0%

Advanced IEM Up to 100%15 Up to 100% Up to 100% 100% 100% 100%

Direct water injection >99% >99% >99% >99% >99% >99%

Humid air motors 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Exhaust gas recirculation 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Selective catalytic reduction 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

Sea water scrubbing 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Fuel switching to 1.5% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89%

Fuel switching to 0.5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

15 Scope for retrofitting advanced IEM must be further investigated. Retrofitting of the advanced IEM studied in this report may not be applicable to all engine types, and needs to be analysed on a case by case basis.

Final Report 21


August 2005

13554

6. Time for application to all EU-flagged ships and EU Ports

The length of time required for converting EU ships to use shore side electricity and emission abatement technologies was assessed including:

• time to install emission abatement equipment on ships including NOX abatement technologies and sea water scrubbing;

• time to install the additional equipment required on ships to enable use of shore side electricity; and

• time to install high voltage electricity connections to ports to enable transfer of electricity to ships.

Practically, it is roughly estimated that the installation of the emission abatement equipment investigated in this study on ships will take up to of the order of two months, including commissioning, with potentially significant application-specific variations. The same period of time would be required for converting ships to use shore-side electricity.

However, access to ships to enable installation of additional equipment is likely to depend upon the frequency which the ships are dry-docked and available for major upgrades. Generally, ships undertake a ‘Hull Special Survey’ once every five years in line with good practice expected from ship classification societies. This survey requires a significant period in dry dock, and therefore it is likely that this is the most practical time to install additional equipment.

Practically, the installation of shore side electricity in ports is likely to take around one year. The ‘critical path’ is likely to be the time required for the distribution operator to upgrade and extend the power supply infrastructure where required. This is likely to take of the order of 9-12 months, during which it is likely that the required infrastructure in ports could be installed.

Therefore, the minimum time required for converting all EU-flagged ships to using shore-side electricity or additional emission abatement equipment is up to 5 years, assuming installation is linked to major planned maintenance periods in dry docks. Installation could be undertaken more quickly although this is expected to require unplanned outages and hence higher costs due to unplanned business interruption.

Table 6.1 Practical time required to convert EU-flagged ships to using either shore-side electricity or additional emission abatement equipment.

Component Time

Equipment on ships Up to two months to commission and install. Access to ship for upgrading is likely to occur once every five years.

High voltage power installation in ports Up to one year

Final Report 22


August 2005

13554

Final Report 23


August 2005

13554

7. NOx and SO2 Emission Monitoring

7.1 Experience of Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for Ships

Continual pressure over the past 30 years has been directed to land-based combustion sources to reduce emissions. Consequently continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for this application have been developed and can now be considered well tested, approved and mature. In a year 2001 survey, more than 95% of 250 plant owners (covering around 375 land-based combustion sources) reported that none or only minor problems occur while monitoring continuously for NOx (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2001).

However, a parallel development has not occurred within the marine industry, and developments of emission monitoring standards are limited. Procedures and methodologies for emission monitoring have been proposed, largely through the IMO Technical NOx Code. Within the IMO sub-committee on Ship Design and Equipment, guidelines for on board NOx measurements have been recently adopted (IMO, 2003) which can be seen as a compliment to the IMO Technical NOx Code. Also, much of the land-based equipment and experiences are transferable. However the level of approval and long-term operating experience of CEMS at sea is at present minimal.

Most shipboard emission monitoring efforts to date consist of short-term, periodic NOx measurements for research and compliance purposes (e.g. within the Swedish system for environmentally differentiated fairway dues, Swedish Maritime Administration, 1998). In contrast to NOx, measurements of SO2 emissions are relatively easily determined directly from fuel sulphur content and thus usually do not require an on board measurement system. An exception however can be envisaged for post-combustion SO2 abatement technology such as exhaust scrubbers, or on-board blending arrangements.

Strictly speaking, CEMS permanently installed on ships for compliance purposes have not yet gained full approval from shipowners, due to concerns about system costs and long-term performance. On several ships however, notably those using SCR NOx abatement systems, CEMS are installed and used for process control, e.g. to control the rate of urea injection used as reducing agent. In these cases, calibration and performance check routines, that would be required for compliance purposes, are not normally practised and the measurement data is not logged. So to an extent, some experience with CEMS on board ships has been gained.

CEMS for compliance purposes has however already been indicated as one of several regulatory options for demonstrating compliance with IMO’s NOx limits that entered into force in May 2005 (IMO Technical NOx Code, 1998). In practice, the costs involved in maintaining a well-calibrated CEMS at sea fulfilling the performance criteria of IMO Technical NOx Code, are likely to be quite high (Cooper, 2004). Thus compliance testing on ships may rely on the simpler options e.g. engine parameter test method (by engine manufacturers for IMO NOx Code compliance) and periodic CEMS measurements (by an external accredited measurement consultant e.g. within the Swedish system for environmentally differentiated fairways dues).

Final Report 24


August 2005

13554

In the future however, permanently installed shipboard CEMS may be necessary if stricter emission control legislation is enforced (analogous to that applied to land-based combustion sources).

A second possibility is for CEMS to be used within proposed voluntary schemes such as emission trading which has been outlined in a recent EU study (Harrison, et al., 2004); a separate report being prepared by NERA under this current Ship Emissions Service Contract; and a Swedish investigation (Hansen et al., 2003). In these cases it is important that the emission measurements are traceable to certified standards, have a calculated uncertainty and can be verified. In this respect, the issue of “tamper-proofing” would also need to be resolved.

7.2 Techniques for CEMS for Ships The ship’s environment is a demanding one with changing ambient temperatures, tilts, vibration, dust, electromagnetic interference, dripping and spraying of fluids and, not least, fluctuations in voltage supply. Many smaller ships have very little room for extra equipment and any monitoring devices must use the available space without disturbing normal operation. Thus shipboard CEMS need to be compact, robust and able to withstand all these potential difficulties.

In addition, the acid character of the sample gas (especially for ships using heavy fuel oils) can be detrimental to long-term system operation. A UK Marine Safety Agency survey among emission monitoring equipment manufacturers indicated however, that their equipment is capable of providing accurate measurements for the marine application and fulfilling safety requirements for marine electrical equipment (Brookman, 1996). Similar views have also been obtained from several Swedish monitoring equipment suppliers.

A number of review articles and measurement standards are available in the literature dealing with the different measurement principles for emission monitoring (Brookman, 1996; IMO Technical NOx Code, 1998: ISO 8178, 1996; Hansén et al., 2003). Theoretically, several alternatives are available for the type of measurement system (Table 7.1).

Final Report 25


August 2005

13554

Table 7.1 Basic principles for CEMS

Measurement strategy

Periodic measurements Short-term measurements (around 1 hr) at a specific engine load usually carried out by external measurement consultant.

Continual measurements Emission monitoring system used continuously during all times of engine operation.

Gas sampling principle

Extractive Sample is extracted via a multipoint probe over the channel cross section and then transported via a heated gas line for analysis. Prior to concentration measurement in gas analysers, the gas is dried (cooled) and filtered (gas conditioning system).

Extractive dilution As above, but the sample gas is diluted with air at the sample probe thus eliminating the need for gas conditioning prior to analysis.

Path In-situ Gas analysis occurs directly over the entire cross-section of the exhaust channel.

Point in-situ Gas analysis occurs in the exhaust channel at a fixed, “representative” point.

Remote Sensing Gas analysis occurs by an optical analysis of the exhaust plume from a remote site.

Gas analysis principle NOx SO2 O216 CO2

Chemiluminescence X

Electrochemical sensors X X X

Non-dispersive ultraviolet (NDUV) X X

Non dispersive infrared (NDIR) (X only NO) X X

Pulsed UV Fluorescence X

Paramagnetic X

For NOx measurements, chemiluminescence is the chosen method in IMO Technical NOx Code using an extractive sampling system. A clause exists however, stating that “other principles may be used if they are proven equivalent”. In addition, one must bear in mind that a variety of chemiluminescence analysers are on the market with significant differences in cost, quality and consequently performance. Other principles, such as non-dispersive infra-red and ultra-violet absorption analysers (NDIR and NDUV) for monitoring solely NO present an interesting option. The advantages are that they have a better long-term durability, are cheaper and require less service. The disadvantage with NDIR is that NO2 is not measured. Even with a so-called NO2 converter (which forms a part of chemiluminescence analysers), long-term operation with high S fuels may lead to rapid deactivation of the converter. NDIR and NDUV may also have possible measurement range difficulties and the principle is not as linear as chemiluminescence. The lifetime of the gas analysers and measurement system in general is expected to be ca. 8 - 12 years (for land-based systems). Some evidence suggests a longer life span for NDIR and NDUV analysers in comparison to chemiluminescence analysers.

16 O2 measurements are sometimes used to verify NOx emissions (Cooper 2005).

Final Report 26


August 2005

13554

Corresponding recommendations for exhaust SO2 measurement equipment have not been covered in either the Technical NOx Code or ISO 8178 fully, since gaseous SO2 is normally indirectly calculated from the fuel sulphur content.17 In ISO 8178 however, SO2 measurements are necessary for after-treatment systems (e.g. scrubbers) but the standard points out difficulties; “since SO2 measurement is a difficult task and has not been fully demonstrated for exhaust measurements, prior agreement of parties is involved”. Generally NDIR based gas analyser systems are cheaper than fluorescence techniques but suffer from interference and require an extremely dry sample gas. An alternative to conventional CEMS might be to consider so-called Predictive Emission Monitoring Systems (PEMS)18. Since most applications requiring an exhaust SO2 measurement are likely to be associated with the use of exhaust scrubbers, it might be possible to continually monitor an alternative parameter (e.g. water flow) which is directly related to scrubber performance and thereby indirectly predict (monitor) SO2 levels in the exhaust.

Calculating SO2 emissions using fuel sulphur content is relatively straightforward. Continual monitoring requires however some form of measurement of fuel flow, engine effect and also knowledge of which fuel tank is in operation (important if several tanks are used with differing fuel qualities).

Determination of NOx emissions requires a calculation of the exhaust flow that is derived through either a carbon or oxygen balance (IMO Technical NOx Code, 1998). This will also be required in the case where exhaust SO2 measurement is made e.g. for the scrubber application. For the carbon balance, this is based on knowledge of the fuel flow (and carbon content) and a measurement of the CO2 concentration in the exhaust. Although an exhaust CO2 measurement using NDIR analysers is without significant problems, determination of the fuel flow (and engine effect) can introduce significant uncertainty in the emission calculation. Accurate means of a direct fuel measurement on board ships are not thought to be fully applicable as yet.

7.3 Costs of CEMS Costs associated with CEMS can vary greatly depending on the parameters measured, the number of sample points (exhaust channels) sharing the same system, and not least ship interior design. Based on discussions with equipment suppliers for land-based systems, Table 7.2 presents approximate cost ranges that can be anticipated for a permanent installation over an expected 10-year lifetime. The annual cost for operation (maintenance, data collection etc.) is based on that reported for automatic NOx measuring systems among Swedish land-based systems (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2001) and taking into account Entec’s assumptions on considerable variation between installations.

17 This review has not considered the new IMO Guidelines on exhaust gas cleaning. 18 A PEMS system using exhaust oxygen concentration, engine effect and ambient parameters has been used to monitor NOx emissions over a 1 year period for a main engine on board a passenger ferry (Cooper and Andreasson, 1999).

Final Report 27


August 2005

13554

Table 7.2 Approximate costs for CEMS

Cost item Cost range

Capital costs (€)

Investment in CEMS equipment including sampling lines, data acquisition system, calibration gases

50,000 – 170,000

Installation of CEMS 6,000 – 45,000

Operating costs (annual costs) (€/year)

Internal maintenance, calibration tubes, reserve parts, data evaluation and reporting

5,600 – 17,000

External consultants (depending upon number of engines and location)

4,500 – 22,000

Estimated annualised total cost for mid-range figures (expected lifespan 10 years, 4% discount rate) (€/year)

0.12*(110,000+25,500)+11,300+13,250 ≈ 41,000

7.4 Tamper-proofing of Monitoring Instruments The nature of current CEMS and the flexibility required for maintenance is at a level where a “sealing” or classic “tamper-proofing” of the CEMS is not practical. The same problem surrounded the equipment used for NOx abatement technologies in the Swedish system for environmentally differentiated fairway dues. This type of equipment typically includes urea injection systems, NO gas analysers, and computer-based control panels, all of which require some periodic attention or maintenance.

Initially the Swedish Maritime Administration proposed a manual “sealing” of this equipment but this was rapidly deemed as impractical and instead an undersigned letter by the shipowner guaranteeing compliance was accepted as an alternative. This approach has the benefit of being simple, practically possible and not least, develops a “goodwill relationship” between shipowner and the administration.

For the Swedish system, experiences from re-certification measurements (i.e. after the first 3 years where checks are even made on e.g. urea consumption, besides emission measurements) indicate that the signed letter method has in general been satisfactory. A more rigorous control by spontaneous unannounced checks by the administration may however be worthwhile at least in validating these findings (Cooper, 2004).

A similar discussion was outlined in a recent proposal aimed at trading emissions between land sources and ships (Hansen et al., 2003). For measured emission credits to be marketable they must carry a high level of assurance. In order to achieve this, a comprehensive verification process was suggested which includes external audits and assessment of the underlying measurement data and emission calculation. This approach is practically feasible but it entails costs that need to be taken into account.

Periodic emission monitoring, that uses a temporary CEMS, must also be associated with a degree of quality assurance. To this end, the Swedish system for environmentally differentiated fairway dues require measurements to be carried out by external, impartial, accredited measurement consultants. In this case, the Swedish Board for Technical and Conformity

Final Report 28


August 2005

13554

Assessment (SWEDAC) issues accreditation status (involving periodic assessment of the measurement consultant by external technical experts). In contrast, compliance for the new NOx limits set by IMO does not require external consultants and can be undertaken by the ship-owner or engine manufacturer.

Final Report 29


August 2005

13554

8. References

Aabo, K., (2003) ‘Emission Control – 2 stroke enginbes’ presented at the EU Stakeholders Workshop on low-emission shipping, 4 and 5 September 2003.

Aabo, K. and Kjermtrup, N. (2004) ‘Latest on emissions control water emulsions and EGR – MAN B&W Diesel A/S’ Paper 126 presented at CIMAC congress 2004, Kyoto, Japan.

Aabo, Kjeld (2004) MAN B&W Diesel A/S. Personal communication, 6th December, 2004.

AQS/UKAS, Analytical report of water discharged from the Pride of Kent, December 2004.

BeicipFranlab, Advice on Marine Fuel, Potential premium for 0.5% sulphur marine fuel, Draft Final report, October 2003.

Brookman, C.S., (1996) ‘Exhaust gas monitoring for the marine application’. The Institute of Marine Engineers, Paper 12, IMAS 96, October 1996.

Brookman, C.S., (1996) ‘Exhaust gas monitoring for the marine application’. The Institute of Marine Engineers, Paper 12, IMAS 96, October 1996.

Buhaug, Ø (1999) ‘MarPower - Concepts of Advanced Marine Machinery Systems with Low Pollution and High Efficiency – State of the Art No.1’ Report 220724-01-00, MARINTEK, Trondheim, Norway.

Clarke Robert (2004). DME International, Canada. Personal communication, 8th December, 2004.

Cooper, D., IVL, Methodology for calculating emissions from ships: 1. Update of emission factors, 2004.

Cooper, D.A. and Andreasson K., (1999). ‘Predictive NOx emission monitoring on board a passenger ferry’. Atmospheric Environment 33, 4637-4650.

Cooper, D.A. and Andreasson K., (1999). ‘Predictive NOx emission monitoring on board a passenger ferry’. Atmospheric Environment 33, 4637-4650.

Cooper, D.A. and Gustafsson, T., (2004) Methodology for calculating emissions from ships – 1. Update of emission factors. IVL report U 878. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Cooper, D.A., (2003) Exhaust emissions from ships at berth. Atmospheric Environment 37, 3817-3830.

Corbett, J. J. and Fischbeck, P. S. (2002) ‘Commercial Marine Emissions and LCA of retrofit controls in a changing science and policy environment’ Naval Engineers Journal, 93-106.

Cronhamn, L. (2004) MAN B&W A/S Technical Service Dept. Personal communication 2nd December, 2004.

DeMers, D. and Walters, G. (2000) ‘Guide to exhaust emission control options’ CIMAC committee.

Final Report 30


August 2005

13554

DME International (2004). Description of Eco-Silencer and FAQ on homepage at:

DME, Frequently Asked Questions, www.dmeinternational.com/marineexhaust/faq.html

Driver, R., Principle Electrical Engineer, Entec UK, Personal communication, October 2004, 2005.

EC ship emission workshop, Brussels, 4th September, 2003.

Elofsson, K. (2004) DFDS Torline AB, Skandiahamnen, Gothenburg, Tel. 00-46-31-650800. Personal communication 17th November, 2004.

Entec (2003), DEFRA, Investigation into Benefits of Proposals on the Sulphur Content of Marine Fuels, Final Report, August 2003.

Entec (2005), DEFRA, Preparation of the Review Relating to the Large Combustion Plant Directive, Final Report, 2005.

ENVIRON (2004) ‘Cold-ironing cost effectiveness at Port of Long Beach’, Report prepared for Port of Long Beach, Los Angeles, California. http://www.polb.com/pdfs/4_environment/Cold-Ironing-Report.pdf

European Commission (1999) ‘Transport Research - 4th Framework Programme DGVII - MEET - Methodology for calculating transport emissions and energy consumption’ ISBN 92-828-6785-4, Part C. “Ship Transport” by C. Trozzi and R. Vaccaro (TECHNE srl, Italy) pp 235 - 261.

European Commission (EC), European energy and transport trends to 2030. Report for DG Energy and Transport. Prepared by the National Technical University of Athens. January 2003. Available online at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/figures/trends_2030/index_en.htm. Accessed January 2005.

Fleischer, F. (1996) ‘NOx reduction – a technical challenge for marine diesel engine manufacturers’ The Institute of Marine Engineers, Paper 13, IMAS 96 Shipping and the Environment.

Göras, Mats (2004) Chief engineer onboard MS Silja Symphony. Personal communication 2nd December, 2004.

Gorton, Sara (2004) Wallenius Lines AB. Personal communication 2nd December, 2004.

Götmalm, Ö (1993) ‘Diesel exhaust control – reduction of marine emissions of NOx and SOx’ Institute of Marine Engineers, Marine Systems Design and Operation, ICMES 93, Paper 22, September 1993.

Gregory D. and Trivett A. (2002) ‘Using seawater for scrubbing SOx and PM from the exhaust of a marine heavy-fuel engine’ Internal report BP Marine and DME International Ltd.

Hagström, U. (2004) Viking Line AB. Personal communication 3rd December, 2004.

Hansen, O. Gavelius, M., Jacobsson, J., Cooper, D.A. and Flodeström E., (2003) ‘Feasibility of emission trading at sea – DEMO project’. PricewaterhouseCoopers AB, Stockholm, Sweden.

Hansen, O. Gavelius, M., Jacobssson, J., Cooper, D.A. and Flodeström E., (2003) ‘Feasibility of emission trading at sea – DEMO project’. PricewaterhouseCoopers AB, Stockholm, Sweden.

Final Report 31


August 2005

13554

Harrison, D., Radov, D. and Patchett, J. (2004) ‘Evaluation of the feasibility of alternative market-based mechanisms to promote low-emission shipping in European Union sea areas’ NERA Economic Consulting, London, England.

Harrison, D., Radov, D. and Patchett, J. (2004) ‘Evaluation of the feasibility of alternative market-based mechanisms to promote low-emission shipping in European Union sea areas’ NERA Economic Consulting, London, England.

Hayward and Dzanic (2004): Hayward, R., Dzanci, E., Comparison of European Regulations Regarding Discharge of Engine Room Waste, Institute of Nautical Science, on behalf of the Port of Goteborg, www.kastaloss.nu/uploaded/documents/ship%20waste.pdf

Helmholt, G. (2004) Wagenborg BV. Chief engineer MS Schieborg. Personal communication 23rd November, 2004.

Holmström, Per (2004) Munters Europe AB. Personal communication 24th November, 2004.

Holness, N. (2003) P&O Line in co-operation with BP Marine ‘Commercial trials of Eco-Silencers’

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/day1_agenda.pdf

http://research.dnv.com/marmil/envact/Green%20efforts%20rapport_.pdf

http://www.cimac.com/asp/Workinggroups/wg5WebDocument/DieselEmissions_31Mar00.htm

http://www.dmeinternational.com/marineexhaust/faq.html

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/04_nera_report.pdf

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/04_nera_report.pdf

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/day1_agenda.pdf

http://www.inra.com/press/eepo2002.pdf

http://www.marinetech.ncl.ac.uk/research/martob/Documents/WP5/public/MARTOB%20WP5%20final%20results-2.pdf

http://www.marintek.sintef.no/MarPower/SOARep1/SOAR1.HTML

http://www.mariterm.se/download/Shore-Side%20Electricity%20for%20Ships%20Report%20official.pdf

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5664641

http://www.polb.com/pdfs/4_environment/Cold-Ironing-Report.pdf

http://www.portgot.se/prod/hamnen/ghab/dalis2.nsf/vyFilArkiv/shoreconnectedelectricity.pdf/$file/shoreconnectedelectricity.pdf

http://www.pwc.com/se/swe/about/svcs/demoproject/index.html

http://www.pwc.com/se/swe/about/svcs/demoproject/index.html

http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/publication/pdf/14200/14272e.pdf

http://www.wartsila.com/english/pdf/Marine/enviroengine.pdf

Final Report 32


August 2005

13554

Hume, D., Senior Process Engineer, Entec UK, Personal communication, 2005.

IIASA (2004) Cost curves supplied to Entec. December 2004

IMO (2003), ´Guidelines for on-board NOx verification procedure – direct measurement and monitoring method’ Annex 5, Resolution MEPC.103(49). http://www.krs.co.kr/kor/dn/Tec/Annex(NOx).pdf

IMO (2003), ´Guidelines for on-board NOx verification procedure – direct measurement and monitoring method’ Annex 5, Resolution MEPC.103(49). http://www.krs.co.kr/kor/dn/Tec/Annex(NOx).pdf

IMO Technical NOx Code, (1998) Annex VI to MARPOL 73/78 Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships and NOx Technical Code. International Maritime Organisation, Report IMO – 664E.

IMO Technical NOx Code, (1998) Annex VI to MARPOL 73/78 Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships and NOx Technical Code. International Maritime Organisation, Report IMO – 664E.

IMO, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78), http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=678&topic_id=258#7

Inra, (2003) ‘European Electricity Price Observatory – Year 2002’ November 2003.

ISO 8178 (1996). ‘ISO 8178 - Reciprocating internal combustion engines - Exhaust emission measurement - Parts 1 and 2’. International Organisation of Standardisation,

ISO 8178 (1996). ‘ISO 8178 - Reciprocating internal combustion engines - Exhaust emission measurement - Parts 1 and 2’. International Organisation of Standardisation,

Ives, R. and Klokk, S. N. (1993) ‘Exhaust gas sulphur removal by seawater washing’ Diesel and Gas Turbine Worldwide, 25:7, 20-22.

Jensen, A. B. (2000) ‘Selective catalytic reduction for maximum NOx emission control’ Scandinavian Shipping Gazette 37-38, B82-B85.

Jivén, K., (2004) ‘Shore-side electricity for ships on port’, MariTerm AB, Gothenburg, Sweden. Report 2004-08-23 prepared for the North Sea Commission.

Jiven, K., MariTerm AB, Shore-side Electricity for Ships in Ports, Case studies with estimates of internal and external costs, prepared for the North Sea Commission, Report 2004-07-06.

Kågeson, P. (1999) ‘Economic instruments for reducing air emissions from sea transport’ For the Swedish Secretariat on Acid Rain, and the European Federation for Transport and Environment, TE report 99/7. http://www.acidrain.org/shipping.pdf

Klokk, S. N. (1997) ‘Measures for reducing NOx emissions from ships’ Workshop on Control Technology for emissions from off-road vehicles and machines, ships and aircraft, Oslo, Norway, 8 - 9 June, 1997.

Knudsen, T. S., Egeberg, C. E., Grone, O. and Kjemtrup, N. (2004) ‘The MC/MC-C engines and their development to meet present and future demands – MAN B&W Diesel A/S’ Paper 81 presented at CIMAC congress 2004, Kyoto, Japan.

Final Report 33


August 2005

13554

Kolle, L. and Stein-Inge, L. (2001) ‘Green efforts for existing ships.- Fuel pretreatment summary report’ Report 238105-20511233, MARINTEK, Trondheim, Norway.

Kubel, Dorte (2004) MAN B&W A/S, Research and Development Dept. Personal communication 2nd December, 2004.

Kullas-Nyman, Britt-Marie (2004) Wärtsilä Corporation OY, Personal communication 1st December, 2004.

Kullas-Nyman, Britt-Marie (2005) Wärtsilä Corporation OY, Personal communication January, 2005.

Kuwabara, M., Takasugi, Y., Nishio, S., Ishimura, E., Nakajima, Y., Jie, Z. and Kikuchi, M. (2000) ‘Effect of fuel property or SCR system on harmful exhaust emissions such as N2O from marine diesel engines’. Bulletin of the M.E. S. J., Vol. 28, No.1, February 2000.

Lahte, R. (2004) DFDS Tor Line AB. Personal communication 23rd November, 2004.

Lindeman, P. (2004) Port of Gothenburg. Personal communication 18th November, 2004.

Lurgi, Personal communication with David Porter of Lurgi, December 2004.

Marine Engineers Review (1995) ‘Can a SOx scrubber be an economic alternative to low sulphur fuel?’, pages 28-29, MER June 1995.

MES, Personal communication with Peter Toombs of MES, December 2004.

Nielsen, Peter (2004) Haldor Topsoe A/S. Personal communication 23rd November, 2004.

Öhman. L. (2004) Port of Piteå, personal communication19th November, 2004.

Port of Gothenburg (2004)

Port of Long Beach (2004)

Port of Rotterdam, Port of Rotterdam, Rotterdam Waste Disposal Guide 2004, http://www.portofrotterdam.com/maritime/images/27_58344.pdf

Radloff, E. and Gautier, C (2004) ‘Water Injection System on emission reductions tested on the MV Cabot’ Transport Canada report TP 14272E, June 2004.

Rana, T. (2002) Chief engineer onboard Queen of Westminster. Personal communication in connection with IVL study visit, August 2002.

Riom, E., Olsson, L-O., Rosén, P. and Hagström U., (2001) ‘Viking Line and the Humid Air Motor’. paper presented at The Motor Ship conference 22-34 March 2001, London, England. See also presentation for EU DG Environment at pages 40-65 of 144.

Riom, Emmanuel (2004) S.E.M.T. Pielstick, St Denis, France. Personal communication 3rd December, 2004.

Skjolsvik, K.O., (2003) ‘MARTOB – Application of low sulphur marine fuels’ MARINTEK, Trondheim, Norway.

Skjolsvik, K.O., (2004), Research Manager, MARINTEK, Personal Communication

Spencer, Ian, Senior Mechanical Engineer, Entec UK, Personal communication, 2004, 2005.

Final Report 34


August 2005

13554

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, (2001) ‘The Swedish charge on nitrogen oxides – cost-effective emission reduction’; ISBN 91-620-8026-I, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden.

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, (2001) ‘The Swedish charge on nitrogen oxides – cost-effective emission reduction’; ISBN 91-620-8026-I, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden.

Swedish Maritime Administration, (1998) ‘Decrees concerning environmentally differentiated shipping’; SJÖFS 1998:12 and SJÖS 1998:13 (English Translation). Sjöfartsverket, Norrköping, Sweden.

Swedish Maritime Administration, (1998) ‘Decrees concerning environmentally differentiated shipping’; SJÖFS 1998:12 and SJÖS 1998:13 (English Translation). Sjöfartsverket, Norrköping, Sweden.

Ten Wolde, M. (2004) Wagenborg Shipping BV, Fleet Management Dept., Delfzil, Netherlands, Tel. 00-31-596-636243. Personal communication 17th November, 2004.

Trivett, A., MacDonald, G. and Trivett, G. (1999) ‘A report on field trials of a novel wet scrubber for marine diesel engines’ Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology, London, England. IMarEST conference paper.

US EPA, Draft Regulatory Support Document, Control of Emissions from Compression-Ignition Marine Diesel Engines At or Above 30 Litres per Cylinder, April 2002.

Wärtsilä Corporation (2000) ‘The EnviroEngine Concept’

Westech/AQS, Westech/AQS, Project Number 1497, Version 1, June 2004.

Westech/AQS, Westech/AQS, Project Number 1497, Version 2, June 2004.

Whall, C., Cooper, D., Archier, K. Twigger, L., Thurston, N., Ockwell, D., McIntyre, A., and Ritchie, A. (2002) Quantification of emissions from ships associated with ship movements between ports in the European Community. Entec UK Ltd. and IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute.

Zhou, P. L. and Montgomery, S. (1999) ‘Application of a water scrubber for cleaning diesel engine exhaust gases’ Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology, London, England. IMarEST conference paper.

Zimmerlein, Thomas (2003) ‘SCR – the most effective technology for NOx reduction’ Motor Ship Marine Propulsion Conference 2003. The Motor Ship, London, England.

Zimmerlein, Thomas (2004) Argillon GnbH. Personal communication 24th November, 2004.