European Commission Quantification of emissions from...

EuropeanCommission

Quantification ofemissions fromships associatedwith shipmovementsbetween ports in theEuropeanCommunityFinal Report

July 2002

Entec UK Limited

Report forNicola RobinsonEuropean CommissionDG ENV.C1Rue de la Loi, 200B-1049 BrusselsBelgium

Main ContributorsChris WhallDavid Cooper (IVL)Karen ArcherLayla TwiggerNeil ThurstonDavid OckwellAlun McIntyreAlistair Ritchie

Issued by

…………………………………………………………Chris Whall

Approved by

…………………………………………………………Alistair Ritchie

Entec UK LimitedWindsor HouseGadbrook Business CentreGadbrook RoadNorthwichCheshireCW9 7TNEnglandTel: +44 (0) 1606 354800Fax: +44 (0) 1606 354810

\\enorfs01\data\data\projects\em-260\06000 projects\06177ec ships\final report\06177.02121.doc

EuropeanCommission

Quantification ofemissions fromships associatedwith shipmovementsbetween ports in theEuropeanCommunityFinal Report

July 2002

Entec UK Limited

Certificate No. FS 13881

In accordance with an environmentallyresponsible approach, this reportis printed on recycled paper producedfrom 100% post-consumer waste.

Final Report

h:\graphics\transfer\06177-01 ec ship emissions\revised text 2\06177.02121.doc July 2002

Glossary

ACC Accession Candidate Country

AE auxiliary engine

EEA European Economic Area country (Norway & Iceland for the purposes ofthis study)

GRT gross registered tonnage

GT gas turbine

HC hydrocarbons

HSD high speed diesel

kWh kilo Watt hour

MCR maximum continuous rating

MDO marine diesel oil

ME main engine

MGO marine gas oil

MSD medium speed diesel

PM particulate matter

RO residual oil

S sulphur

Sfc specific fuel consumption

SSD slow speed diesel

ST steam turbine

Final Reporti


Executive Summary

BackgroundAs increasingly stringent controls are placed on land-based sources of atmospheric emissions,there is mounting pressure to bring ship emissions more closely within air quality policy acrossthe European Community. For example, the negotiations on the National Emissions CeilingsDirective have considered the potential of bringing ship emissions within national ceilings. Shipemissions have not been as tightly controlled as many land-based emission sources and theinternational transboundary context of the shipping sector has posed specific difficulties toachieving progress in improving environmental performance.

Research has demonstrated that ship emissions can make a significant contribution to airpollution problems in the European Community and, in particular, are major emitters ofacidifying gases. These findings are based on previous studies of emissions estimates for shipmovements in the North Sea, English Channel, Baltic Sea, North East Atlantic andMediterranean Sea.

In order to inform future EU policy on ship emissions, the European Commission decided it wasnecessary to develop a comprehensive inventory of all ship emissions in EU sea areas in theyear 2000.

This StudyAccordingly, this study has been conducted by Entec UK Ltd on behalf of the EuropeanCommission, with sub-consultants IVL of Sweden, to address the following key tasks:

• to quantify ship emissions of SO2, NOx, CO2 and hydrocarbons in the North Sea,Irish Sea, English Channel, Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Mediterranean, as well asquantifying in-port emissions of these pollutants plus particulate matter;

• to determine these emissions for all vessels as well as separately for each vesseltype and flag state (Registered in the European Community or outside) if possible.This should separately consider: (a) all vessel movements; (b) where the startingport and destination port are both in the Community; (c) where the starting port isinside the Community but the destination port is not; (d) where the destination portis in the Community but the starting port is not; and (e) where no stops at anyCommunity port are undertaken;

• Estimation of the effects of the MARPOL Agreement and additional futurescenarios upon emissions, principally sulphur dioxide and particles, in the NorthSea and Baltic Sea and other European seas;

• to present these emissions in tabular and map form;

• to undertake a market survey of low sulphur marine distillates; and

• to investigate the feasibility of ships storing and using multiple grades of marinedistillates.

Final Reportii


Information SourcesThe primary source of information in terms of ship movements was a comprehensive databaseprovided by Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit (LMIU). This is the only commercial database ofall ship movements world-wide (over 46,000 merchant vessels calling at over 6000 ports). Itcomprises up-to-date data resolved to a daily timeframe and over 3 million movements areprocessed annually.

The most up-to-date ship movements available at the time of this study (year 2000) wereutilised in the transit analysis component of the emissions study. Due to the large number ofvessel movements world-wide on an annual basis and the complexities of the data analysis andlevel of disaggregation required for this project; a four-month sample of the data was obtained.The data was for four discrete months to reflect seasonal variations in shipping activity. Themonths selected were January, April, July, October 2000, to represent movements representativeof winter, spring, summer and autumn.

LMIU has confirmed that there were 1,831,838 shipping movements in the area of interestduring 2000 and that, in their experience, there is little variation between annualised quarterlyprojections and yearly actual movements. In particular, there were 608,942 vessel movementsin the 4-month period of data selected which, when annualised, produces a yearly estimate of1,826,826. Thus, the estimate is within 1% of the actual figure for 2000.

The shipping movements database was combined with other sources of information as follows:

• a vessel characteristics database that lists the characteristics of each vessel world-wide (over 500 Gross Registered Tonnes), in terms of the type of vessel andinformation on the engine type and size;

• an emission factors database, for the air pollutants nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphurdioxide (SO2), hydrocarbons (HC) and particles (PM) (only in-port emissions ofparticles were considered in this study) and for the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide(CO2);

• GIS representation of the EMEP domain (see Figure 1 below), in which vesselroutings corresponding to the origin and destination points (ports) in the vesselmovements database are embedded and ship emissions are assigned to 50km x50km grid squares;

• Details on the times that classes of vessels spend on in-port activities, in order toenable calculation of pollutant emissions while in-port, derived from aquestionnaire survey of ports; and

• Information on fuel consumption by fishing vessels in the UK and other EU-15countries, data on annual fish catches and the locations of fishing grounds.

Final Reportiii


Figure 1. EMEP Domain

Results – Emissions EstimatesFor the year 2000, total emissions of the five pollutants considered from shipping movements inthe EMEP domain are included in Table 1 below. A spatial representation of total sulphurdioxide emissions from vessels during 2000 in the EMEP domain is contained in Figure 2below. Further emission maps are included in the main body of the report at the end of chapter2.

Table 1. Total calculated pollutant emissions for 2000

Source NOx

Kte/annum

SO2

Kte/annum

CO2

Kte/annum

HC

Kte/annum

PM (in port)

Kte/annum

Vessels+ferries 3,535 2,515 153,243 131 21

Fishing 82 63 4,055 2.8 -*

TOTAL 3,617 2,578 157,298 134 21

* Not calculated

Subdivision of these emission estimates between the North Sea/Baltic and other areas wasmade. The results of this are included in Table 2 below.

Final Reportiv


Table 2. Subdivision of emission estimates for 2000 between North Sea/Baltic and Other Areas

Area NOx

Kte / annum

SO2

Kte / annum

CO2

Kte/ annum

HC

Kte/annum

PM (in port)

Kte/annum

NorthSea/Baltic

1,074 763 40,849 39 6

Other Areas 2,543 1,815 116,449 95 15

Total 3,617 2,578 157,298 134 21

Final Reportvi

h:\graphics\transfer\06177-01 ec ship emissions\revised text2\06177.02121.doc

July 2002

Results – Emission BreakdownsA breakdown of the total calculated sulphur dioxide emissions by vessel origin and destinationstate is shown in the pie chart below.

Figure 3. Total SO2 emissions breakdown by movement

It is clear that the majority of emissions arise from certain key groups of movements including,in order of decreasing priority:

• EU-15 member states to EU-15 member states;

• EU-15 member states to Non-member, Non Accession Candidate Country statesand

• Non-member, Non Accession Candidate Country states to EU-15 member states.

A similar pattern is evident for the other pollutant emissions.

Results – Breakdown of Vessel MovementsA breakdown of the vessel movements between states is shown in the second pie chart below.

Figure 4. Breakdown of vessel movements by origin and destination state

40%

14%13%

7%

4%

7%

7%4% 4%

EU-15 to EU-15

EU-15 to NON

NON to EU-15

NON to NON

ACC to ACC

ACC to EU-15

EU-15 to ACC

NON to ACC

ACC to NON

Movement Type

22%

3%

3%3%

10%

4%3%1%

51%

EU-15 to EU-15

EU-15 to ACC

ACC to EU-15

ACC to ACC

EU-15 to NON

NON to EU-15

ACC to NON

NON to ACC

NON to NON

Final Reportvii


July 2002

The greatest proportion of vessel movements include, in order of decreasing priority:

• Non-member, Non Accession Candidate Country states to Non-member, NonAccession Candidate Country states;

• EU-15 member states to EU-15 member states;

• EU-15 member states to Non-member, Non Accession Candidate Country statesand

• Non-member, Non Accession Candidate Country states to EU-15 member states.

It is noted that whilst the greatest proportion of vessel movements are between Non-member,Non Accession Candidate Country states, these movements contribute a relatively lowerproportion of total emissions as they generally spend less time in the EMEP domain.

Results – Future Emission ProjectionsA range of potential future emission scenarios was developed jointly by Entec and the EuropeanCommission, incorporating the provisions of MARPOL Annex VI. These dealt with reductionsin the sulphur content of residual oil (RO) in the North Sea and Baltic waters, reductions inmarine gas oil (MGO) sulphur contents for use by vessels in port and restrictions upon ROsulphur content in territorial waters to 1.5%. Vessels operating in areas outside the Baltic andNorth Sea were assumed to use RO with a sulphur content of 2.7%, equivalent to that for the“Business as Usual” (BAU) scenario.

The range of scenarios considered in this analysis is contained in Table 3, dealing with BAUcases for 2006, 2008 and 2010 and various cases for these years with low sulphur contentresidual oil (RO) usage in the North Sea and Baltic, low sulphur distillate fuel usage in-port andlow sulphur RO use in territorial waters.

Table 3. Future scenarios considered

ScenarioNo. / Year

Sulphur in fuel and fuel type legislation NOx, PM, HC and CO2

1. 2006 BAU* as in assigned emission factors for year 2000(“Actual 2000”)

as in “Actual 2000”

2. 2006 1,5% in RO for North Sea/Baltic as in “Actual 2000” + lower PM

3. 2006 1,5% in RO for North Sea/Baltic

+ 0,2% in MGO in port for AEs only

as in “Actual 2000” + lower PM + NOx, CO2reductions due to increase in MGO use (lowersfc)


+ 0,2% in MGO in port and manoeuvring for bothAEs and MEs


5. 2008 BAU as in “Actual 2000” as in “Actual 2000”

6. 2008 1,5% in RO for North Sea/Baltic As in “Actual 2000” + lower PM


+ 0,1% in MGO in port for AEs only


Final Reportviii


July 2002

ScenarioNo. / Year

Sulphur in fuel and fuel type legislation NOx, PM, HC and CO2




9. 2008 1,5% in RO for North Sea/Baltic and all territorialwaters



10. 2010 BAU As in “Actual 2000” As in “Actual 2000”

* BAU – Business as Usual

Annual growth rates for vessel movements were selected as 1.5% per annum and 3.0% perannum after IMO (2000). These were applied to all vessels except for ferries and fishingvessels, for which no growth was assumed. The resultant projections for the 1.5% per annumgrowth rate are contained in Table 4 below. A more detailed breakdown of the scenariocalculations is contained in Appendix F, together with the summarised results for the 3% perannum growth factor.

Final Reportix


July 2002

Table 4. Emissions estimates for future scenarios

Scenario NOx

Kte / annum

SO2

Kte / annum

CO2

Kte/ annum

HC

Kte/annum

PM (in port)

Kte/annum

2000 BAU 3,617 2,578 157,298 134 21

1 2006 BAU 3,833 2,718 165,412 140 23

2 3,833 2,381 165,412 140 20

3 3,831 2,301 165,222 140 12

4 3,826 2,268 165,026 140 9

5 2008 BAU 3,922 2,780 169,024 144 23

6 3,922 2,435 169,024 144 21

7 3,919 2,350 168,828 144 13

8 3,915 2,314 168,628 144 9

9 3,915 1,999 168,628 144 9

10 2010 BAU 4,015 2,845 172,791 147 24

Market Survey of Marine DistillatesMarine distillates can be broadly divided into two categories: marine gas oil (MGO) and marinediesel oil (MDO). MDO is classed as fuel with a viscosity (measured at 50 oC) between5,5 - 50 cst and MGO 1 - 5,5 cst.1 The majority of world-wide sales of marine distillates areproduced and sold under quality standards categorised under ISO 8217 which places maximumlimits on their chemical and physical properties, including sulphur content.

Four main areas are addressed in this report:

• The proportion of European ports which sell low sulphur (0.2%) grades;

• The proportion of low sulphur marine distillates sold in the EU relative to thehigher sulphur equivalents in ISO 8217;

• Typical price premiums in the EU between low and high sulphur distillate grades;and

• The availability of low sulphur marine distillates outside the EU.

A survey was constructed asking for information on the four key areas and sent electronically tolisted bunker suppliers, traders and brokers within the November 2001 Bunker News Directory.400 questionnaires were sent out in total and 56 responded. The resulting information was then 1 IVL 2002

Final Reportx


July 2002

analysed by country and region. The major oil companies were individually contactedindependently from the survey.

The general picture derived through this study, as a result of both the survey and extensivedialogue with industry contacts, is that low sulphur marine distillates are available at portsthroughout Europe except certain areas of Greece, Spain and the Canary Islands. MostScandinavian and Baltic States, as well as the UK and Ireland tend to sell only max 0.2%sulphur gasoil. Northwest Europe tends to be mixed with low sulphur available but somesuppliers still supplying high sulphur gasoil at a discounted price. Portugal tends to beexclusively 0.05% sulphur with the same grade of distillate (all DMA) supplied for road andmarine use. The Mediterranean and Aegean markets are also mixed with 0.2% available exceptin parts of Greece where it is only available by truck. Notably, the survey suggested that theavailability of low sulphur marine distillates is predominantly MGO. MDO tends not to bewidely available at <0.2% sulphur.

In summary, it is estimated that low sulphur (<0.2%) distillates are available at approximately95-99% of ports within the EU. However, the quantities in which they are available may varysignificantly between ports and regions.

Price information that distinguishes between low and high sulphur marine distillates is notreadily available. The survey results are therefore based on estimates by the responding bunkersuppliers based on their own recent observations of the market. The predominant viewexpressed by industry contacts during the course of this study is that where both low and highsulphur distillates are available, there is a premium of around $10-15 per metric tonne (mt) onthe low sulphur fuel. The results of the survey show that this is a fairly representative estimate.Premiums seem to be highest in certain EU15 countries including Greece, Germany, andSweden.

Low sulphur MGO and MDO tend to be available in North America (US and Canada) andSouth America. There is also limited availability of both in Central America. Low sulphurMGO (DMA) is also available in Russia, where it is almost exclusively low sulphur. Lowsulphur MGO (DMA) is also available in the Middle East in limited quantities. Correspondencewith industry contacts together with the results of the survey suggested that in Asia, includingSingapore and Fujairah but with the exception of the Philippines, there is very limitedavailability of low sulphur MGO (DMA). This is significant because Singapore and Fujairah aremajor world bunker suppliers.

Feasibility of ships storing multiple grades of marine distillatesAs shown by the market survey, the majority of sales of marine distillates outside of the EUtend to be high sulphur. This has obvious implications in terms of ships bunkering with highsulphur distillates outside the EU before entering Community territorial seas. Burning thesefuels then places them in breach of Directive 1999/32/EC which obliges them to burn lowsulphur (<0.2%) grades within EU waters.

The feasibility of multiple fuel storage by vessels has therefore been investigated throughcontact and discussions with shipbuilders, repairers and marine engine specialists. The principalissues arising out of this investigation can be categorised as engine operational specific issuesand fuel tank installation issues (split or double tanks; structural conversion issues; increasedfuel consumption and operational issues).

Final Reportxi


July 2002

With use of low-sulphur distillate fuels, an additional cylinder lubrication system, incorporatinga storage tank and delivery system, would be required to prevent calcium deposits in the enginecylinders and subsequent damage to the cylinders. With regard to the splitting of existing fueltanks or installation of additional capacity, it would appear that the former course of actionwould be less costly than the latter. The latter is likely to constitute a major conversion of thevessel, potentially requiring older vessels to be reclassified as new ships and correspondingupgrading to meet all present-day conventions. Installation of additional tanks may also lead toslightly increased fuel consumption.

The overall conclusion is that, while there are technical, engineering and cost issues to beaddressed, these would not present an insurmountable barrier to dual fuel usage.

Final Reportxii


July 2002

Final Reportxiii


July 2002

Contents

1. Introduction 11.1 Background 11.2 This report 1

2. Quantification of ship emissions 32.1 Sea Areas within the Scope of this Study 32.2 Ship Movement Analysis 42.2.1 Details of database used in ship movement analysis 42.2.2 Key assumptions used in ship movement analysis 52.3 Ship characteristics analysis 72.3.1 Details of database used in ship characteristics analysis 72.3.2 Key assumptions used in ship characteristics analysis 82.4 In-port emissions quantification 92.4.1 Development of assumptions 92.5 Ship Emission Factors 112.5.1 Proposed Vessel Emission Factors 112.6 Results 252.6.1 Quantification of emissions 252.6.2 Discussion of Emission Results 41

3. Market Survey of Marine Distillates with 0.2%Sulphur Content 753.1 Background 753.2 Data Gathering 763.2.1 Supply Chain Complexity 763.2.2 Optimal Approach 763.3 Results 773.3.1 Response Rate 773.3.2 Proportion of European Ports Which Sell Low Sulphur (0.2%)

Grades 773.3.3 Proportion of Low Sulphur Marine Distillates Sold in the EU

Relative to Higher Sulphur Equivalents 793.3.4 Typical Price Premiums Between Low and High Sulphur Distillate

Grades 81

Final Reportxiv


July 2002

3.3.5 Availability of Low Sulphur Marine Distillates Outside the EU 813.4 Data Quality 823.4.1 Data Sources 823.4.2 Data Age, Geographical and Technical Coverage 823.4.3 Data Precision, Completeness and Representativeness 823.4.4 Consistency and Reproducibility 833.4.5 Uncertainties 833.5 References 83

4. Feasibility of Ships Storing Multiple Grades ofMarine Distillates 854.1 Vessel Type and Applicability 854.2 Engine Specific Issues 854.3 Fuel Tank Installation Issues 864.3.1 Cost Isolation 864.3.2 Split Tank or Double Capacity? 864.3.3 Major Conversion Issues 874.3.4 Increased Fuel Consumption 874.3.5 Operational Issues 874.4 Data Quality 88

Table 1. Total calculated pollutant emissions for 2000 iiiTable 2. Subdivision of emission estimates for 2000 between North Sea/Baltic and Other Areas ivTable 3. Future scenarios considered viiTable 4. Emissions estimates for future scenarios ixTable 2.1 Estimated total fuel consumption by fishing fleets in each Fishing Zone in Europe 6Table 2.2 Ship categories used in emissions analysis 8Table 2.3 Assumptions for the duration (hours) of in-port activities, based on port surveys 10Table 2.4. A comparison of IVL and selected Lloyds Register Engineering Services data for main

engine marine emission factors and specific fuel consumption (sfc) in g/kWh at steadystate engine loads of 70 - 100% MCR. 12

Table 2.5. Assumptions regarding engine operation for the different activities. 13Table 2.6. Example of profile for vessel type A13 “Oil Tanker” regarding engine / fuel profile for MEs

and AEs. SSD = slow speed diesel, MSD = medium speed diesel, HSD = high speeddiesel, GT = gas turbine, ST = steam turbine, MGO = marine gas oil, MDO = marinediesel oil, RO = residual oil. 14

Table 2.7 Sulphur and Carbon Contents of Fuels 15Table 2.8. Emission factors in g/kWh regarding engine / fuel type for MEs “at sea”. SSD = slow

speed diesel, MSD = medium speed diesel, HSD = high speed diesel, GT = gas turbine,ST = steam turbine, MGO = marine gas oil, MDO = marine diesel oil, RO = residual oil. 17

Table 2.9 Emission factors in g/kWh regarding engine / fuel type for MEs “in port” and“manoeuvring”. SSD = slow speed diesel, MSD = medium speed diesel, HSD = highspeed diesel, GT = gas turbine, ST = steam turbine, MGO = marine gas oil, MDO =marine diesel oil, RO = residual oil. 18

Table 2.10. Emission factors in g/kWh regarding engine / fuel type for AEs (all three activities). MSD= medium speed diesel, HSD = high speed diesel, MGO = marine gas oil, MDO = marinediesel oil, RO = residual oil. Note none of the AEs in the LMIS dataset were of slow speeddiesel, gas turbine nor steam turbine engine types 19

Table 2.11. Emission factors for “at sea” operation regarding ship type. 20Table 2.12. Emission factors for “in port” operation regarding ship type. 21Table 2.13. Emission factors for “manoeuvring” operation regarding ship type. 22Table 2.14. Estimated uncertainties at the 95% confidence interval given as relative percent of the

emission factors (in g/kWh or kg/tonne fuel). For example, the NOx emission factor at sea

Final Reportxv


July 2002

has a 20 relative % uncertainty assigned, which means that 95% of ships’ emissions willlie within + or – 20% of the assigned factors. Thus, the NOx emission factor rangeexpected for a Chemical tanker A12 would be 13,2 - 19,8 g/kWh (i.e. uncertainty margincalculated from 16,5 g/kWh in Table 2.11 multiplied by 0,20). 23

Table 2.15. Envisaged future scenarios and their influence on “Actual 2000” emission factors 25Table 2.16 Emission of Pollutants during 2000 from Vessels at Sea subdivided by Origin &

Destination Port and by Flag Status (excludes Ferries & Fishing Vessels), Kilotonnes 27Table 2.17 Emission of Pollutants during 2000 from Vessels in Port and Manoeuvring subdivided by

Origin & Destination Port and by Flag Status (excludes Ferries & Fishing Vessels) 28Table 2.18 Total (at Sea, In-Port plus Manoeuvring) Pollutant Emissions during 2000 from Vessels

subdivided by Origin & Destination Port and by Flag Status (Excludes Ferries & FishingVessels) 29

Table 2.19 Pollutant Emissions during 2000 from Ferries at Sea subdivided by Origin & destinationPort and by Flag Status 30

Table 2.20 Pollutant Emissions during 2000 from Ferries Manoeuvring subdivided by Origin &Destination Port and by Flag Status 31

Table 2.21 Pollutant Emissions during 2000 from Ferries In-Port subdivided by Origin & DestinationPort and by Flag Status 32

Table 2.22 Grand Emission Totals during 2000 for all Vessels subdivided by origin & Destination Portand by Flag Status 33

Table 2.23 EU(15) to EU(15) ship movements for 4 months in 2000 (excluding ferries) 36Table 2.24 EU(15) to Accession Country ship movements for 4 months in 2000 (excluding ferries) 37Table 2.25 Accession Country to Accession Country ship movements for 4 months in 2000

(excluding ferries) 38Table 2.26 Accession Country to EU(15) ship movements for 4 months in 2000 (excluding ferries) 39Table 2.27 Summary of other ship movements for 4 months in 2000 (excluding ferries) 40Table 2.28 Summary of Total Pollutant Emissions during 2000 41Table 2.29 Subdivision of Emission estimates for 2000 between North Sea/Baltic and Other Areas 42Table 2.30 Pollutant Emission Estimates in 2000 for In-Port (includes manoeuvring,

loading/unloading and hotelling) 43Table 2.31 Ports in the EU ranked by estimated annual emissions of NOX in 2000. 43Table 2.32 Past and Future Estimated Shipping Emissions 44Table 2.33 Comparison of emission estimates for 2000 with a previous study 45Table 2.34 Future emission scenarios 46Table 2.35 Emissions estimates for Future Scenarios 47Table 3.1 – International Fuel Oil Standards (ISO 8217) 75Table 3.2 EU-15: Average Proportions of Low Sulphur Marine Distillate Sold and Price Premiums

Between High and Low Sulphur Distillates 79Table 3.3 Accession Countries: Average Proportions of Low Sulphur Marine Distillate Sold and

Price Premiums Between High and Low Sulphur Distillates 80Table 3.4 Rest of World: Average Proportions of Low Sulphur Marine Distillate Sold and Price

Premiums Between High and Low Sulphur Distillates 82Table C.1. Marine combustion sources 100Table C.2. Marine fuel types and general properties. Data based on averages from 50 analyses of

ROs, 11 analyses of MDOs and 43 analyses of MGOs from ships operating in northernEU seas. 102

Table C.3. Details of the IVL in-house emission database. 104Table C.4. Details of the Lloyds Register Engineering Services database. 107Table C.5. Lloyds Register Engineering Services emission factors in g/kWh and kg/tonne fuel for

diesel engines (Lloyds Register Engineering Services, 1995). 108Table C.6. Lloyds Register Engineering Services emission factors in kg/hr. (Lloyds Register

Engineering Services, 1995). P = engine power (kW) x engine load (85% MCR), N = No.of MEs, A = Total auxiliary power (kW), C = 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 where vessel GRT is <1000,1000-5000, 5000-10000, 10000-50000 and > 50000 respectively. 108

Table C.7. TECHNE’s proposed emission factors (in kg/tonne fuel) used for the EuropeanCommission’s MEET project. 112

Table C.8. TECHNE’s proposed emission factors (in kg/tonne fuel) for Auxiliary engines. Regressionanalysis from data provided in EPA, (1985). P = rated power output at generator in kW, L= Load in % of rated power, s = sulphur content of fuel. 114

Table C.9. IPCC default emission factors for ocean-going ships. 115Table C.10. EMEP/CORINAIR emission factors for ships using simplified “fuel consumption”

methodology. 116Table C.11. Emission factors derived by EPA from Lloyds Register Engineering Services and US

Coastguard studies. In addition, specific fuel consumption can be calculated by sfc =14,12/ (Fractional load) + 205,717. n/a refers to “not applicable” and “n/s” not significantlysignificant. 117

Table C.12. A comparison of marine emission factors in kg per tonne fuel and fuel consumption ing/kWh presented in IMO (2000). 119

Final Reportxvi


July 2002

Table C.13. Estimated uncertainties given as relative percent of average value at the 95% confidenceinterval. 120

Table E.1. Emission factors for “at sea” operation (North Sea/Baltic region) regarding ship type(scenario “2. 2006”). 144

Table E.2. Emission factors for “in-port” operation (North Sea/Baltic region) regarding ship type(scenario “2. 2006”). 145

Table E.3. Emission factors for “manoeuvring” operation (North Sea/Baltic region) regarding shiptype (scenario “2. 2006”). 146

Table E.4. Emission factors for “in-port” operation (in “other territorial waters”) regarding ship type(scenario “3. 2006”). 148

Table E.5. Emission factors for “in-port” operation (in North Sea/Baltic region) regarding ship type(scenario “3. 2006”). 149

Table E.6. Emission factors for “in-port” operation regarding ship type (scenario “4. 2006”). 151Table E.8. Emission factors for “in-port” operation (in “other territorial waters”) regarding ship type

(scenario “7. 2008”). 154Table E.9. Emission factors for “in-port” operation (in North Sea/Baltic) regarding ship type (scenario

“7. 2008”). 155Table E.10. Emission factors for “in-port” operation regarding ship type (scenario “8. 2008”). 157Table E.11. Emission factors for “manoeuvring” operation regarding ship type (scenario “8. 2008”). 158Table F.1 TOTAL EMISSION PROJECTIONS (ALL SEA AREAS) 161Table F.2 EMISSION PROJECTIONS FOR NORTH SEA AND BALTIC ONLY 165Table F.3 EMISSION PROJECTIONS FOR OTHER SEA AREAS 169Table F.4 Emissions estimates for Future Scenarios – 3% per annum assumed growth rate 173

Figure 2.1 EMEP Geographical Area 3Figure 2.2 Total SO2 Emissions Breakdown by Movement 35Figure 2.3 Breakdown of Vessel Movements by Origin and Destination State 40Figure 2.4 Total SO2 emissions 49Figure 2.5 Total NOx emissions 51Figure 2.6 Total PM emissions in port 53Figure 2.7 Total HC emissions 55Figure 2.8 Total CO2 emissions 57Figure 2.9 EU flag registered – SO2 emissions 59Figure 2.10 ACC flag registered – SO2 emissions 61Figure 2.11 NON EU/ACC flag registered – SO2 emissions 63Figure 2.12 Total SO2 emissions – Fishing vessels 65Figure 2.13 Ferry Total SO2 emissions 67Figure 2.14 Total SO2 emissions – group EU to EU 69Figure 2.15 Total SO2 emissions – group ACC to ACC 71Figure 2.16 Total SO2 emissions – group NON EU/ACC to ACC 73Figure 3.1 Map of European Sea 78

Appendix A Map of Fishing Effort AreasAppendix B Details of In-Port TimesAppendix C Factors Influencing Ship EmissionsAppendix D Breakdown of Vessel profilesAppendix E Emission Factors for Future Policy ScenariosAppendix F Detailed Breakdown of Scenario Emission Calculations

Final Report1


July 2002

1. Introduction

1.1 BackgroundShip emissions can make a significant contribution to air pollution problems in the EuropeanCommunity, as demonstrated by previous studies of emissions estimates for ship movements inthe North Sea, English Channel, Baltic Sea, North East Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. Inparticular, they are major sources of emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides(NOx), which lead to acidification and eutrophication as well as leading to the formation ofground level ozone and particulate matter.

EU Member States are already committed to achieving significant reductions in land-basedemissions of these pollutants, for example through the recent directives 2001/80 on LargeCombustion Plants and 2001/81 on National Emissions Ceilings (NEC). But for the most part,seagoing ships are exempted from existing EU air quality legislation, including the NECdirective, and to date, marine heavy fuel oils have not been subject to EU environmentallegislation.

Furthermore, it might be possible that within the shipping sector relatively cost effectiveemission reduction measures could be implemented that would be attractive in comparison torising marginal abatement costs for achieving extra reductions for certain land-based emissionsources.

In order to inform the development of a Community strategy on air pollution from seagoingships this study is to quantify ships emissions more precisely, based on year 2000 shipmovements, including in-port emissions for the first time.

In particular, this study is to quantify ship emissions of SO2, NOx, CO2 and hydrocarbons in theNorth Sea, Irish Sea, English Channel, Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Mediterranean. It is also toquantify in-port emissions of these pollutants plus particulate matter. In order to assess thepotential for Community measures (such as differentiated port charges) to reduce theseemissions, disaggregation of information is required to differentiate between those emissionsassociated with vessels making stops at Community ports and those emissions associated withships which make no stops at all or which enter non-Community ports.

Furthermore, in relation to Directive 1999/32/EC which sets the maximum permissible sulphurcontent of marine distillates used by ships in Community territorial seas of 0.2%, this studyincorporates a market survey of low sulphur marine distillates and an investigation into thefeasibility of ships storing and using multiple grades of marine distillates.

1.2 This reportThis is the final report of the quantification of emissions from ships associated with shipmovements between ports in the European Community.

As detailed above, this study is to inform the development of a Community strategy on airpollution from seagoing ships with specific objectives being:

Final Report2


July 2002

• to quantify ship emissions of SO2, NOx, CO2 and hydrocarbons in the North Sea,Irish Sea, English Channel, Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Mediterranean, as well asquantifying in-port emissions of these pollutants plus particulate matter;

• to determine these emissions for all vessels as well as separately for each vesseltype and flag state (Registered in the European Community or outside) if possible.This should separately consider: (a) all vessel movements; (b) where the startingport and destination port are both in the Community; (c) where the starting port isinside the Community but the destination port is not; (d) where the destination portis in the Community but the starting port is not; and (e) where no stops at anyCommunity port are undertaken;

• to present these emissions in tabular and map form;

• to undertake a market survey of low sulphur marine distillates; and

• to investigate the feasibility of ships storing and using multiple grades of marinedistillates.

The structure of this report is as follows:

Section 2 presents the quantification of ship emissions. This outlines the methodology used toquantify emissions, including the ship movement analysis, vessel characteristics analysis anddetermination of emission factors. The results of the quantification for each pollutant arepresented in tabular form, in accordance with the different movement types. The results areinclusive of all key vessel movements and include in-port emissions;

Section 3 presents the findings of market survey of low sulphur marine distillates; and

Section 4 presents the findings of the investigation into the feasibility of ships storing and usingmultiple grades of marine distillates.

A glossary of terms used in this report is included at the front of this report.

This project has been undertaken by a team of specialist Entec staff working in partnership withIVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. IVL has several years experience of researchand contract work involving ship emission measurements and has undertaken the developmentof representative ship emission factors for this project based on detailed investigations intorelevant data and information sources.

European Commission Quantification of emissions from...

Documents

Transcript of European Commission Quantification of emissions from...