Babcock Carbon Balance document

35
Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment May 2011

description

A document supporting Babcock's HRO application. Community Council's response will be published shortly

Transcript of Babcock Carbon Balance document

Page 1: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment

May 2011

Page 2: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 3: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Document control sheet BPP 04 F8

Client: Babcock Marine Rosyth Limited Project: Rosyth International Container Terminal Job No: B1561000 Document Title: Carbon Balance Assessment

Originator Checked by Reviewed by Approved by NAME NAME NAME NAMEORIGINAL Valerie Caldwell Gordon Allison Alan Hendry Chris Adam

DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

10/03/2011 (v1)

Document Status – Client Review

NAME NAME NAME NAMEREVISION Valerie Caldwell Gordon Allison Alan Hendry Chris Adam

DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

23/03/2011 (v2)

Document Status – Legal Review

NAME NAME NAME NAMEREVISION John Appleton Ted Keegan Eddie Dunn Chris Adam

DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

31/03/2011 (v3)

Document Status – Final

NAME NAME NAME NAMEREVISION Valerie Caldwell Gordon Allison Ted Keegan Chris Adam

DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

10/05/2011 (v4)

Document Status – Final

Page 4: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document. This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs’ written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs’ interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party.

Page 5: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Contents

1 Executive Summary 1

2 Introduction 3 2.1 Background to the Scheme 3 2.2 Scope and Objectives 4 2.3 Report Availability & Comment 4

3 Policy and Legislation 6 3.1 Climate Change and Fossil Fuel Emissions 6 3.2 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 6 3.3 UK and Scottish Climate Change Acts 7 3.4 Scotland’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions 7

4 Methodology 9 4.1 Capex Carbon Emissions 9 4.2 Opex Carbon Emissions 10

5 Results and Discussion 16 5.1 Capex Carbon Emissions Results 16 5.2 Opex Carbon Emissions Results 18

6 Conclusions 21

7 References 22

Page 6: Babcock Carbon Balance document
Page 7: Babcock Carbon Balance document

1 Executive Summary

The growth of international trade has resulted in the need for additional Scottish port facilities to handle imports and exports. Trade to and from Scotland has shown steady growth despite the recession. The potential to increase east coast port capacity in Scotland, beyond the existing container port at Grangemouth, is recognised in the National Planning Framework 2 (NPF2); potentially at Rosyth on the River Forth where the reclaimed land would be suitable for such a development. Accordingly, appropriate authorisations are being sought to redevelop the former RD57 site into an intermodal container terminal. Construction is anticipated to take place between 2012 and 2014. A key part of the background for this new Scheme is the Scottish Government’s aspirations on Sustainable Economic Growth. This is defined in the 2007 Economic Strategy as, “building a dynamic and growing economy that will provide prosperity and opportunities for all, while ensuring that future generations can enjoy a better quality of life too”. It is within this context that the new freight port facility is being proposed and this Report will demonstrate that a new freight facility on this site will help deliver this aspiration. One of the key concepts in delivering a better quality of life, referred to as part of Sustainable Economic Growth, is to tackle the issue of climate change and ensure that new developments are located, designed and delivered in a way that manages carbon emissions to support the Government’s ambitions on decarbonising the economy and to help meet the reduction targets set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Accordingly, this study has been undertaken to illustrate that the proposed development will have the effect of managing net emissions from the UK on the basis that the ability to import and export freight directly to and from the central belt of Scotland via the proposed development is less carbon intensive than moving freight to and from other UK ports by road and rail. However within this context we do acknowledge the different ways in which the UK and Scottish Government account for the carbon emissions which are key to the assessment of the carbon impact of this proposal, as it may only be viewed on its impact on Scottish emissions, due to its location. In developing scenarios to test this theory, the study has used data from the Fuel Consumption Comparison Study by Ocean Shipping Consultants (OSC) and emission factors published in the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) to assess carbon emissions against those which are reported through the UK commitments to the Kyoto Treaty. We have assumed typical freight journeys from Rotterdam to Felixstowe and then alternatives of shipping by road, rail and sea to Rosyth and onward to Glasgow in developing our scenarios and carbon emissions. The carbon reduction advantages of shipping freight by sea on high capacity ships are well known. This report illustrates the carbon benefits that this development will bring both in terms of ‘operational carbon’, through more efficient freight movements, and in ‘embodied carbon’ based on the construction work already undertaken at Rosyth, which would need to be repeated were a container port facility to be developed elsewhere. This report covers the carbon emissions comparison of journey modes rather than providing total emissions, as trade to and from Scotland is dependant on the level of economic activity which can vary. However, in deriving our assessment, a variety of

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 1

Page 8: Babcock Carbon Balance document

economic growth scenarios have been used. This report concludes that the Rosyth International Container Terminal (RICT) scheme (the Scheme) will ultimately result in a net offset in the projected increase in Scotland's carbon emissions which will support the Scottish Government’s targets and ambitions on sustainable economic growth.

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 2

Page 9: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Introduction 2

2.1 Background to the Scheme

The Rosyth International Container Terminal project involves the development and delivery of an intermodal container terminal to the west of the main basin at Port Babcock, Rosyth, Fife. The Scheme is driven by the requirement for additional freight capacity on the Forth, as identified in the National Planning Framework 2 (NPF2). Within the NPF2, the development of additional container freight capacity on the Forth is designated as a national development.. Paragraph 124 of the NPF2 states that; ‘…a substantial area of reclaimed land immediately to the west of the Rosyth dockyard offers the opportunity to create a new container terminal as part of the wider development of Rosyth as a key East Coast port...’ Construction is anticipated to take place between 2012 and 2014 subject to all authorisations being obtained. The construction period is anticipated to take around 20 months. The Scheme is being promoted by a combination of two Harbour Revision Orders made under the Harbours Act 1964 (“the HRO Process”). The HRO Process has necessitated the completion of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), required under the Harbour Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 in order to identify the potential environmental effects of the scheme. The findings of the EIA are reported within the Environmental Statement submitted with the HRO application. In addition, Reports to Inform an Appropriate Assessment have also been prepared and submitted with the HRO application. In addition to the statutory requirements being undertaken to advance the container terminal proposal, the Scottish Government has requested a statement on how the proposal will contribute to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 targets of 42 per cent emissions reduction by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction target by 2050. This requirement is supported within the NPF2 document, which states in Para 105 that, “Given the Government’s climate change targets, it will be important to ensure that they (major infrastructure projects) are designed to minimise their carbon impacts.” The challenges involved in this scale of carbon reduction are also supported by the national transport agency, Transport Scotland. Its Corporate and Business Plans reflect this commitment and the agency has been active in developing its own approach to contributing to the Government’s targets. Its work has included:

• the establishment of a Climate Change Steering Committee, chaired by

Transport Scotland’s Chief Executive; • the drafting of an internal Climate Change Action Plan, building on a baseline

review of existing good practice, to steer mitigation and adaptation activity between 2008 and 2011; and

• the undertaking of a Sustainability Review to understand how Transport Scotland’s strategic and delivery responsibilities can be undertaken in ways which reduce energy, materials, waste and carbon flows.

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 3

Page 10: Babcock Carbon Balance document

2.2 Scope and Objectives

Amongst the factors considered in developing the business case for the new terminal was the opportunity to reduce emissions and contribute to a lower carbon economy. The central belt location of Rosyth, with its links to the trunk road network and potential for rail transport, is an ideal site from which to service Scotland’s freight needs effectively. The development of the Scheme will enable a significant modal shift in container transport to and from Scotland, moving container freight off road and rail onto ships. It is recognised that transporting freight by water takes considerably less energy than by road or rail. Furthermore, scale efficiency also contributes to energy reduction. The larger the transport unit, the more efficient the use of the energy per unit transported with corresponding emissions reduction. The ability to reduce the need for road and rail transport to and from Scotland for freight coming into UK ports such as Felixstowe and Southampton, and European ports such as Antwerp and Rotterdam, will lead to a reduction in net global carbon emissions (MacKay, 2009). An additional carbon benefit of developing the Scheme at Rosyth is that considerable advanced engineering works have already taken place to enable the development of the site. The embodied carbon associated with this construction forms part of this assessment and demonstrates the significant benefit of the existing banked carbon, which would not need to be expended in developing a new site elsewhere. This carbon balance assessment demonstrates the carbon reduction advantages of the proposed Rosyth development, in terms of both embodied and operational carbon, although it has to be recognised that whatever transport mode is chosen, an increase in the rates of import and exports will, all other factors being equal, lead to a rise in emissions. The remainder of the report is structured as follows:

• Section 3 summarises the policy and legislation governing the reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and commitments to reduce emissions;

• Section 4 explains the methodology adopted in undertaking the carbon balance assessment, including the embodied carbon associated with the development and the import-export scenario used to estimate operational carbon savings;

• Section 5 presents the results of the assessment, a sensitivity analysis and a discussion of the results in the context of Scotland and the UK’s total emissions and reduction commitments; and

• Section 6 presents a summary and conclusion of the findings. 2.3 Report Availability & Comment

Additional bound copies of the Carbon Balance Assessment can be purchased at a cost of £20. Electronic versions are available on CD at a cost of £5. The document is available from: Jacobs Engineering UK Ltd 95 Bothwell Street Glasgow G2 7HX

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 4

Page 11: Babcock Carbon Balance document

An additional bound copy will also available for viewing by the public during normal office hours at the following locations: Fife Council Development Services New City House 1 Edgar Street Dunfermline Fife KY12 7EP Rosyth Library Parkgate Community Centre Parkgate Rosyth Dunfermline KY11 2JW Port Babcock Rosyth Ltd Main Office Building, Rosyth Business Park Rosyth Dunfermline Fife KY11 2YD

Biggart Baillie LLP No. 2 Lochrin Square 96 Fountainbridge Edinburgh EH3 9QA Transport Scotland Ports & Harbours Branch Victoria Quay Edinburgh EH6 6QQ

If you wish to make representations in respect of the Carbon Balance Assessment, these should be submitted in writing to the address below: Mrs V Ferguson Transport Scotland Ports & Harbours Branch Area 2G North Victoria Quay Edinburgh EH6 6QQ [email protected]

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 5

Page 12: Babcock Carbon Balance document
Page 13: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Policy and Legislation 3

3.1 Climate Change and Fossil Fuel Emissions

For many years, scientists have recorded year-on-year increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This is largely attributed to the increase in fossil carbon dioxide emissions by man’s combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) since the Industrial Revolution. The thin layer of gases which comprise the atmosphere of the Earth have a ‘Greenhouse Effect’, keeping the average temperature of the Earth at a habitable temperature by absorbing heat radiated from the surface. Although CO2 is a minor constituent of the atmosphere, it is very significant in absorbing infrared radiation and thus retaining heat. Recent trends reveal that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations coincide with an increase in global average temperatures and this has led to Governments throughout the world responding to tackle this issue. A number of the active political and legislative changes developed in response to these scientific findings are set out below. The increasing level of discourse on climate change in the media has lead to the abbreviation of ‘carbon dioxide’ to ‘carbon’. For the purposes of this report, all emissions are presented as tonnes of CO2e1. 3.2 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

The UK has measured and reported its emissions of GHG since 1988. In 1994, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) was established and it was within this framework that the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol defines a ‘basket of 6’ greenhouse gases which is, in fact, the four gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and sulphur hexafluoride, and two groups of gases, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). By ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, most developed nations, including the UK, took on specific targets for limiting or reducing their GHG. In doing so, the UK committed itself to maintaining an inventory of GHG emissions and reporting these regularly to the UNFCC. In addition to reporting to the UNFCC, the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) also reports on UK GHG emissions as part of the Environmental Accounts which are satellite accounts to the main national accounting system. This additional reporting is based on the GHG inventory; however, it includes additional data on emissions. One of the key differences between the reporting that is undertaken for the UNFCC as compared to the ONS is that the former applies a territorial approach while the latter is done on a residents’ basis. The territorial approach requires that individual countries calculate emissions arising from consumption of fossil fuels within their borders with no account taken of foreign trade. Reporting on a UK residency basis includes emissions caused by the activities of UK residents and UK-registered businesses, including emissions arising in other countries. Emissions caused by foreign visitors and businesses are excluded. This latter approach focuses on responsibility for emissions rather than the physical source of the emissions.

1 CO2e or ‘CO2 equivalent’ includes carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases which are converted to the equivalent mass of CO2 according to their global warming potential relative to CO2. The emissions calculations are mainly based on diesel as the source of CO2, and the non-CO2 greenhouse gases are ignored. This is not considered to make any significant difference to the outcome of the assessment.

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 6

Page 14: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Another key difference is that estimates of GHG emissions within the National Accounts include those from international aviation and shipping. For aviation, emissions are allocated by the country which owns/operates the airline. For example, the UK National Accounts include all emissions by British Airways (a British registered company) into and out of the UK but exclude those from Ryan Air (a Republic of Ireland registered company). In the case of international shipping, emissions are calculated based on data for the consumption of bunker fuels, which is the name for fuel used on ships. The UNFCC standards for reporting include international aviation and shipping emissions as separate memorandum items as there is, as yet, no international agreement on the way to allocate them to national inventories. It is important to understand these reporting standards in order to consider the potential savings associated with the Scheme and how these might be represented in Scottish and UK GHG accounts. 3.3 UK and Scottish Climate Change Acts

Both the UK and Scottish Governments have passed Climate Change Acts which set very ambitious legally binding targets for emissions reduction. It is within this context of the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 that the RICT proposal is being developed. The emissions reduction resulting from the proposal will benefit both Scotland and the UK, through a modal shift in freight movement. Therefore, we have considered the proposal within a UK context and have not apportioned the carbon benefits solely to Scotland. The UK Climate Change Act passed in 2008 sets a statutory target to reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. In order to achieve this, it is a requirement of the Act that limits be set on the total amount of emissions in successive five year periods, known as carbon budgets. The carbon budget is the sum total of the country’s emissions in the five year period. Overall, the UK Act has established a UK national emissions reduction target of 80% by 2050, relative to a 1990 baseline. An interim target for the UK has been set at 34% reduction (CO2 only) by 2020. Scotland plans to exceed these interim reduction levels by setting a target of 42% emissions reduction by 2020 and an 80% reduction target for 2050. Under both Acts, the UK and Scottish Governments are required to publish annual reports on net emissions and programmes for meeting reduction targets. 3.4 Scotland’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The most recent figures for Scotland’s GHG Emissions were published in September 20102 and provide estimates of emissions data for the year 2008. These figures also include an estimate of emissions from both international aviation and shipping3. For 2008, the Scottish emissions of the basket of six GHGs are estimated to be 56.1 million

2 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/323523/0104169.pdf

3 Note international aviation and shipping emissions are not currently included in the UK emission reduction targets; however the Climate Change Act requires that they be included by the end of 2012.

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 7

Page 15: Babcock Carbon Balance document

tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2e). This is 3 Mt CO2e lower than the 2007 figure. Overall, there is a decreasing trend with a 20% reduction in emissions over the period 1990 to 2008. For international shipping, the figures are estimated at 1.3 Mt CO2e, up 5.5% on 2007 figures but down 17.3% on 1990 figures. The data provided on international shipping is regarded as preliminary estimates, as there is limited data availability for regional marine shipping fuel use.

The reporting of emissions for Scotland excludes any allowance for those UK emissions not allocated to one of the four countries: Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland. These emissions mainly result from offshore activity. Import and export of containers between Scotland and England mainly relies on transport by road or rail4. It is assumed for the purpose of this study that these modes comprise diesel-powered trains and lorries. However, a sensitivity test has been carried out based on an electric rail scenario. The carbon emissions from these transport modes are accounted for in the country where the fuel is purchased. Internationally transported containers to and from Scotland mainly travel via the English ports of Felixstowe and Southampton5. Assuming the fuel purchase split in England and Scotland is related to the laden container starting point on the UK mainland, it could be reasonably assumed that the split of emissions would be roughly equal between England and Scotland.

4 Personal communication. A Penfold, Ocean Shipping Consultants to G Allison, Jacobs 5 Ocean Shipping Consultants (2010). Fuel Consumption Comparison Study.

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 8

Page 16: Babcock Carbon Balance document
Page 17: Babcock Carbon Balance document

4 Methodology

This section explains the methodology and key assumptions behind the estimates of construction (capex) and operational (opex) carbon emissions associated with the Scheme. There are carbon emissions associated with any built infrastructure; these typically arise from making or extracting building materials. These emissions are termed ‘embodied carbon’. Carbon emissions arising from constructing a piece of transport infrastructure (also called ‘capex carbon’, from capital expenditure), are normally much smaller over the long term than those which arise from its operation (opex carbon). The capex carbon emissions assessment is based on estimated quantities of key materials which have been assessed in terms of their carbon footprint using the Environment Agency’s carbon calculator. The Jacobs Carbon Calculator was developed for the Environment Agency6 in 2007 to calculate the embedded carbon used in the design and construction of flood defence schemes. The tool provides a cost benefit analysis and pinpoints where carbon savings can be made from an early project planning stage and can be applied to any construction project, including the works proposed within the Scheme. Applying the Carbon Calculator to RICT creates a strong and auditable evidence base to calculate the carbon benefits of utilising the existing infrastructure, and illustrates the carbon benefits of modal shift within the containerised freight market. Operational (opex) carbon emissions associated with the Scheme refers to the predicted carbon emissions associated with freight transport into and out of the port. These can be compared to the emissions from making the same journey by road or rail in order to determine the savings associated with sea freight. This analysis is based on a fuel consumption comparison study undertaken by OSC which estimates the total fuel consumption of road, rail and sea freight with and without the Scheme. The fuel consumption model is based on the commercially confidential market study, and therefore the explicit calculations cannot be presented in full. The fuel consumption model assumes that the Scheme diverts containers from overland transport. The RICT economic transport model is a ‘top-down’ model based on freight increasing through GDP growth. A ‘bottom-up’ carbon balance emissions model has been derived from this and compared with Scotland’s emissions inventory. The emissions inventory is compiled from fuel purchase and other data. The qualitative comparison indicates that the carbon balance model is reasonable in terms of the magnitude of the emissions. 4.1 Capex Carbon Emissions

The development of the Scheme involves the adaptation of a facility already built, to suit the handling of container ships and the loading and unloading of containers. Making use of a structure already in place will avoid significant levels of carbon being emitted through building an equivalent Scheme on a ‘greenfield’ site.

6 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/37543.aspx

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 9

Page 18: Babcock Carbon Balance document

The new works involve the construction of a main berthing pocket, incorporating new quays, container stacking areas and hardstanding areas. The earthworks will use demolition material and the marine dredged granular fill, recovered as part of the wider works, to enable the operation of the container terminal as a deep water facility. Quantities of the main materials used in the scheme have been established and determined from feasibility studies previously undertaken. The exact source of materials other than the dredged marine aggregates, cannot be defined in advance. However, it is currently anticipated that:

• piles, sand for block paving and ship-to-shore cranes will be delivered by sea; • concrete materials (mixed on site) and pavers will be delivered by road; and • no import of fill material is assumed as dredged material will be reclaimed and

used as required.

A transport distance of 50km for these materials has been assumed for the purposes of this assessment. The embodied carbon calculations are based on the volume of the area filled to develop the platform on which the new terminal is based. This land is approximately 600m by 314m in plan view and slopes from 5m to 20m in depth north to south.

Section 5.1 presents the estimates for embodied carbon emissions associated with the key civil engineering elements of the Scheme. 4.2 Opex Carbon Emissions

As mentioned previously, the operational carbon emissions used here refer to the emissions associated with the movement of freight into and out of the port. The operational carbon emissions for the Scheme have been estimated based on a fuel consumption comparison study undertaken by OSC. According to the study, the addition of the Scheme will significantly reduce the amount of fossil fuel used to handle Scotland’s containerised cargo shipments by displacing freight movements currently routed overland (rail and road) to ships which are less fuel intensive.

The savings associated with sea freight as opposed to overland (rail or road) freight can be calculated according to the fuel consumed from moving one tonne or one unit of freight from point A to point B. Therefore three equivalent journeys can be compared:

• Option 1 – road: Glasgow to Felixstowe • Option 2 –road + rail: Glasgow to Railhead (Eurocentral, Mossend) (by road) then

Railhead to Felixstowe (by rail) • Option 3 – road + ship: Glasgow to Rosyth/Grangemouth7 (by road) then circular

route from Rosyth/Grangemouth – Hamburg – Rotterdam – Felixstowe. The fuel consumption associated with one leg of this feeder loop can be compared with that of journeys A&B.

7 The difference in distance between Glasgow and Grangemouth and Glasgow and Rosyth are not thought to be significant enough to impact the overall results.

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 10

Page 19: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Units for freight are calculated as twenty foot equivalent containers (TEU). It is assumed that 1000 TEU vessels will operate in/out of RICT.

A series of assumptions have been made in the OSC study (as outlined in the remainder of this section), resulting in the following comparative figures of fuel consumed in moving one container from Glasgow to Felixstowe:

• by road (HGV): 108.6kg of fuel per TEU8; • by rail : 95.4kg of fuel per TEU; and • by sea: 23.0kg of fuel per TEU.

Sea freight is clearly the most efficient in terms of fuel consumed per container. The basis of the freight scenario assessed here disregards transport legs outside of the UK/North Sea. It is based on freight legs between Glasgow and Felixstowe as this is considered an acceptably representative simplification of what is a highly complicated Scottish container trade situation. Glasgow is chosen as the main centre of trade and Felixstowe as the main point of export/import for container freight. For the purposes of this assessment, the difference in geographical location between Rosyth and Grangemouth is not considered to be significant, and is not analysed. The OSC market study predicts that the likely change in container shipping in the future is that trans-oceanic ships will get larger in size, making more 1000 TEU ships available for short-sea operation. The larger vessels will only be able to operate into deep water ports. The OSC freight scenario is based on the presumption that the regular scheduled ship movement serving Rosyth will be a 1000 TEU vessel operating a feeder service for the North Sea, sending and returning containers to/from the shallow water port of Rosyth via Hamburg to the deep water ports of Felixstowe and Rotterdam.

The effect of the Scheme on import/export cost is not anticipated to have any effect on overall economic consumption9: that is to say, that the Scheme is not assumed to have any impact on the total demand for containerised freight, but will only cause a modal shift in how that freight is transported. The carbon balance assessment therefore considers the impact of the Scheme on this aspect of carbon emissions to be negligible. An additional benefit of the Scheme is that it provides additional freight capacity which ensures that the economic growth of Scotland is not held back by a lack of appropriate infrastructure. The key assumptions and inputs used to build up the analysis are as follows:

• total supply and demand forecasts for Scottish containerised trade are taken from a detailed market analysis developed by OSC in 2010. Three economic outlook scenarios are presented – the base case, recovery case and prolonged recession;

• current capacity for shipping freight movements in Scotland is 0.41 mTEU; this would rise to 0.81 mTEU by 2015 with the development of the Scheme;

8 TEU = Twenty foot equivalent. 9 For example, it might be the case that under the export scenario considered here, development of RICT will result in reduced export costs which could increase demand for Scotch Whisky.

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 11

Page 20: Babcock Carbon Balance document

• without the Scheme, Scotland’s port throughput is assumed to remain constant at 0.41 mTEU through 2025;

• the deficit (i.e. the difference between demand for container trade and port capacity in Scotland) is assumed to be transported by road and rail with a 25% and 75% split respectively, for both the with RICT and without RICT scenarios;

• fuel consumption for sea freight is calculated based on a typical North Sea feeder service. There are two earning legs and it is assumed that the vessel is 90% utilised;

• each 40’ container is assumed to weigh 32 tonnes (therefore, each TEU is assumed to weigh 16 tonnes); and

• the estimated distances involved are presented in Table 1. • The container throughput via RICT is assumed to be diverted from overland

transport (75:25 road:rail), until RICT reaches capacity

Table 1: Estimated distances

Journey and mode Distance (miles)

Glasgow – Railhead (truck) 15.2

Glasgow - Rosyth / Grangemouth (truck) 46.0

Glasgow – Felixstowe (truck) 420.0

Glasgow – Felixstowe (rail) 483.4

Rotterdam / Felixstowe – Grangemouth / Rosyth (ship)10 1117

The estimated fuel consumptions by mode of transport are presented in Table 2.

10 This is the round trip circuit Rotterdam – Felixstowe – Rosyth – Hamburg. The fuel consumption per container is calculated from an assumed 1800 attributed container movements per trip.

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 12

Page 21: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Table 2: Estimated fuel consumption by model

Mode of transport Fuel use Units Ship freight – at sea (1000 TEU vessel)1 16.5 tonnes per day

Ship freight – in port (1000 TEU vessel) 1 tonnes per day

Ship freight combined for scenario 3320 tonne-miles per gallon

Truck (heavy goods vehicle) 256 tonne-miles per gallon

Rail (diesel) 350 tonne-miles per gallon

Notes: 1) A 1000 TEU vessel is assumed to travel at an average speed of 18.5 knots or 387 miles per day. 4.2.1 Scottish Transport Assessment Guidance

In order to estimate the carbon emissions associated with the estimated fuel consumption the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) has been applied.

STAG is a framework for identifying potential transport interventions and making informed, evidence-based decisions. It sets out best practice for transport appraisal based on established UK and European methodologies.

One of the requirements of a STAG Report is to present the carbon emissions associated with the transport intervention. Section 7 of STAG sets out the requirements for appraising the environmental impacts of transport schemes. Section 7.4.2 specifically considers GHG emissions. According to section 7.4.2, CO2 is the most important transport-induced greenhouse gas in terms of having a direct impact on global warming. CO2 emissions are therefore used as a proxy in STAG for global air quality.

In order to calculate CO2 emissions from road traffic, STAG refers to the method presented in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) 11.3.1, which subsequently refers to the Department for Transport’s online transport appraisal guidance Web-TAG (the main guidance on which STAG is based). Functions are given in Web-TAG to enable fuel consumption in litres per km to be calculated as a function of average speed for seven vehicle categories: petrol car, diesel car, petrol light goods vehicle (LGV), diesel LGV, rigid HGV, articulated HGV, and public service vehicles (e.g. buses).

The TEU containers considered in this assessment are assumed to be articulated HGVs.

Fuel consumption is estimated using a function of the form: L = a + b*v + c*v2 + d*v3

Where: L consumption, expressed in litres per kilometre; v average speed in kilometres per hour; and a, b, c, d parameters defined for each vehicle category as shown in Table 10.

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 13

Page 22: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Source: Web-TAG unit 3.5.6 Dept for Transport Appraisal Guidance

Using the function and parameters defined above, an articulated lorry (OGV211) is estimated to travel 2.68km per litre of fuel at an average speed of 60km/hr (approximately 40mph). This is slightly lower than the 2.81km estimated in the fuel consumption comparison study carried out by OSC; however the latter is thought to be reasonable given fuel efficiency improvements since 2002. Also, using a higher fuel efficiency figure for overland freight transport will produce a more conservative estimate of fuel savings for the Scheme.

STAG notes that emissions from rail represent a small proportion (3.6%) of total transport carbon emissions12 and that data on the emissions associated with diesel and electric trains are currently limited. However, Transport Scotland recommends the use of the Rail Emission Model (AEA Technology, 2001. Rail Emissions Model: Final Report for the Strategic Rail Authority). This document presents fuel consumption rates for class 100 diesel multiple units ranging from 0.45 – 1.17 kg/km; however these appear to relate to passenger trains as opposed to freight. Also presented are CO2 emissions factors for various diesel train types ranging from 1415 – 21,441 gCO2/km.

These figures, which in some cases differ by an order of magnitude, serve to highlight the uncertainty in estimating CO2 emissions.

A search was undertaken to identify other sources which might support or refute the 350 tonne-miles per gallon figure used in the fuel comparison study; however data was found to be sparse (as supported by STAG and the Rail Emission Model report).

A fact sheet produced by Transport Watch UK13 reported a fuel efficiency rating of 160 tonne-miles per gallon for diesel freight in 1998. However, the Association of American

11 Ordinary Goods Vehicle 2 12 It is not clear whether this proportion applies to transport emissions in Scotland or over the UK as a whole.

13 http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5.htm

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 14

Page 23: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Railroads reports an average of 480 ton-miles per gallon14 (equivalent to 428 tonne-miles per gallon in imperial tonnes).

It is difficult to estimate fuel consumption as this will vary depending on a number of factors including speed, gradient, braking system, etc. Therefore, for the purpose of this assessment, the 350 tonne-miles per gallon used in OSC’s fuel comparison study has been used to derive the carbon emissions from rail freight; while the above figures of 160 and 428 tonne-miles per gallon have been used as sensitivity tests.

STAG section 7.4.2 also provides emission factors of CO2 per litre of fuel. The figures for diesel/biodiesel have been applied in this assessment for all modes (road, rail and ship freight). These figures, as presented in Table 3, are assumed to change over time as the proportion of biodiesel in the UK market increases.

Table 3: CO2 emissions from fuel

Year Emissions from diesel/biodiesel blend (gCO2e/l)

2008 2595.75 2009 2576.01 2010 2555.16 2011 2553.00 2012 2550.80 2013 2548.59 2014 2546.39 2015 2544.23 2016 2542.03 2017 2539.82 2018 2537.62 2019 2535.42 2020 2533.25 2021 2533.25 2022 2595.75 2023 and onwards 2576.01

Source: STAG 7.2.4 Transport Scotland

14 http://www.aar.org/NewsAndEvents/Press-Releases/2010/04/042110-EarthDay.aspx

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 15

Page 24: Babcock Carbon Balance document
Page 25: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 16

5 Results and Discussion

5.1 Capex Carbon Emissions Results

The following sections present the embodied carbon emissions associated with the key civil engineering elements of the Scheme. It should be noted that these are broad estimates for only the main material components. The calculations have been performed using the current version of the Environment Agency Carbon Calculator (see References section). The capex carbon of the structure already in place is tabulated in Table 4. Table 4: Carbon footprint of completed works

Element Material Tonnage (tonnes)

Distance to site (km)

Method of transport to

site

Embodied CO2 (tonnes)

Granular infill

Dredged marine aggregate

1,256,000m3, aggregate density 2t/m3.

2,512,000 1 Water 12,593

Piling

Heavy use sheet piling.

1,300m, with assumed depth of 10m.

13,000m2, with assumed density of 0.19t/m2

2,470 50 Water 2,478

Reinforced concrete

All concrete assumed density of 2.4t/m3. Concrete suitable for tidal splash zone exposure.

10% reinforcement.

21,048m3

50,515 50 Road 28,587

CO2e footprint of completed works = 44,000 tCO2e (nearest ‘000). A graph figure of this data is shown in Appendix 2. The carbon assessment of the works to be completed is based on the following components of the proposed works:

• East Quay Wall (Berth 1); • North Quay Wall; • West Quay (Berth 2); • East Return Wall;

Page 26: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 17

• Contractor’s Jetty; and • Mooring Dolphins.

Only the main material elements of the proposed build have been considered in the carbon assessment. The other minor elements are considered to have a small impact on the overall carbon impact of the Scheme. The main elements assessed include:

• piling; • granular fill; • reinforced concrete cope beams; • reinforced concrete crane beams; • crane beam piling; • reinforced concrete apron; and • reinforced concrete deck.

The remaining capex carbon of the structure still to be built is tabulated in Table 5. It is recognised that the data available for the carbon assessment of the remaining works is more detailed than that available for the completed works. This means that the assessment is likely to overestimate the carbon footprint of the works to be completed in comparison to the works already built. Table 5: Carbon footprint of works to be completed

Element Material Tonnage (tonnes)

Distance to site (km)

Method of transport to

site

Embodied CO2 (tonnes)

Granular infill Dredged marine aggregate

9,698m3, aggregate density 2t/m3.

19,396 1 Water 97

Piling Heavy use sheet piling.

Tonnage provided by cost estimate, with assumed density of 0.19t/m2

5,575 50 Water 5,594

Reinforced concrete

All concrete assumed density of 2.4t/m3. Concrete suitable for tidal splash zone exposure.

10% reinforcement.

21,048m3

35,328 50 Road 19,993

Page 27: Babcock Carbon Balance document

The CO2 footprint of works to be completed equates to 26,000 tCO2 (nearest ‘000). Total combined capex footprint of construction = 70,000 tCO2. A graph figure of this data is shown in Appendix 3. 5.2 Opex Carbon Emissions Results

The fuel comparison study prepared by OSC presents the estimated annual fuel consumption over years 2008-2025 with and without the Scheme. The totals over the period are presented in Table 6. Table 6: Total estimated fuel consumption 2008-2025

Scenario Fuel consumption without RICT (tonnes of fuel)

Fuel consumption with RICT (tonnes of fuel)

Base case 2,198,779 1,912,323 Recovery case 2,371,694 2,079,338 Prolonged recession 2,002,254 1,724,345

By applying the CO2 emission factors presented in Table 3, the total CO2 emissions over the same period are estimated in Table 7. Table 7: Total estimated CO2 emissions 2008-2025

Scenario CO2 emissions without RICT (tonnes of CO2)

CO2 emissions with RICT (tonnes of CO2)

Base case 6,140,407 5,342,343 Recovery case 6,622,395 5,807,868 Prolonged recession 5,592,645 4,818,421

It may seem counter-intuitive that one tonne of fuel produces more than three tonnes of CO2; however this can be attributed to the addition of oxygen during the combustion process. By comparing the estimated emissions with and without the Scheme, a saving of approximately 798,000 tonnes of CO2 is accrued during the first ten years that the facility is in operation. This figure is more than ten times the estimated 70,000 tonnes of embodied carbon estimated for the completed works, suggesting that completion of the Scheme development will have a very short carbon pay-back period, in terms of avoided emissions. In terms of annual figures, demand for sea freight is expected to equal capacity in 202015 (base case) at which point the Scheme offers a 20% annual saving over the without RICT scenario. Beyond 2020, total container trade generated by the Scottish economy is expected to continue to grow and exceed Scottish port capacity; therefore the proportion of freight transported by sea will decline and the proportion transported overland will increase. By 2025, therefore, it is estimated that the Scheme will offer a 15% annual savings over the without-the-Scheme scenario (see Figure 1).

15 OSC RICT Market Study, Feb 2010

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 18

Page 28: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Figure 1: Carbon emissions with and without RICT

Carbon Emissions per Annum - Base Case

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Tonn

es C

O2e

Base Casewithout RICT

Base Case withRICT

A number of sensitivity tests have been carried out, namely:

• Sensitivity 1 - Electric rail scenario. Currently the rail lines from Glasgow to Felixstowe (as shown in Appendix 1) can support diesel trains only; however plans for electrification may be forthcoming. Electric trains are generally more efficient16; therefore sea freight would offer a smaller marginal savings in CO2 emissions over electric trains in comparison to diesel trains.

• Sensitivity 2 - Lower fuel efficiency of rail freight. As discussed in Section 3.2, fuel consumption data for rail freight varies widely. A figure of 160 tonne-miles per gallon represents what is thought to be an extreme lower-bound estimate.

• Sensitivity 3 - Higher fuel efficiency of rail freight. A fuel consumption rate of 428 tonne-miles per gallon has been applied as an upper-bound estimate.

• Sensitivity 4 - Lower proportion of rail in overland split. As discussed in Section 3.2, the OSC fuel comparison study assumes a 25:75 split for road and rail, respectively. A 50:50 split has been tested here.

• Sensitivity 5 - Higher proportion of rail in overland split. It has been suggested that 100% rail is possible in relation to this scenario for non-time-sensitive goods. This scenario has been tested here.

• Sensitivity 6 - Lower percentage utilisation. As explained in Section 3.2, it is assumed that container vessels travel at their full capacity the majority of the time (90% utilisation rate.) A sensitivity test has been carried out assuming a 50% utilisation rate.

The results of these sensitivity tests are presented in Table 8.

16 In order to calculate the efficiency savings for electric v. diesel trains, diesel trains are assumed to be 35% efficient. The energy content in diesel (38.7 MJ/litre) was used to calculate the equivalent in electricity and an emissions factor of 0.527 gCO2/kwh was applied based on average UK grid electricity.

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 19

Page 29: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Table 8: Sensitivity analysis

Scenario Annual savings in 2020 Total CO2 savings 2015-2025 (tCO2e)

Sensitivity 1 – Electric Rail 18% 609,290

Sensitivity 2 – lower fuel efficiency of rail freight 23% 1,657,120

Sensitivity 3 – higher fuel efficiency of rail freight 19% 666,226

Sensitivity 4 – lower proportion of rail in overland split

20% 833,001

Sensitivity 5 – higher proportion of rail in overland split

20% 763,125

Sensitivity 6 – lower utilisation rate of containers 17% 704,083

The results of the sensitivity testing reveal that the estimated CO2 savings are not overly sensitive to the parameters identified, ensuring a fairly high level of confidence in the analysis. On the basis of the export scenario considered, it may be concluded that the Scheme will save approximately 798,000 tCO2 (609,000 – 1,657,000 sensitivity range) over the first ten years of operation, compared with the situation without the development in place. Since the exports will be mirrored by imports, the total CO2 avoided would be 1.6 million tonnes. It needs to be recognised that the tonnage emissions quantified above have a significant degree of uncertainty as they are based on a simplified scenario, which is in turn based on a series of assumptions. It is the nature of the subject that there is uncertainty inherent in the assessment, and in future predictions. Sensitivity analyses are a standard way of illustrating uncertainty. Therefore, it may be more useful to consider the likely proportional avoidance of emissions enabled by the Scheme. By 2020, when it is predicted that Scottish port capacity will be fully utilised, this will result in an annual carbon saving of 20% (18% – 23%) over the Base case without the Scheme in place. A related benefit of the Scheme in terms of carbon savings is that the West Coast Mainline rail route is predicted to reach capacity towards 2020. Shifting container freight from rail to sea will help sustain capacity on this line by providing an opportunity to shift freight on the sea. It will also reduce the need to shift freight onto the more polluting mode of road transport as an alternative.

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 20

Page 30: Babcock Carbon Balance document
Page 31: Babcock Carbon Balance document

6 Conclusions

Broad estimates of the carbon footprint associated with the civil engineering works already completed and those needed to complete the terminal, show that approximately 44,000 tCO2 have already been emitted in the construction of the existing dock. Together with the estimated 26,000 tCO2 associated with the remaining development works, this result in a total of 70,000 tCO2 of embodied carbon emissions. Therefore approximately two-thirds of the embodied carbon emissions associated with the completed terminal are ‘sunk’ and already in the atmosphere. In comparing the proposed development to a ‘greenfield’ site, it may be concluded that converting the existing infrastructure to a Container Terminal will cost only a third of the carbon emissions of building it from new. The operational carbon analysis shows that the development of the Scheme offers the means of a modal shift for Scottish freight transport principally from rail and road to sea. Since water-borne transport is more energy-efficient than land transport, the modal shift will reduce fossil fuel emissions, over the base case. This relative reduction is estimated to be in the region of 20% in total emissions over the first ten years of operation. Considering both an equal import and export scenario, this is estimated to be a saving of 1.6 Mt CO2e. As emissions are attributed to the location where fuel is purchased, it could be reasonably assumed that these savings are equally shared between England and Scotland. Ultimately the development will result in an overall net offset in the projected increase in Scotland's carbon emissions due to the modal shift opportunity and utilises the significant amount of carbon already embedded at the development site. Therefore this development can be viewed as supporting the Scottish Government’s goal of “sustainable economic growth”.

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment 21

Page 32: Babcock Carbon Balance document
Page 33: Babcock Carbon Balance document

7 References

AEA Technology (2001). Rail Emissions Model: Final Report for the Strategic Rail Authority. Association of American Railroads http://www.aar.org/NewsAndEvents/Press-Releases/2010/04/042110-EarthDay.aspx

DECC (date unknown). The reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) in the UK: the difference between the Environmental Accounts (EA) and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_change/gg_emissions/uk_emissions/uk_emissions.aspx DfT (various dates) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11. http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol11/ EA Carbon Calculator http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/37543.aspx

MacKay, DJC (2009). Sustainable Energy – Without The Hot Air. UIT Cambridge. Availible online – http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html (accessed 17/05/2011). Scottish Executive (2009). National Planning Framework 2. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/07/02105627/0 Ocean Shipping Consultants (2010). Fuel Consumption Comparison Study. Scottish Executive (2007) Economic Strategy. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/11/12115041/0

Scottish Executive (2009). Climate Change (Scotland) Act. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/climatechange/scotlands-action/climatechangeact Scottish Executive (2010). Scottish Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2008. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/323523/0104169.pdf Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/strategy-and-research/scottish-transport-analysis-guide/stag/td Transport Scotland Business Plan 2009/10 http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-reports/j10891-00.htm Transport Watch UK http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5.htm

Rosyth International Container Terminal Carbon Balance Assessment

Page 34: Babcock Carbon Balance document
Page 35: Babcock Carbon Balance document

Felixstowe

Glasgow

to Rotterdam

to Hamburg

/

RICT Carbon Balance Assessment

Drawing Title

Project

Drawing Status

Drawing No.

Client No.

This drawing is not to be used in whole in or part other than for the intended purposeand project as defined on this drawing. Refer to the contract for full terms and conditions.

1 City Walk, Leeds, LS11 9DX, UK.Tel: +44(0)113 242 6771 Fax:+44(0)113 389 1389

www.jacobs.com

FIGURE 1

FINALScale @A3

Jacobs No.DO NOT SCALE

B1561000_Rosyth_01

Drawn Check'd Appr'dPurpose of revisionRev. Date

PG GA AHInitial Issue0 09/03/11

Modal Freight RoutesFelixstowe to Glasgow

GA

Rev'd

Client

Legend

Rail Option (778km)

Road Option (676km)

Rosyth to Glasgow Road Connection

Sea Option (1799km total)Feeder Boat Loop round trip distance:Rotterdam - Felixstowe - Hamburg - Rotterdam

FIGURE 1

NTS