Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 371–398 | Cite as

Evaluation of cold ironing and speed reduction policies to reduce ship emissions near and at ports

  • Thalis Zis
  • Robin Jacob North
  • Panagiotis Angeloudis
  • Washington Yotto Ochieng
  • Michael Geoffrey Harrison Bell
Original Article

Abstract

Different port operating policies have the potential to reduce emissions from shipping; however, their efficacy varies for different ports. This article extends existing literature to present a consistent and transferable methodology that examines emissions reduction port policies based on ship-call data. Carbon dioxide (CO2); sulphur dioxide (SO2); nitrogen oxides (NOx); and black carbon (BC) emissions from near-port containership activities are estimated. Two emissions reduction policies are considered for typical container terminals. Participation of all calling vessels with a speed reduction scheme can lead to reductions of 8–20 per cent, 9–40 per cent and 9–17 per cent for CO2, SO2 and NOx, respectively. However, speed reduction policies may increase BC emissions by up to 10 per cent. Provision of Alternative Marine Power (AMP) for all berthing vessels can reduce in-port emissions by 48–70 per cent, 3–60 per cent, 40–60 per cent and 57–70 per cent for CO2, SO2, NOx and BC, respectively. The analysis shows that emissions depend on visiting fleet, berthing durations, baseline operating pattern of calling ships, sulphur reduction policies in force and the emissions intensity of electricity supply. The potential of emissions reduction policies varies considerably across ports making imperative the evaluation and prioritization of such policies based on the unique characteristics of each port and each vessel.

Keywords

maritime transportation ship emissions slow steaming cold ironing port policy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was co-funded by the Greek State Scholarship Foundation; the resources of OP Education and Lifelong learning of the European Social Fund (ESF); and NSRF 2007–2013. The authors express their gratitude to Dr Dimitrios Pachakis and Dr Sheila Farrell for their comments on earlier versions of this article and their assistance with industry practices, and to Dr Iraklis Lazakis for his comments on the operation of marine engines. We thank the MEL reviewers for their suggestions that helped us improve our article considerably.

References

  1. AEA. (2011) Guidelines to Defra/DECC’s GHG conversion factors for company reporting. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/pdf/110707-guidelines-ghg-conversion-factors.pdf, accessed February 2012.
  2. Benford, H. (1981) A simple approach to fleet deployment. Maritime Policy & Management 8 (4): 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buhaug, Ø. et al (2009) Second IMO Greenhouse Gas Study. London: International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
  4. California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2007) California Code of Regulations. Section 93118.3, title 17, chapter 1, subchapter 7.5. http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr120507.htm, accessed October 2012.
  5. California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2012) Marine Notice 2012-1: Advisory to owners or operators of ocean-going vessels or ships visiting California ports. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/documents/marinenote2012_1.pdf, accessed April 2013.
  6. Cariou, P. (2011) Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO2 emissions from container shipping? Transportation Research Part D 16 (3): 260–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbett, J.J., Wang, H. and Winebrake, J.J. (2009) The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping. Transportation Research Part D 14 (8): 593–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbett, J.J., Winebrake, J.J., Green, E.H., Kasibhatla, P., Eyring, V. and Lauer, A. (2007) Mortality from ship emissions: A global assessment. Environmental Science & Technology 41 (24): 8512–8518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolphin, M.J. and Melcer, M. (2008) Estimation of ship dry air emissions. Naval Engineers Journal 120 (3): 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2005) Directive 2005/33/EC amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels. http://www.ops.wpci.nl/_images/_downloads/_original/1264149906_2005eudirectivesulphurcontentofmarinefuels2005_33.pdf, accessed August 2012.
  11. European Commission. (2009) Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community.Google Scholar
  12. European Sea Ports Organisation. (2012) Green Guide. http://www.ecoports.com/templates/frontend/blue/images/pdf/espo_green%20guide_october%202012_final.pdf, accessed January 2013.
  13. Eyring, V., Köhler, H.W., van Aardenne, J. and Lauer, A. (2005) Emissions from international shipping: 1. The last 50 years. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 110 (D17): D17305.1–D17305.12.Google Scholar
  14. Healy, R.M., O’Connor, I.P., Hellebust, S., Allanic, A., Sodeau, J.R. and Wenger, J.C. (2009) Characterisation of single particles from in-port ship emissions. Atmospheric Environment 43 (40): 6408–6414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH). (2008) The World Ports Climate Declaration and Endorsement Ceremony. http://wpci.iaphworldports.org/data/docs/about-us/Declaration.pdf, accessed January 2013.
  16. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2012) Electricity/heat by country/region, OECD member countries. http://www.iea.org/stats/prodresult.asp?PRODUCT=Electricity/Heat. accessed July 2012.
  17. International Maritime Organization (IMO). (2002) MARPOL 73/78, consolidated edition. London: International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
  18. Khersonsky, Y., Islam, M. and Peterson, K. (2007) Challenges of connecting shipboard marine systems to medium voltage shoreside electrical power. Industry Applications, IEEE 43 (3): 838–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kontovas, C. and Psaraftis, H.N. (2011) Reduction of emissions along the maritime intermodal container chain: Operational models and policies. Maritime Policy & Management 28 (4): 455–473.Google Scholar
  20. Lack, D. A. et al (2009) Particulate emissions from commercial shipping: Chemical, physical, and optical properties. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 114 (D7): 1984–2012.Google Scholar
  21. Lack, D.A. and Corbett, J.J. (2012) Black carbon from ships: A review of the effects of ship speed, fuel quality and exhaust gas scrubbing. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 12 (9): 3985–4000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maloni, M., Paul, J.A. and Gligor, D.M. (2013) Slow steaming impacts on ocean carriers and shippers. Maritime Economics & Logistics 15 (2): 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MAN DIESEL. (2008) Low Container Ship Speed Facilitated by Versatile ME/ME-C Engines. MAN DIESEL A/S Report, Copenhagen, Denmark, January.Google Scholar
  24. MAN DIESEL. (2006) Ship Propulsion – Basic Principles of Ship Propulsion. MAN Diesel A/S Report, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  25. Pachakis, D. and Kiremidjian, A. (2003) Ship traffic modeling methodology for ports. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 129 (5): 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paul, D. and Haddadian, V. (2005) Cold ironing – Power System Grounding and Safety Analysis. In Industry Applications Conference, 2005. Fourtieth IAS Annual Meeting. Conference Record of the 2005.Vol. 2, IEEE, pp. 1503–1511.Google Scholar
  27. Port of Los Angeles (POLA). (2011) Inventory of air emissions – 2011. http://www.portoflosangeles.org/pdf/2011_Air_Emissions_Inventory.pdf, accessed December 2012.
  28. Psaraftis, H.N. and Kontovas, C.A. (2009) CO2 emission statistics for the world commercial fleet. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 8 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Psaraftis, H.N. and Kontovas, C.A. (2010) Balancing the economic and environmental performance of maritime transportation. Transportation Research Part D 15 (8): 458–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Psaraftis, H.N. and Kontovas, C.A. (2013) Speed models for energy-efficient maritime transportation: A taxonomy and survey. Transportation Research Part C 26 (January): 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saxe, H. and Larsen, T. (2004) Air pollution from ships in three Danish ports. Atmospheric Environment 38 (24): 4057–4067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2013) Review of maritime transport. UNCTAD/RMT/2013, United Nations publication. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2013_en.pdf, accessed February 2014.
  33. Wang, S. and Meng, Q. (2012) Sailing speed optimization for container ships in a liner shipping network. Transportation Research Part E 48 (3): 701–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wärtsilä. (2013) Wärtsilä solutions for marine and oil & gas markets. www.wartsila.com/file/Wartsila/en/1278516991595a1267106724867-wartsila-sp-b-wartsila-solutions-2013.pdf, accessed November 2013.
  35. Zis, T., North, R.J., Angeloudis, P., Ochieng, W.Y. and Bell Michael, G.H. (2014) Effects of speed reduction policies near ports. Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, no 14–4648.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thalis Zis
    • 1
  • Robin Jacob North
    • 1
  • Panagiotis Angeloudis
    • 1
  • Washington Yotto Ochieng
    • 1
  • Michael Geoffrey Harrison Bell
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil & Environmental EngineeringImperial College London, Centre for Transport StudiesLondonUK
  2. 2.Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, Sydney UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations