marintek 1 second imo ghg study 2009 presented to mepc 59, july 13 2009 17:00 summary of key results...
TRANSCRIPT
MARINTEK 1
Second IMO GHG Study 2009
Presented to MEPC 59, July 13 2009
17:00 Summary of key results – 30 minutes with translation
17:30 Additional results and background – English only
18:15 Q&A
18:45 End
TENTATIVE TIMELINE
MARINTEK 2
A global team CE Delft The Netherlands Dr. Jasper Faber
Dalian Maritime University China Professor Wu Wanqing
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. (DLR),
Germany Dr. Veronika Eyring
DNV Norway Alvar Mjelde
Dr. Øyvind Endresen
Energy and Environmental Research Associates (EERA)
USA Dr. James Corbett
Dr. James Winebrake
Lloyd's Register-Fairplay Research, Sweden Christopher Pålsson
Manchester Metropolitan University UK Professor David S. Lee
MARINTEK Norway Dr. Øyvind Buhaug
Haakon Lindstad
Mokpo National Maritime University (MNMU),
Korea Professor DonChool Lee
National Maritime Research Institute (NMRI)
Japan Koichi Yoshida
Ocean Policy Research Foundation (OPRF)
Japan Shinichi Hanayama
MARINTEK 3
Scope of work - outline
Estimate present day and future greenhouse gas emissions and emissions of other relevant substances from total and international shipping CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6,
NOx, NMVOC, CO, PM, SOx
Estimate impacts of emissions on climate Compare emissions intensity with other transport modes Evaluate technology options for emissions reductions Evaluate policy options for emissions reductions Consider cost-effectiveness analysis and public health impacts
MARINTEK 4
Current and future emissions from shipping
Dr. James Winebrake
MARINTEK
Inventory Approach
Inventory assessed using an activity-based approach
Analytical details are found in the report along with a confidence assessment
Activity-based (bottom-up) approach was determined to be preferred over fuel statistics (top-down) approach
5
MARINTEK
World Fleet Fuel Consumption (2007)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Fue
l Con
sum
ptio
n (M
illio
n to
ns)
This study
IMO Expert Group (Freight-Trend), 2007
Corbett and Köhler (Freight-Trend), JGR, 2003Eyring et al., JGR, 2005 part 1 + 2
Endresen et al., JGR, 2007 (not corrected for comparison)
Endresen et al (Freight-Trend)., JGR, 2007
IEA Total marine fuel salesIEA Int'l Marine Fuel sales
Point Estimates
This study (Freight trend)
Freight-Trend Eyring et al., JGR, 2005EIA bunker
Bottom-up(Activity-based)
estimates
Top-down(Fuel-sales)
data
2007 Low bound Best High bound
Total fuel consumption 279 333 400
MARINTEK
Emissions Summary (2007)
7
Ship Exhaust Refrigerant Transport of
Crude oil
Total
CO2 1050 - - 1050
CH4 0.10 - 0.14** 0.24
N2O 0.03 - - 0.03
HFC - 0.0004 - 0.0004
PFC - - - -
SF6 - - - -
NOx 25 - - 25
NMVOC 0.8 - 2.3 3.1
CO 2.5 - - 2.5
PM 1.8 - - 1.8
SOx 15 - - 15
Table 3-11 – Summary of emissions (million tons) from total shipping 2007*
* HFC numbers for 2003. Transport of Crude oil numbers for 2006.** Highly uncertain.
MARINTEK
Key Driving Variables (based on IPCC SRES scenarios)
Category Variable Related Elements
EconomyShipping transport
demand (tonne-miles/year)
Population, global and regional economic growth, modal shifts, sectoral demand shifts.
Transport efficiency
Transport efficiency (MJ/tonne-mile) – depends on fleet composition, ship technology and
operation
Ship design, propulsion advancements, vessel speed, regulation aimed at achieving other objectives but that have a GHG emissions consequence.
Energy Shipping fuel carbon
fraction (gC/MJ fuel energy)
Cost and availability of fuels (e.g., use of residual fuel, distillates, LNG, biofuels, or other fuels).
Different values applied to three categories of ships:•Coastwise shipping - Ships used in regional (short sea) shipping; •Ocean-going shipping - Larger ships suitable for intercontinental trade; and,•Container ships (all sizes).
MARINTEK
CO2 Emissions from International Shipping
MARINTEK
Emission Scenario Trajectories (Total Emissions)
10
NOx SOx PM10
CO NMVOC
MARINTEK 11
Climate Impacts from Shipping
Professor Dr. Veronika Eyring
MARINTEK
Climate effects – CO2 Air quality, acidification – SOx, BC, NOx
Temperature, precipitation, winds, extreme events etc.
Ocean acidification Loss of species, biodiversity Welfare & social impacts
Air quality issues Adverse health impacts Sulphur deposition Loss of species, biodiversity BC/snow interactions
Different effects, different solutions
MARINTEK
Radiative forcing (RF) is a metric measured in W m-2 as a change relative to the pre-industrial period (1750).
RF by nature is usually defined as a global meanShipping forcings operate on different spatial (and temporal )
scales:CO2 – global (+ve RF)
CH4 – global (-ve RF)
O3 – oceanic (+ve RF)
Black carbon – regional to oceanic (+ve RF)Sulphate – regional to oceanic (-ve RF)Cloudiness – regional (-ve RF)
How does shipping affect RF?
NOx
Eyring et al., Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: shipping, Atmospheric Environment, in press, 2009
MARINTEK
47 mW m-2
in 2005
2050 CO2 RF 99 – 122 mW m-2 for main scenarios
(min 68 mW m-2, max 122 mW m-2)
Shipping CO2 radiative forcing
Buhaug et al., IMO GHG Study, 2009
MARINTEK
Eyring V. and D. S. Lee, Climate Impact. Chapter 8 in Second IMO GHG study 2009, Buhaug et al. 2009
Residual radiative forcings and global mean T in 2007 and 2100 from shipping emissions up to 2007 ("ship-off scenario")
Different lifetime: SOx and CO2
T positive in 2100
T negative in 2007
MARINTEK
Stabilisation Scenarios
• Stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations by the end of the 21st century will require significant reductions in future global CO2 emissions.
• With 550 ppm, a target of 2 °C would be exceeded, and 450 ppm would result in a 50% likelihood of achieving this target.
• If ship emissions grow as the baseline scenarios and if all other sources follow the 450 ppm stabilisation pathway, then shipping contributes 12-18% of 2050 CO2..
12-18 % of the WRE 450 scenario
MARINTEK
RADIATIVE FORCING
Even with a present-day negative effect, the CO2 accumulation means that at some point, the RF may switch from cooling to warming (difference in lifetime between CO2 and S).
Reduction of CO2 is important to prevent further climate warming
The radiative and climate effects of non-CO2 pollutants are complex but do not imply retaining S to ‘mitigate’ CO2 effects
IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY AND HUMAN HEALTH Ozone and aerosol precursor emissions contribute to air quality problems and
have negative impacts on human health. New results (Winebrake et al., ES&T, 2009) provide important support that
global health benefits are associated with low-sulfur marine fuels, and allow for relative comparison of the benefits of alternative control strategies.
Conclusions
MARINTEK 18
Technical options for reduction of
GHG emissions from ships
Dr. Øyvind Buhaug
MARINTEK
Ship Emission Sources
Combustion (e.g. diesel engines) Cargo emissions (e.g. VOC) Leaks from onboard equipment (e.g. refridgerant leaks)
GHGs: CO2 CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6Other relevant substances: NOx, NMVOC, CO, PM, SOx
Scope of study:
MARINTEK
Options for CO2 emission reduction
Improving energy efficiency
Renewable energy sources,
Fuels with less total fuel-cycle emissions
Not considered feasible for ships: reduction of emissions through chemical conversion, capture and storage etc.
MARINTEK
Assessment of Emissions Reduction Potential
DESIGN (New ships)Saving of
CO2/tonne-mile Combined Combined
Concept, speed & capability 2% to 50%
10% to 50%
25% to 75%
Hull and superstructure 2% to 20%
Power and propulsion systems 5% to 15%
Low-carbon fuels 5% to 15%
Renewable energy 1% to 10%
Exhaust gas CO2 reduction 0%
OPERATION (All ships)
Fleet management, logistics & incentives
5% to 50%
10% to 50%Voyage optimization 1% to 10%
Energy management 1% to 10%
MARINTEK 22
Policy options for reduction of GHG
emissions from ships
Dr. Jasper Faber
MARINTEK 23
Overview of Policy Analysis
Identify policies in the IMO debate until MEPC58
Analyse them on the criteria set by MEPC 57 Environmental effectiveness Cost-effectiveness Incentive to technical change Practical feasibility of implementation
MARINTEK 24
Overview of policy proposals
MARINTEK 25
Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis
MARINTEK 26
Policy options to reduce GHG emissions
Market-based instruments are cost-effective and highly environmentally effective capture the largest amount of emissions under their scope, allow both technical and operational measures in the shipping
sector to be used can offset emissions in other sectors.
A mandatory limit on the EEDI for new ships is a cost-effective solution that can provide an incentive to improve the design efficiency of new ships. Its environmental effect is limited it only applies to new ships it only incentivizes design improvements and not improvements in
operations.
MARINTEK
Thank you for your attention