Posted: October 20th, 2022

AIR EMISSIONS: THE EFFECTS ON THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY AND PORTS Implications for the Port of Singapore

AIR EMISSIONS:
THE EFFECTS ON THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY AND
PORTS
Implications for the Port of Singapore

ABSTRACTS
Title of Dissertation: Air Emissions: The Effects on the Shipping Industry and
Ports – Implications for the Port of Singapore
Degree: MSc
‘Climate change’ has been regarded as one of the major problems of the atmosphere. The
international shipping attributes to approximately 3 percent of the global emissions.
Studies had showed that the ship emissions have certain level of impact to the cause of
climate change, and the air quality which directly or indirectly affects human health.
MARPOL Annex VI was the first effort made by the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) to curb the emissions from ships. It places a global cap on sulphur
content of fuel oil and introduces technical code to marine engines in phases to reduce
the emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx). IMO through the Marine and Environment
Protection Committee (MEPC) has also adopted a package of measures to mitigate and
reduce ship emissions through controlling the efficiency of ships’ operation and ships
design, i.e. EEDI and SEEMP. The EEOI and Market-based Mechanisms (MBMs) are
also on the study table of IMO. If the MBMs are introduce it will inevitably influence
the business strategy and policies of the shipping companies, operators and other
related shipping industry.
Due to the establishment of the various emission control policies, abatement
technologies and alternative fuels have been explored at different industries and level
hoping to find the best technology or solution for the ships to comply with the
regulations.
Aligned with the international ships emissions policies, Singapore has taken a 3-pronged
approach to cover its duty as a flag administration, a major port, and as a maritime hub
“#
promoter to encourage development of local innovation for new technology for reduction
of GHG emission.
This dissertation will look at some of the strategies and policies adopted in major ports,
and the challenges faced by the shipping companies in meeting with the international,
regional and national ship emissions requirements. It will also examine the strategy and
approach by Port of Singapore and makes possible recommendations to improve the
emission reduction policy framework.
The conclusion of this dissertation will discuss the impact of the air emission policies
have on the maritime industry and examine the gaps in the current ‘green’ policies from
port of Singapore. A list of recommendations was proposed for the port of Singapore to
mend these gaps.
#
Table of Contents
!”#$%&%'()*”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””#
%#+*),$”!-“.”*’/ “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””##
%0/’&%#’/ “””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””###
$#%&!'(!)*+,-%””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””.##
$#%&!'(!/#012-%””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””.###
$#%&!'(!3++2-.#*&#’4%”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””#5
6″! 78)9:;<=)7:8″”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””6
1.1 Background on the push for Air Emission Control in Maritime/ Shipping Industry. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$%
!”#$%&”””()$*#(&$+,”–“).$/)01’2#3 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 5
671’%’$(*$’18,$7″#$-(9912″()$*#(&$2,%$’,”–“).$”)01’2#3 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 :
1.2 Scope $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&
1.3 Methodology$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$’
>”! ?:$7)7=3$!$3@A9B!78!?:$7=@!C3D78E””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””6F
2.1 International Level$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%%
;4<4<$ /)*91%)8%$(*$=3(2($-#”)8″-9%’$()$’,”–“). 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444<>
;4<4;$ ?(9%$7)0$-(9″8″%’$(*$/)2%#)72″()79$@7#”2″&%$A#.7)”B72″()$C/@AD4444444444444444444444444444444444444<>
2.2 Regional Level $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%(
;4;4< !)$”991’2#72″()$(*$E1#(-%7)$F)”()$CEFD$()$7″#$%&”””()’$&()”2(#”).444444444444444444444444444444F
3.1 Air Pollution generated by ships$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$))
J4<4<$ H(9″8″%’$()$KAI$%&”””()’$8()2#(94444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444;J
J4<4;$ +AI 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444;>
J4<4J +E6!’$7)0$E6!’44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444;L
3.2 Bunker$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)&
J4;4< M179″23N$H#(O9%&’$P”2,$Q(P$+19-,1#$R1%94444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444;S
J4;4; +1–93444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444J<
3.3 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$**
J4J4< /@A$TUT$+210″%’444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444JJ
J4J4;$ E)%#.3$E**”8″%)83$V%'”.)$/)0%I$CEEV/D$7)0$+,”-$E)%#.3$E**”8″%)83$@7)7.%&%)2$H97)$
C+EE@HD44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444JL
J4J4J$ E)%#.3$E**”8″%)83$A-%#72″()79$/)0″872(#$CEEA/D44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>W
#”
J4J4>$ @7#X%2YO7’%0$@%7’1#%’$C@Z@’D 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>W
3.4 Conclusion $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+*
I” A//:9)B!J!)A=K8:$:E@!/:9!9A;<=)7:8!:/!AC7BB7:8B!/9:C!BK7?B “”””””””””””””II
4.1 Ship’s Structural & Technologies$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$++
>4<4< EI,71’2$T7’$@7)7.%&%)244444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>5
>4<4;$ /&-#([%&%)2$”)$E).”)%$H%#*(#&7)8%44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>L
>4<4J$ /&-#([%&%)2$”)$+,”-‘$V%'”.)’444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>G
4.2 Fuel$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+,
>4;4<$ M179″234444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444>:
4.3 Port $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-)
>4J4<$ 6(90$/#()”).444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444445J
4.4 Conclusion $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$-+
L”! A=:8:C7=3$!78/$!U AFFZ”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””PN
3SS-4T#5!G!U :.-2.#-X!'(!-5#%(!*4T!T-.-,’S#40!2-01,*&#’4%””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””PP
#””
List of Tables
Table 1 – Concentration of greenhouse gases from 0 to 2005. This graph shows the
atmospheric concentration, where increased has been observed since 1750 when
industrialization started to bloom. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)
./012!)!3 456789!5::2;!<=>!?8;!2@”AA”B:!AC/:D/EDA!FBE!:2G!AH”I!2:J”:2A$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$)+
./012!*!3 .”@21″:2!FBE!E2DKLC”B:!BF!M8;!”:!456789!5::2;!<=$!^_,%$;W;W$*1%9$
’27)07#0$”‘$’1O]%82$2($2,%$;W<:$*%7′”O”9″23$’2103$2($O%$8()0182%04$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)-
./012!+!3 N2#21BI@2:C!BF!0K:O2E!FK21!IE”L2A!FEB@!)PP(!CB!)P%%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*%
./012!-!3 =AAK2A!E/”A2D!G”CH!E2J/EDA!CB!QQN=$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*,
./012!(!3 5D#/:C/J2A!/:D!D”A/D#/:C/J2A!BF!LKEE2:C1R!”D2:C”F”2D!/1C2E:/C”#2!FK21A$ $$$+&
./012!,!3 M”:J/IBE2SA!@/E”C”@2!SJE22:S!”:”C”/C”#2A$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$(*
./012!&!3 62IE2A2:C/C”#2!H2/1CH!2FF2LCA!BF!/”E!IB11KC/:CA$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,-
./012!’!3 62IE2A2:C/C”#2!2:#”EB:@2:C/1!2FF2LCA!BF!/”E!IB11KC/:CA$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,-
./012!%P!3 8#2E#”2G!BF!2;”AC”:J!E2JK1/C”B:A!”@I12@2:C2D>!BE!JB”:J!CB!02!
“@I12@2:C2D!FBE!E2DKLC”B:!AH”I!2@”AA”B:A$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$,,
#”””
List of Figures
T”JKE2!%!3 .RI2A!BF!HK@/:!/LC”#”C”2A!CH/C!LB:CE”0KC2A!/:D!E2AIB:A2A!CB!L1″@/C2!
LH/:J2$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)
T”JKE2!)!3 .RI2A!BF!/”E!2@”AA”B:A$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+
T”JKE2!*!3 QFF2LCA!BF!JE22:HBKA2!J/A2A!B:!CH2!/C@BAIH2E2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+
T”JKE2!+!3 .RI2A!BF!2@”AA”B:A!J2:2E/C2D!0R!AH”IA$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$(
T”JKE2!-!3 Q12@2:CA!IEBDKL2D!DKE”:J!LB@0KAC”B:!IEBL2AA$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$&
T”JKE2!(!3 =:C2E:/C”B:/1!0BD”2A!/:D!LB:#2:C”B:A!E21/C”:J!CB!/”E!2@”AA”B:A!LB:CEB1$$$%P
T”JKE2!,!3 N2#21BI@2:C!BF!=:C2E:/C”B:/1!UB:F2E2:L2!/:D!8EJ/:”V/C”B:!E21/C”:J!CB!
E2DKLC”B:!BF!/”E 2@”AA”B:A$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%%
T”JKE2!&!3 WRBCB!IEBCBLB1!I/EC”L”I/C”B:!@/I$!XE22:3 LBK:CE”2A!GH”LH!H/D!E/C”F”2DY!
D/EO!JE22:!/E2 5::2;!=!/:D!==!LBK:CE”2A!CH/C!H/#2!E/C”F”2D!CH2!CE2/CRY!/:D!0EBG:!
/E2!LBK:CE”2A!GH”LH!DB!:BC!”:C2:D CB!E/C”FR$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%*
T”JKE2!’!3 7B1″C”L/1!1/R2EA!”:!C2E@A!BF!/”E!2@”AA”B:A!IB1″L”2A!”@I12@2:C/C”B:$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%’
T”JKE2!%P!3 62JK1/C2D!”C2@A!K:D2E!456789!5::2;!<= $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)%
T”JKE2!%%!3 MK1IHKE!Q@”AA”B:!UB:CEB1!5E2/A!ZMQU5A[$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)(
T”JKE2!%)!3 Q@”AA”B:!UB:CEB1!5E2/A!CB!02!2:FBEL2D!”:!5KJKAC!)P%)>!1″@”C”:J!CH2!
2@”AA”B:!BF!M8;>!?8; /:D!74$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$),
T”JKE2!%*!3 8#2E#”2G!B:!CH2!C”@21″:2!FBE!”@I12@2:C/C”B:!BF!QU5A!K:D2E!456789!
5::2;!<=$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)&
T”JKE2!%+!3 TE/LC”B:/1!D”AC”11/C”B:$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*)
T”JKE2!%-!3 MQQ47!IEBL2AA$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*’
T”JKE2!%(!3 8#2E#”2G!B:!CRI2A!BF!4/EO2C30/A2D!42LH/:”A@A!42/AKE2A$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+P
T”JKE2!%,!3 7BC2:C”/1!AL/12!BF!E2#2:K2A!G”CH!”@I12@2:C/C”B:!BF!0K:O2E!12#R!/A!
IEBIBA2D!0R!8;F/@ /:D!]]T$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+)
T”JKE2!%&!3 QFFBECA!/:D!C2LH:B1BJ”2A!”:CEBDKL2!BE!K:D2EACKD”2D!LKEE2:C1R$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$++
T”JKE2!%’!3 .RI”L/1!1/RBKC!FBE!A2/G/C2E!ALEK002E$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+(
T”JKE2!)P!3 N?PPP!
)P>PPP!
*P>PPP!
+P>PPP!
-P>PPP!
(P>PPP!
,P>PPP!
.”11!hK1!
)P%P!
)P%P! .”11!h/:!
)P%)!
)P%)! )P%-! )P)Pi!
!!”#
$%&'(%)&*+%),#-.’,#/&)%0)(01##
2345678#4%%’9#:$;#
X1B0/1!
Q@”AA”B:!
UB:CEB1!
5E2/!ZQU5[!
)(
3.1.3 SECAs and ECAs
The initial aim of implementing of Sulphur Emissions Control Areas (SECAs) is to
reduce sulphur oxide emissions (SOx) from ships to minimize the acidification of the
atmosphere, which results in acid rain.
Under the amendments to Annex VI, the term Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA) is
being replaced by Emission Control Area (ECA) to allow for specifying of limits for
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), and Particulate Matters (PM), which is known to have harmful
effect to human health and sensitive ecosystems. The first SECA, ie. the Baltic Sea came
into force in 19 May 2005, and subsequently the North Sea and English Channel in 11
August 2007 followed suit.
Figure 11 – Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs).
Source: https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/severnesnow.com/html/emissions.php
),
On 26 March 2010, IMO had adopted East and West Coast of the North America
Continent and the Hawaii islands extending up to 200 nautical miles as Emission Control
Areas (ECA) that will become enforceable in August 2012. The objective of designating
these areas as ECA is to reduce ship-related health impacts in North America which
concern public welfare. Some of the related impacts are contribution to the visibility
impairment and other detrimental environmental impacts across the whole American
continent which has more than 30 major ports.
Figure 12 – Emission Control Areas to be enforced in August 2012, limiting the emission
of SOx, NOx and PM.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/epa.gov/nonroad/marine/ci/420f10015.htm)
The adoption of SECAs and ECAs can be seen as a benefits going beyond simply
monetary. The mitigating measures taken can be considered as external benefits for
)&
public health and improvement of safety which could be considered under the overall
benefit and costs gained by the public in the sum of economic benefits for all parties
involved.
The limits within the SECAs will also be further reduced to 0.1 percent by 1 January
2015 as compared with current 1.0 percent. The amendment also includes progressive
reduction in NOx emissions from marine engines. Ships constructed on or after 1 January
2016, ie. Tier III engines will be required to comply with more stringent control measures
under the NOx Technical Code. The following figure shows the proposed timeline for
progressive reduction of ships emissions through imposing of ECAs.
Figure 13 – Overview on the timeline for implementation of ECAs under MARPOL
Annex VI.
Source: Ferox.
3.2 Bunker
Fuel oil quality that was previously under the matters between the shipowners and
suppliers has now been made statutory in MARPOL Annex VI. Annex VI Regulation 18
)’
specifies the fuel oil quality delivered to and used on board for combustion purposes;
limits the SOx content; contains requirements preventing the existence of potentially
harmful substances and chemical waste; mandatory requirement for bunker delivery note
and sample of fuel oil delivered; and most importantly it makes the member states to
register and declare the local fuel oil suppliers.
3.2.1 Quality: Problems with Low Sulphur Fuel
As mentioned previously, one of the main contributors to the exhaust emissions from
ships is via the fuel used on ships. The quality of fuel oil delivered to and used on board
ships is currently regulated in MARPOL Annex VI, Regulation 18. In order to meet the
quality requirements, burning of Low Sulphur Fuel have been opted has one of the best
ways for reduction of emission currently. However, Low Sulphur Fuel does possess
certain difficulties. The problems identified are:
• Ignition and combustion problems due to low sulphur content and increased
presence of catalytic fines, abrasives that may damage the engine were identified
as some of the issues.
• The readiness and availability of supply of low sulphur fuel was another issue that
was raised. Operational problems such as switching over to low sulphur fuel was
also identified as another possible issue as any mismatch of timing would cause a
violation of the SECA regulations.
• Larger bunker storage tanks required. Generally when distillate fuels are
mentioned, it is associated with two types of fuels, namely, marine diesel oil
(MDO) which constitute to approximately 1.5 percent of sulphur content; and
marine gas oil (MGO) which constitutes approximately 1 percent of sulphur
content. Historically it has been proven that ships are able to switch from a higher
*P
sulphur content fuel, ie. HFO to a lower sulphur content sulphur fuel, ie. MDO.
Most vessels are required to switch to MDO when maneuvering within port
waters of constraint waters, because it provides greater reliability on the
propulsion system during critical maneuvering. However, the traditional practices
of switching over are only for limited period of time. With the adoption of more
and larger ECAs, ships will be required to have sufficient bunker capacity for
low-sulphur fuel for transiting the entire ECAs. If the ship were only plying
within an ECA then the problem would not be present, as it is purely eliminating
the carriage of HFO to low-sulphur fuel. Nevertheless, due to the economical
influences in prices of low-sulphur fuel, ship owners and operators will most
probably opt to burn two types of fuels onboard, ie. outside of ECA and within
ECA. Hence, subjectively this problem would not be present if the global ECA is
implemented in 2020. However, for bigger ships that do long-distance trade, it
will be required to have two grade segregation tanks with carrying capacity in
excess off what is required for the actual voyage.
• High cost. Switching to low-sulphur fuel is one of the most popular options
currently is using distillates to replace heavy fuel oil as there are minimal
modification required to the ship structure, thence, minimal investment required.
Referring to the graph below, it is noticeable that the price of distillate may have
been influenced by the implementation of more SECAs, regional and national
regulations on restriction of sulphur emissions from ships. The cost of MGO has
been rising gradually since the addition of SECAs at North Sea and English
Channel in 2007. A drastically drop was observed in 2008 during the economic
crisis, but the price has regained its position quickly for the last few years. Based
on the historical trend, the price of distillates may increase by 10-20 percent when
the latest North America ECA is in-force even before the implementation of
bunker levy. The following table shows the costs of distillates in major bunkering
*%
ports around the world from 2006 to 2011. It is noted that other then the period
where the shipping industry suffers a crisis, the costs of distillates has been
gradually increasing, especially since the implementation of regional policies to
reduce ships’ emissions such as SECAs.
Table 4 – Development of bunker fuel prices from 2006 to 2011.
Source: Unpublished, summarized by author based on statistics collated by Maritime and Port Authority of
Singapore, master’s dissertation, World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden.
3.2.2 Supply
It appears that the easiest and most economical way to comply with emission
requirements is the burning of low-sulphur fuel, as compared with investment of highend technology which is expensive and may not guarantee a return of investment value.
This preferred option in the industry generally, is already pre-empted as a problem if the
global emission control is to be implemented by 2020. So a scenario of a sky rocketing
price for low-sulphur fuel may be created, while on the other hand, the price for HFO
may drop tremendously. So, this might be the only reason where a ship owner may
P!
)PP!
+PP!
(PP!
&PP!
%PPP!
%)PP!
)PP(! )PP,! )PP&! )PP’! )P%P! )P%%!Zh/:3hK1[!
6(*<‘#
=+1&1#+>#?-7#)%0#3@7#>(+”#ABBC#&+#ABDD#
M”:J/IBE2!3!
dT8!
M”:J/IBE2!3!
4X8!
6BCC2ED/@!3!
dT8!!
6BCC2ED/@!3!
4X8!
dBKACB:!3!
dT8!
bKA/:!3!dT8!
bKA/:!3!4X8!
TKj/”E/H!3!
dT8!!
TKj/”E/H!3!
4X8!
*)
consider the higher investment of technology on their new build. However, the study on
supply and demand required from the shipping industry may not pose a sufficient
duration for a company to make fast enough decision and investment to ride on this wave.
There are currently two methods where low-sulphur fuels can be produced:
1. usage of residues from low-sulphur content crude (commonly known as “sweet”
crude)
2. De-sulphurigation and blending of generic crude oils.
Figure 14 – Fractional distillation.
Source: http://esfscience.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/fractional-distillation/
3.2.2.1 Economic Issues
The production of petroleum distillates are much more complicated as compared to heavy
fuel oil and with the increase in demand for the distillates due to the reduction of SOx
limits, will therefore drive the price for distillates higher especially when compared to
heavy fuel oil. A study involving the analysis and review of the price levels of the
different types of fuels, ranging from heavy fuel oil with sulphur content of 3.5 percent to
**
sulphur reduced heavy fuel oil of 1.0 percent, and distillates with a maximum of 0.1
percent sulphur show that the price of distillates by 2015 could range between USD 850
to 1,300. When the price is compared with heavy fuel oil of sulphur content of 1.0
percent, it means a disadvantage of approximately USD 300 to 600 per ton fuel9
. The
consequence of these is that operating ships in SECAs will become more expensive than
in other areas. Hence, it raises concerns of disproportion in competition of shipping.
Another mode of transportation replacing of shipping could evolve to reduce the cost
impact.
Key ship owner and operator had also expressed concerns in the development of the
implementation of global ECA, as they had opined that the quickest solution to meet the
requirement will be turning to low-sulphur fuel, as compared to high value investment to
alter the ship’s structure10.
3.3 Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
It is through the influence of the Kyoto Protocol that makes shipping to take an
accelerated step to put provisions in place to reduce ships’ emissions. The protocol
categorise shipping into two different types, i.e. domestic and international shipping.
Domestic shipping is targeted at the developed countries (ie. Annex I). This group had
officially committed to a reduction of 5.2 percent from 2008 to 2012 as compared with
the 1990 level on four types of GHG (ie. CO2, methane, NOx, SOx).
3.3.1 IMO GHG Studies
The 2000 IMO GHG study was the first study conducted to examine the status of air
pollutants from international shipping. The study had identified that the main cause of
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ‘ Reduction of sulphur content of shipping fuels further to 0.1% in the North Sea and Baltic Sea in 2015:
Consequences for shipping in this shipping area, Bremen, September 2010.
%P Refer to interviews with Zodiac and un-named shipowner.
*+
shipping emissions resulted from marine engine exhaust emissions. Hence, an analysis on
the marine ‘emission inventory’ was carried out with the focus on bunker fuels, as it is
the main feed to marine engines. The factors used were the fuel-consumption
methodology and statistical emission model. Recommendations were then made to
conduct further assessments on effects of NOx, SOx and CO2 emissions from ships.
The second IMO GHG 2009 Study estimated the potential for reduction of emission
using different technologies and practices, cost effectiveness and Assessment of policy
options which are under considerations. The Study reaches several significant
conclusions:
• In 2007, international shipping was estimated to have emitted 870 million tonnes,
or about 2.7 percent of the global manmade emission of CO2;
• Mid-range emission scenarios suggested that by 2050, without any reduction
policies in place, ship emission may grow by 150 to 250 percent as a result of
growth in world trade;
• A significant potential for reduction of GHG through technical and operational
measures had been identified. If all measures are implemented, including
reduction in operational speed, by 2050, it is estimated that the emission rate will
reduce below the current levels on a tonnes/mile basis.
• With regards to emission trading, it was viewed as not viable for emission
allocation, however a system of emission credits to ship owners for reducing
emission below the baseline was considered possible. The Assessment of the report
was deferred till April 2001, MEPC 46, where decision was made to form a
working group to consider the issues on short and long term measures for
reduction of emissions. In the December 2003 IMO assembly, MEPC was
assigned to identify and develop mechanisms for reduction of GHG emissions
from international shipping including development of a GHG baseline; the
*-
development of a GHG emission index for ships. MEPC was also tasked to
develop guidelines for application efficiency index and to evaluate technical,
operational and market-based solutions.
The feasibility report carried out by IMO advocated an approach to explore feasibility of
voluntary GHG limits or environmental indexing, and recommended that the work should
preferably start on, the design of new ships and perhaps on existing ships and the
prospect of ‘credit trading’ from additional abatement measures for new and existing
ships.
Technical measures identified for reduction of shipping emissions include,
• Optimized hull shape and propeller design;
• Improved diesel engine efficiency;
• Waste heat recovery systems, hull and propeller maintenance; and
• Use of alternative fuels.
Operational measures include,
• Fleet planning;
• Use of higher quality fuel;
• Optimized weather routeing and ‘just in time’ voyage planning.
The report also identified ‘slow steaming’ as the particular measure that would result in
the highest achievement of CO2 reduction; a speed reduction of 10% by the world fleet
could reduce CO2 emissions by 23.3 percent by 2010. If speed reduction is used in
combination with technical and operational measures as mentioned above, there is a
possibility of 40 percent CO2 reduction by 2010 and 50 percent by 2020.11 Taking the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %% Study from Greenhouse Gas from Ships, Final Report to IMO, 2000, MARINTEK, ECON, Carnegie
Mellon, and DNV.
*(
recommendations from the study into consideration, MEPC had been tasked to
development measures to curb GHG emissions from new ships.
3.3.2 Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and Ship Energy Efficiency
Management Plan (SEEMP)
At the 62nd MEPC session held from 11 to 15 July 2011, IMO had finally adopted the
criteria for EEDI after several years of deliberation. EEDI is a design index meant for
new ships to promote innovation and technical development influencing the energy
efficient of the ship at the design stage, and a Ship Management Plan: for existing and
new ships that incorporates the best practices for fuel efficiency for the operation of
ships.
The objective of EEDI is to use the minimum required energy level to undertake the same
transport work. This includes continuous challenging of the technical development of all
related components influencing the fuel efficiency of a ship; and separating the technical
and design-based measures in terms of operational and commercial.
The EEDI is based on a formula in IMO and the formula possess four element addressing
important part of air pollution namely emissions from marine diesel engines, other
energy-saving structural or technology on board and operational and design efficiency of
ships. Following formula detailed the components of the formula. This formula is only
applicable for new ships.
*,
The CO2 emission represents the total CO2 emission from the combustion of fuel,
including the propulsion and auxiliary engines and boilers, incorporating the carbon
contents of fuels. The transport work is derived by multiplying the ship’s capacity (dwt),
as designed, with the ship’s design speed measured at the maximum design load
condition and at 75 percent of the rated installed shaft power.
IMO had set the reduction rate to three stages, the reduction during the first stage is set at
10 percent with five yearly reviews to keep pace with the development of new
technologies. From 2025 to 2030, IMO has set the reduction to 30 percent as a mandated
rate for most ship types. Nevertheless, it still invites various criticisms from the industry
on the practicality of such a measure. The following table briefly summarises the
disadvantages faced by the current EEDI formula.
Table 5 – Issues raised with regards to EEDI.
Performance measures Issues Possible impact
Limitation of installed
power
Absence of speed factor Affects operational model
Engine Ineffective if ship is not at
full speed
Increase in fuel
consumption
Ship types Formula incompatible for
some ship types
Instability
Source: Summarised by author, master’s dissertation, Malmo, World Maritime University.
*&
Firstly, it was opined that it would be unsafe for bigger ships as the EEDI would reduce
the installed power drastically. For example, in Phase 3 EEDI will require a VLCC to
reduce its installed power by half. The proposed formula was found to have omitted the
factor of speed, which is proposed to be studied at a later stage by IMO. This factor is
seen to be crucial by the industry as it affects the operational model depending on the
type of ship.
Secondly, the EEDI may be seen as ineffective, as compared with ships which are already
on slow steaming. As EEDI principle is to limit the installed power, there will be a
tendency for smaller bore and higher revolutions-per-minute-engines to be used. This is
only effective when the ship is on full speed. On the other hand, if the speed of the ships
is low, the ship that complied with the EEDI will experience a significant increase in
wave resistance, which will lead to the fact that when compared with existing ships
which are on slow-steaming, EEDI compliant ships will be more inefficient. IMO had
qualified the arguments by indicating that it is a wrong concept to assume that a reduction
in installed power will requires a reduction of engine bore and an increment in rpm. It
counter-argued that the most effective way is to limit the “maximum” rpm which will
result in increasing propeller efficiency; or to install one less cylinder which will result in
less fuel consumption12. IMO had also concluded that if the EEDI were implemented in
2013 for all new ships, it would remove 40 to 50 million tonnes of CO2 from the
atmosphere annually by 2020.
Thirdly, the applicability of EEDI on all ship types has also been questioned. Several
renowned institutes had applied the EEDI formula on tankers and Ro-ro vessels and
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %) https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/imo.org/MediaCentre/HotTopics/GHG/Pages/default.aspx
*’
commented that strict application may caused ships to be unsafe13. Hence, further
refinement of the EEDI formula will be required and should not be applied universally.
Unlike the EEDI, Ship Energy Efficiency Plan (SEEMP) is designed for existing ship to
monitor its efficiency and optimize the performance of the ship. The objective of SEEMP
is to develop a mechanism for the company to improve the ship’s operation efficiency by
linking the specific ships SEEMP to the company’s energy management policy. The
following figure illustrates the process of SEEMP.
Figure 15 – SEEMP process.
Source: Summarised by author based on information in MEPC 59/24/Add1. Annex 19, master’s
dissertation, Malmo, World Maritime University.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %* Jack Devanney, head of centre for tankship excellence; Report on EEDI, prepared by Deltamarin for
European Maritime Safety Agency; and The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for Ro-ro Vessels by
Stefan Kruger, Technische Universitat Hamburg-Harburg, Hamburg/ Germany.
UB@I/:R!
Q:2EJR!
7B1″L”2A!
71/::”:J!
=@I12@2:C/C”B:!
M21F32#/1K/C”B:! @B:”CBE”:J!!
=@IEB#2@2:C!
+P
3.3.3 Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI)
The Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) is meant to enable ship owners and
operators to measure their ships’ energy efficiency level. This index is express in terms of
CO2 per ton mile, for measurement of a specific ship and make it available for
comparison with other similar ships. It also acts as a monitoring tool and benchmark for
the mandatory management tool for energy efficient ship operation (SEEMP).
3.3.4 Market-based Measures (MBMs)
The Market-based Mechanisms is referred to as a policy tool for reduction of air
emissions. It was first introduced in the Kyoto Protocol as an additional means to Help
the countries to meet their national goal towards emission reduction. The following figure
shows list of mechanisms and measures being introduced or still pending Assessment in
different sectors.
Figure 16 – Overview on types of Market-based Mechanisms/ Measures.
Source: Created by author based on information from research materials, master’s dissertation, Malmo,
World Maritime University.
UNFCCC
Kyoto Protocol
Market-based
Mechanisms
Emissions
Trading
Clean
Development
Mechanism
Joint
Implementation
IMO
Market-based
Measures (Under
Assessment)
Emissions
Trading Schemes
Bunker Levy
(Carbon Charge)
ICAO
Market-based
Measures (Under
Assessment)
Emissions
Trading
Levies and Taxes
related to
emissions
Emissions
offsetting
+%
The proposed maritime Market-based Measures (MBMs) serve two main purposes:
1. off-set the growing ships emissions in other sectors and provide an economic
incentive for the maritime industry to invest in more fuel efficient ships and
technology;
2. to operate ships in a more energy-efficient manner.
The MBMs proposals range from schemes for contribution or levy on all CO2 emissions
from international shipping, or only from ships that do not meet the EEDI requirement,
via emission trading schemes (ETS), to schemes based on a ship’s actual efficiency
determined through its design (EEDI) and operation (EEOI).
3.3.4.1 Description of bunker levies
Carbon charge on bunker fuel
As discussed earlier, the main cause of emissions of SOx and NOx through combustion
emits from the fuel consumed by ships. It appears that the most rational way to
discourage the persistence usage of such fuel is to impose a carbon charge on bunker fuel.
However, this policy will increase the cost of bunker fuel, and may result in some
positive as well as some negative effects: reductions in the amount of maritime traffic, as
some may chose alternative mode of transportation; efficiency improvements in marine
engine and ship designs; efficiency improvements in ships operations; switching of ships
types, such as ships with lower emissions level and higher efficiency counter; and lastly
switching to alternative fuels14.
The charging of carbon taxes also faces political resistance. As the introduction of such
an instrument will put countries with intensive industries to be less competitive in the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %+ Study on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships, March 2000, MARINTEK.
+)
international markets due to the higher costs involved, unless a global use of common
carbon charges on international shipping can be adopted.
The Oxfam and World Wide Fund (WWF) had published a report in September 2011 on
a proposal to coming COP17 in December this year. The proposal calls for imposing
carbon tax on international shipping, which is belief to reduce emissions from ships
significantly by 33 percent by 2020 as compared with EEDI, which will only reduce
emission by 1 percent by 2020. The revenue generated will be divided between the
‘Green Climate Fund’ with a portion retain for maritime sector, and as compensatory
rebates for the developing countries. The following figure illustrates the proposal in
detailed.
Figure 17 – Potential scale of revenues with implementation of bunker levy as proposed
by Oxfam and WWF
Source: Created by author based on information from Oxfam/WWF analysis report, master’s dissertation,
Malmo, World Maritime University.
bK:O2E!12#R!/C!
k)-!I2E!CB::2
TK21!LBAC!0R!%Pl
.BC/1!E2#2:K2!
J2:2E/C2D!
k)-0:!I2E!R2/E!”:!)P)P
UB@I2:A/CBER!E20/C2A!CB!
D2#21BI”:J!LBK:CE”2A$
5LLBED”:J!CB l!AH/E2A!BF!J1B0/1!”@IBECA!
0R!A2/$!CE’2″&72% #%O72%’$(*$a#&F’#G>H*<*’%(+”#
4,&'(%)&*J’1#-.’,1#
dRDEBJ2:!
9?X!
?KL12/E!7BG2E!
N”2A21!Q:J”:2A!=@IEB#2@2:CA!
-*
transportation has also starts to develop technology to eliminate ships’ emission while the
ships is at berth.
4.3.1 Cold Ironing
Cold ironing, also known as shore power is one of the technology that eliminates SOx,
NOx and CO2 emissions from ships to almost zero level when the ship is at berth. The
ship will plug into the port electric grid while in port and cease using it’s diesel auxiliary
engine and boiler. Currently only a few ports in the USA including California are
providing such technology in their ports. However, there are hiccups faced in
implementing this technology further. The ‘plug-in’ point is not universal. So far, in this
case, ships will be required to be equipped with different ‘plug-in’ designs when calling
at different ports. It was also discussed that this technology is not an ideal approach for
reduction of emissions globally, as emissions from shipping may be transferred to land
based power stations instead. Nevertheless, cold ironing is not a permanent solution for
ship emissions as it can only be made used of when the ship is in port.
Figure 22 – Typical layout for cold ironing installation in port.
Source: https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/shoreportshippower.com/
-+
4.4 Conclusion
This chapter has summarises the three different areas of technologies developed to
address the ships’ emissions, and alternative fuels in replacement of fossil fuels. It also
discussed on the pros and cons of each of the technologies and alternative fuels proposed
thus far. Nevertheless, these technologies are not widely make use of by the shipping
industry at the moment as most of it requires big investment on the ship’s infrastructure,
other than cold ironing. However, cold ironing also possess it’s own problem such as
unification of shore connection, and limited availability in ports. Now that we have seen
the existing and developing technology and alternatives, we will look at other form of
methods to reduce ships’ emissions in port, i.e. incentive schemes.
—
5. ECONOMICAL INFLUENCES /EFFORTS FROM VARIOUS
PORTS
Prior to the agreement was reached at the 62nd MEPC, several nations had came up with
different policies to cap emissions within their jurisdictions. Some countries and regions
had gone ahead to implement legislation or voluntary programmes to reduce emissions
from ships within their jurisdictions. Some went ahead with mandatory requirements
under their legislation, but providing certain incentives if ships were able to comply,
while the rest went with voluntary agreement programmes, while at the same time also
provide incentives to ships that voluntarily take necessary actions to reduce emissions
while in port. Voluntary programmes may range from agreements or a declaration of
intent between the industry, or, a company with the government. Such agreements or
declaration mainly focuses on the on reduction of emissions with various ways of
implementations such as fuel switching, special technology, operational measures etc.
5.1 Green Port Developments
Over the past few years, there is an increased focus on the marine environment, which
has led to corresponding calls to regulate international shipping more closely, as well as
efforts to encourage sustainable developments of seaports. As a result of this bourgeoning
“Green Port Culture”, many ports, in particular those in Europe and North America, have
voluntarily adopted environmentally-effective practices and operations, like the
installation of solar panels on their buildings, provision of shore power for vessels at
berth and regulation of emission from port equipment, prime movers and other
machinery.
-(
Ports also come together through collaborative agreements to not only encourage the
adoption of best practices for terminal operators, but also introduce schemes to
incentivise ships calling at their ports to reduce their pollution level.
5.1.1 EU Regulations
The EU directive 2005/33/EC17 regulates the limits of sulphur content of marine fuel
oils. The directive prohibits the used of marine fuel oils with sulphur content above 1.0
percent after July 2010 for passenger ships that ply regularly at community ports. This
restriction also applies to ships that transit through SOx emission control areas (SECA)
specified by IMO. Restrictions are also placed on exhaust gas cleaning technology such
as seawater scrubbers. It has to show that the resultant emission has no adverse effects
on the ecosystems. On 1 January 2011, EU had implemented its requirements for ships
that transit within EU ports and inland waterways to burn marine fuel oils with sulphur
content of 0.1 percent or less.
5.1.2 US Regulations
The MARPOL Annex VI requirements came into force on 8 January 2009 in US as part
of the Maritime Pollution Protection Act of 2008. This enactment emphasizes the greater
awareness raise in the US with regard to ship emissions. Because of the federal structure
of US, the state has the power to introduce local regulations, which may be more
stringent.
5.1.3 California Regulations
The State of California had promulgated national regulations to curb SOx, NOx and
Particulate Matters emissions for ocean-going vessel within its internal waters and
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %, EU directive is a legislative act of the European Union which requires the member states to comply
without dictating the means of achieving that result.
-,
twenty-four nautical miles from its baseline. These regulations specified the sulphur
content limits for marine gas oil (MGO) and marine diesel oil (MDO) in two parts: for
the use of auxiliary diesel engines and main engines and auxiliary boilers as follows:
1. Auxiliary diesel engines,
a. From the entry of the regulation till 30 December 2012, MGO with
maximum SOx content 1.5 percent, or MDO of maximum SOx content of
0.5 percent may be used;
b. From January 2012, MDO and MGO with maximum SOx content of 0.1
percent shall be used.
2. Main engines and auxiliary boilers,
a. From 1 July 2009, MGO with maximum SOx content of 1.5 percent, or
MDO of 0.5 percent may be used;
b. From 1 January 2012, MDO and MGO with maximum SOx content of 0.1
percent shall be used.
A detailed comparison table on the implemented and adopted regulations (to be in-force
in near future) is drawn up in Appendix 3.
5.2 Low-sulphur Schemes on voluntary basis
• Several container-shipping lines have signed up for voluntary low-sulphur
schemes being subjected to trials in Chinese and US ports. The Taiwanese line
Evergreen has announced its participation in Hong Kong’s Fair Winds Charter
and the port of New York and New Jersey’s Ocean-Going Vessel Low-Sulphur
Fuel Program. The programme is an action element of the Clean Air Strategy and
encourages operators of ocean-going vessels calling at certain PANYNJ marine
terminals to use low sulphur fuel, and reduce vessels’ speed to an average of 10
-&
knots or less. The programme will reimburse vessel operators for 50 percent of
the cost difference between Marine Gas Oil (MGO) or Marine Diesel Oil (MDO),
and IFO380 in their main engines while operating within 20 nautical miles of the
Port of NY & NJ.
• Similarly, container carrier APL said its ships would use low sulphur fuel when
calling at terminals in the Port of New York and New Jersey. The agreement is
part of a port authority program designed to curb emissions in New York
Harbour. Under the plan, APL vessels will use low-sulphur fuel in auxiliary
generators while berthed. The port authority will reimburse half of the added cost
APL incurs by using low-sulphur fuel. According to APL, low-sulphur fuel can
reduce particulate matter emissions by 75 percent and sulphur oxides by more
than 85 percent. APL has long been part of similar programs at the ports of Los
Angeles, Oakland, Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia.
• In September 2010, Maersk Line initiated a switch to using cleaner, low-sulphur
fuel when it calls into Hong Kong. The approximate 850 port calls a year by
Maersk at Hong Kong is estimated to cost an additional US$1 million annually to
the company. This kick-off is the first voluntary fuel switch scheme in Asia. APL
followed the trend by switching over to low-sulphur fuel in Hong Kong from
October 2010.
• In Hong Kong, Evergreen will use fuel with a sulphur content of under 0.1
percent from the beginning of November 2010 until the end of December 2012
and will involve its ten most environmentally friendly vessels. Hamburg Sud and
Alianca are testing the use of low sulphur fuels while at berth in Hong Kong and
are participating in an initiative to cut emissions at the port. The two companies
-‘
are joining the Fair Winds Charter Initiative which aims to sustainably improve
air quality in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta.
• On 12 April 2011, Singapore has launched a series of green initiative programmes
– ‘Green Ship Programme’, ‘Green Port Pragramme’, and ‘Green Technology
Programme’, following a voluntary scheme called the ‘Green Pledge’ with 12
organizations pledging their efforts to promote and undertakes environmental
friendly and energy efficiency practices. The details of these initiatives will be
further discussed in the following chapter.
• The Republic of Korea18 (ROK) has two strategies in the adoption of air emission
control plan. Firstly, the implementation of international instruments to the
national industries such as, the shipping industry, shipbuilding industry and oil
refinery industry to ensure they meet international requirements. This will fulfill
ROK’s responsibility as a flag State. Secondly, the Government has the long-term
plan for the preservation of air from land and ships in order to foster the
sustainable development of land and sea under ‘the National Green Growth
Policy’. According to the national policy, not only emission of NOx and SOx but
also other green house gases will be controlled strictly in all areas of industry.
5.3 Index measurement Schemes
Unlike the direct incentive schemes as describes above. The “Index Measurement
Schemes” takes the approach of measuring the operational efficiency performance of the
ships and provides rewards and recognition to the ship owners. These schemes are
normally aim at a larger implementation area beyond the State’s own ports.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %& Based on interview via questionnaire with Ministry of Land, Transportation, and Maritime Affairs of
Korea.
(P
5.3.1 ESI launch in 2011 with clean ships to be rewarded in European ports
The International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), backed by five major
European Ports, had launched a scheme aimed at significantly reducing vessel emissions.
Commencing Jan 2011, the World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI) will introduce the
Environmental Ship Index (ESI) – an international standard for calculating emissions by
ships. Making use of the index, ports and other nautical service providers will be able to
reward low-emission ships, and contribute to encouraging sustainability within the sector.
Participating vessels will receive a certificate that may form the basis of a reward system
employed by ports and other nautical service providers, discounting port dues, rates and
alike. The ESI identifies those seagoing vessels that perform ahead of standards relating
to emission reduction required by the current MARPOL Annex VI standards for nitrogen
oxide (NOx) and sulphur oxide (SOx). In addition, the ESI also tests the presence of a
management plan for greenhouse gas emissions of a particular vessel. Five initiator of the
project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees) – Hamburg, Bremen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp – have all indicated
that they will use the ESI to reward clean ships, as well as promote sustainability.
ESI-registered vessels of all types that exceed the current minimum IMO environmental
standards will be in line for a rebate at half a dozen hubs, which include Bremen, Le
Havre and Amsterdam. Each individual port will set its own qualifying benchmark, with
Amsterdam indicating that its rebates will begin at an index score of 20 or above, while
the percentage level of rebate will also be left to each port. The Port of Rotterdam would
apply an average 5 percent rebate for complying vessels, which it estimated as a 1 percent
overall annual rebate, implying an annual ESI cost of around $3 million euros in 2008.
The Port of Amsterdam has stated that a typical 10,000 tonne vessel scoring above 20
index points could be in line for a $300 euros rebate on port dues of around $8,000 euros.
The index shows the environmental performance of ships in terms of their emissions of
air pollutants (NOx and SOx) and CO2.
(%
5.3.2 Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
DP World, which operates more than 50 container terminals across the world, has joined
the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). CDP was established in 2000 and it acts as a
disclosure and reporting framework. It is used by 3,000 of the world’s largest companies
to report their GHG emissions and climate change strategies. The move reflects the port
operator’s broad base and global sustainability programme. For several years, DP World
has been introducing new/retrofitting certain existing handling equipment in its terminals
while implementing a range of ‘green business practices’ as it has sought to reduce its
environmental footprint. DP World has indicated that the group has a five-year plan in
place to reduce emissions by 27 percent. In a recent public filing to the CDP, the group
said its greenhouse gas emissions at its operational terminals totalled 830,715 tonnes of
equivalent CO2. This compared with 867,533 tonnes in 2008.
5.4 Conclusion
It is instructive to explore the benefits of mandatory legislation versus voluntary policy
approach. At a quick glance, voluntary programmes may appear to be weaker policy as
compared with mandatory legislation. As mandatory legislation ensures a level playing
field requiring all ships to comply with the standards and failing so it will be penalized.
Commercially this is may be an ideal approach, as all ships are required to make similar
investments to achieve the given target. On the contrary, this approach may not
encourage any further initiatives or innovation to do more than what is required. The
voluntary policy may appear to have an upper hand on this part. In this approach, only
companies and industries that are willing or are ready to take a step further will come
forward to make such commitments. Their initiatives are partly compensated through
incentives such as reduction of port dues, or indexing efficiency programmes. The bigger
benefit of this approach is that, the company or industry which makes such a commitment
will gain public awareness on their commitment and this is a plus point in terms of
business branding and strategy, which will not be visible in mandatory legislation.
()
After analyzing the different incentive approaches by major ports, we will discuss the
approach by Port of Singapore towards reduction of ships’ emissions in port and from it’s
flagged ships.
(*
6. CHALLENGES FACED BY SINGAPORE IN ENFORCEMENT
OF EMISSIONS CONTROL POLICIES
Ensuring a sustainable clean and green environment has always been the motto for
Singapore. This is carried out at the national level through various programmes, such as
pollution control, waste management and energy efficiency.
The raise of international awareness on reduction of emissions from ships is also part of
the reason for Port of Singapore to embrace policies to reduce air emissions from ships in
port, and for ships registered under Singapore Registry. In April this year, Maritime and
Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) had introduced several “green” measures to promote
environmental friendly practices in port.
6.1. Description of Singapore’s ‘Green’ Policy
Singapore’s maritime ‘Green Initiative” is summarized in the following table. Generally
it is a three-pronged approach targeting all maritime related audiences, ie. Singapore
Register Ships, Ocean-going ships entering Singapore waters, and local harbour craft and
terminals.
Table 7 – Singapore’s maritime ‘green’ initiatives.
Source: Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, master’s dissertation, World Maritime University,
Malmo, Sweden.
(+
• The ‘Green Ship Programme’ objective is to encourage the reduction of GHG
emissions from the Singapore Register Ships. The main determining factor for
compliance under this part is the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
measurements. The incentive under this programme consists of both finance and
recognition: issuance of ‘Green Recognition’ letter and ‘Green ship of the year’
award, and monetary rewards of up to 50 percent reduction in Initial Registration
Fees and 20 percent rebate on Annual Tonnage Tax. The following flow chart
briefly describes the procedure of qualifying a Singapore Register Ship as a
‘Green Ship’.
Figure 23 – Procedure of qualifying as a ‘Green Ship’ under Singapore Registry.
Source: Summarized by author based on information provided by Maritime and Port Authority of
Singapore, master’s dissertation, World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden.
(-
• The ‘Green Port Programme’ is an initiative targeted at ocean-going ships
entering Singapore waters. The aim is to reduce the emissions of SOx and NOx
while the ships is operating within the port. There are two main criteria under this
programme, the use of type-approved abatement or scrubber technology; and use
of low sulphur fuel within the port limits (<1.0% SOx content). Ships that are able
to comply with the above conditions will qualify for a 15 percent port due
concession. The determining factor for compliance under this part is based on a
declaration by the ship that it has complied with the programme’s criteria.
• The targeted groups under the ‘Green Tech Programme’ are the local shipping
lines, harbor craft operators, and Terminals. The criteria for qualifying under this
programme are that presentation of original project ( help with nursing paper writing from experts with MSN & DNP degrees)s that shows reduction in
emissions of SOx, NOx and CO2. However, the system integration design and
retrofitting or installation has to be done in Singapore.
6.2 Challenges Faced
Although Singapore stands as the World’s top bunkering port, it faces numerous
challenges in effectively implementing emission reduction measures due to several
reasons such as the following:
• Geographical constraint. Singapore is situated among the neighbouring countries
of Peninsular Malaysia and Indonesia. Currently, a ship that is undertaking the
‘Green Port Programme’ will shift over to low sulphur fuel when it is in
Singapore port waters, which is less than 3 nautical miles away from the main
island. Ships that are transiting in channel in between Singapore and Malaysia
may not be required to shift over. Hence, the effectiveness of reduction of
emission impact may be questionable.
((
• As the World’s top bunkering port, Singapore faces challenges and pressure to
promote the usage of low sulphur fuel to support the reduction of emissions from
ships. However, economically this will have a substantive impact on the local
bunker industry if the supply of low sulphur fuel is not readily available, ie.
supply vs. demand. Technically, further investment will also be required from the
bunker tanker operators to provide better segregation for the distillates to ensure
the quality of the fuels.
• Singapore presently also stands as the world’s busiest port with approximately a
thousand movements per day. With the high traffic density and ships arrivals,
physical checking for compliance on each ship will be an uphill task.
Enforcement – with the high number of arrivals, it is almost impossible to have
detailed checks on compliance. With that, it deduces on the calculation method
for ships that can be qualified for the incentive schemes.
6.3 Conclusion
Singapore has take two main approach when introducing policies to reduce air emissions
from ships, i.e. its international obligations as a member state to IMO and MARPOL
Annex VI, and domestically as a responsible coastal state. It has promote the reduction of
air emissions from ships by providing incentives to it’s flagged ships, and domestic
harbor craft and ships calling at it’s ports. It also promotes the local terminal by providing
research funds to local companies in developing more innovations for reduction of air
emissions. These steps are a good beginning to prime for bigger steps to be taken in the
future. Been geographically situation within other two countries (i.e. Peninsular Malaysia
and Indonesia) and the Straits of Malacca and Singapore the world busiest straits,
regional efforts may be the next steps to look at to promote reduction of air emissions
from ships.
(,
6.4 Recommendations
As mentioned in this chapter, the voluntary measures introduced by Singapore are pretty
recent (April 2011) and it covers the three main areas: Singapore flagged ships, ports and
terminals operating in Singapore, and harbor craft and foreign ships calling Singapore.
Hence, there should be a period of ‘observations’ to see if these measures need further
improvement and adjustment. The following recommendations are to fill the gaps that
was not covered in the measures introduced and to achieve a better resultant of the
‘green’ initiatives adopted by Singapore, it is recommended to explore the following
factors in the future:
• In order balance the Singapore’s top bunkering port position, with policy of been
a responsible flag and coastal state, MPA may like to look at mechanisms to
encourage the usage of low-sulphur fuel. Higher incentives in terms of port due
reduction may be provided if ships loads and burn the low-sulphur fuel in
Singapore port.
• Improve the effectiveness on the effort on reduction of ships emissions, the
formation of a regional cooperation mechanism in terms of emissions reduction
policies for GHG to achieve more effective results in improving of air quality in
the region since the countries are closely situated. It can be approached through
tripartite agreements with proposal to IMO for adoption.
• With high vessel arrivals, it is difficult for the limited resources of PSC officers
to conduct 100 percent checks on the energy efficiency index. Since in the near
future (ie. when the MARPOL VI amendments is in force) such energy efficiency
index will be used as one of the monitoring tools to determine the incentives for
(&
the vessel, with the requirements of certification of the ship’s energy efficiency
index. It is recommended propose new items for PSC MOU, which in this case
would be for Singapore under the Tokyo MOU for regional voluntary checks on
compliance. Such data could be shared among the countries and states.
• In order to have a better monitoring of the energy efficiency level for the
Singapore Register Ships and ships participating in the ‘Green Port Programme’;
it is proposed to create an electronic platform for the recognized organization
(RO) and the ship owner or operator to submit its energy efficiency index. This
electronic system will enable direct linkage and reporting and analysis of the
existing status of emission level, and also create a baseline for future comparison
purposes.
(‘
7. CONCLUSION
UN being the top of the hierarchy at the international level has formed UNEP to govern
international issues relating to climate change, and IMO which is responsible for
governing issues relating to international shipping matters in terms of safety and
environment. Overall we are witnessing the awareness for protection of the global
environment being raised significantly around the world. Be it at international, regional
or national levels, mechanisms, conventions, regulations and voluntary schemes have
been introduced to reduce air pollution and the emissions of GHG from the shipping
sector.
The amendment to MARPOL 73/78 by introduction of a new annex to address air
pollution has been a significant effort to reduce ship-based air pollution. This year’s
MEPC adoption of EEDI and SEEMP marks another great effort from the maritime
industry to not only look at air pollutants, but also the GHG emissions from ships.
Remaining is the deliberation of EEOI and MBMs pending the Assessment of the Expert
Groups Assessments on the various proposals submitted. Nevertheless, a common goal on
the usage of the fund is reached (ie. to be collected through the MBMs) to Help the
developing countries in technology for reduction of emissions from shipping and
technical cooperation purposes.
Efforts to address ships’ emissions through development of new innovations are also
observed. Be it from modification to ship’s infrastructure and design, to alternative fuels
other than fossil fuels such as LNG, hydrogen, and nuclear power have been explored by
the industry at great length. However, in order for ships to be able to make use of these
technologies, or switching to alternative fuels, additional investments are required from
the shipping companies. Hence, most shipping companies are waiting for the results of
the feasibility study on the “supply and demand of low-sulphur fuels” which will be
,P
carried out by IMO in 2018, prior to committing to the next step to their business
strategy. On the contrary, some companies has seen introducing the improved ships
designs and technologies on their new-build ships as a benefit to the “branding” for their
company image, which can act as an enhancement to their business. Other than
modification of ship’s structure and installation of technology, using of low-sulphur fuels
such as distillates appears to be the most viable option for ships in short term, as it does
not require any form of modification and does not disrupts the company’s business
strategy.
Singapore riding on the wave of the “green port development” has also introduced
policies to reduce air emissions from ships operating within its port and on Singapore
registered ships. Other than ships, Singapore has also introduced fund to support
innovations from local companies in development of technologies for reduction of air
emission from ships. These policies are restricted to only within the port and its flagged
ships. As recommended in the previous chapter, regional efforts should be studied to curb
the ships’ emissions in the region in order to achieve better environmental results. A
better enforcement mechanism should be established to keep track of the effects of the
measures introduced. Being the top bunkering port in the world with a record sales
volumes of US$19 billion in revenue annually, Singapore should also make use of its
influences to ‘upgrade’ the bunkering industry to cater for greater demand and supply of
low-sulphur content distillates.
,%
References
b=4U8$!Z)P%P>!4/ELH[$!62DKLC”B:!BF!CH2!J1B0/1!2:#”EB:@2:C!”@I/LC!BF!A2/JB”:J!
CE/:AIBEC/C”B:!3 dBG!DB2A!”:C2E:/C”B:/1!AH”II”:J!LB:CE”0KC2o!M”:J/IBE2$
b4.$!Z:$D$[$!5II2:D”;!-!$!4/E”:2!TK21A!g!MH”I!Q@”AA”B:!UB:CEB1A!$!EF$+,”-$E&”””()’$
2($!”#$+2103 $
U/1″FBE:”/!UBD2!BF!62JK1/C”B:A!ZUU6[$!Z:$D$[$!T”:/1!62JK1/C”B:!8ED2E$!R1%9$+19*1#$7)0$
(2,%#$(-%#72″()79$#%b1″#%&%)2’$*(#$(8%7)Y.(“).$[%”%9’$P”2,”)$679″*(#)”7$P72%#’$7)0$
;>$)712″879$&”9%’$(*$2,%$679″*(#)”7$Z7’%9″)% $
U/@I0211>!h$!Z)P%%>!M2IC2@02E!'[$!?2GA$!AI*7&$7)0$ccR$”)$](“)2$-9%7$*(#$7$O1)X%#$
9%[3 >!I$!-$
U/E0B:!IBA”C”#2$!Z:$D$[$!67#O()$H(‘”2″[%$4 62CE”2#2D!hK1R!)&>!)P%%>!FEB@!MH”IA!
2@”AA”B:A!3 :2GAp!HCCIp\GGG$L/E0B:IBA”C”#2$:2C#”2G/EC”L12$/AI;o/EC”L12=Nq)%+’
UH/EC!T2EB;$!Z:$D$[$!6,7#2$R%#(I$!62CE”2#2D!5KJKAC!)>!)P%%>!FEB@!UH/EC!T2EB;p!
HCCIp\GGG$LH/EC3F2EB;$LB@
U1/R>!?$!Z)PP’>!?B#2@02E[$!UB@I1″/:L2!$ 6(&-9″7)8%$X%%-‘$%[%#3()%$,7–3 >!I$!*+$
Q/AB:>!U$!Z)P%%>!5IE”1!%'[$!MH”I!.2LH:B1BJR$!T#%%)$2%8,$#7″‘%’$2,%$O7#$()$’%7$2#”79’ >!I$!
‘$
QE”O!?RH2″@>!]$!Z)P%P>!hK1R[$!71/::”:J!FBE!V2EB!2@”AA”B:A$!Zh$!?2GCB:>!=:C2E#”2G2E[!
7BECA!g!d/E0BEA$
QKEBI2!Q:#”EB:@2:C!5J2:LR!ZQQ5[$!Z,)P%P[$!_#78X”).$-#(.#%”$2(P7#0’$=3(2($7)0$
;W;W$27#.%2’$”)$E1#(-%4 UBI2:H/J2:p!QQ5$
QKEBI2/:!UB@@K:”C”2A$!Z)PP%>!5KJKAC[$!4/E”C”@2!M/F2CR!$!Y ?%’192’$*#(&$2,%$
2#7)’-(#2$#%’%7#8,$-#(.#7&&% $!9K;2@0BKEJp!QKEBI2/:!UB@@K:”C”2A$
,)
QKEBI2/:!T2D2E/C”B:!FBE!.E/:AIBEC!/:D!Q:#”EB:@2:C!Z.gQ[$!Z1)X%#$*1%9’$7)0$2,%$
=3(2($H#(2(8(94 bEKAA21A>!b21J”K@p!QKEBI2/:!T2D2E/C”B:!FBE!.E/:AIBEC!/:D!
Q:#”EB:@2:C!$
QKEBI2/:!`:”B:$!Z)PP->!hK1R!([$!N”E2LC”#2!)PP-**QU!BF!CH2!QKEBI2/:!7/E1″@2:C!
/:D!BF!CH2!UBK:L”1$!V”#%82″[%$;WW5dJJdE6 $
T/”EI1/R!$!Z)P%%>!4/R[$!T/”EI1/R!MB1KC”B:A!3 =AAK2!%,-$!R7″#-973$+(912″()’ $
XB1DAGBECHR>!9$!Q;H/KAC!Q@”AA”B:A!FEB@!MH”I!Q:J”:2A!3 M”J:”F”L/:L2>!62JK1/C”B:A>!
UB:CEB1!.2LH:B1BJ”2A$!=:!5$!4$!9h>!EI,71’2$E&”””()’$*#(&$+,”-$E).”)%’4
XE22:7BEC$!Z:$D$[$!T#%%)H(#24 62CE”2#2D!5KJKAC!)>!)P%%>!FEB@!XE22:7BEC!3 UH/EJ2!
?8r!2@”AA”B:A!FEB@!AH”IAp!HCCIp\GGG$JE22:IBEC$LB@F2/CKE2A%P%CKJA>3CBG”:J>3
IB11KC”B:3/:D3A/1#/J2A/F2CRLH/EJ23:B;32@”AA”B:A3FEB@3AH”IA
=U58$!Z)P%P[$!/6!A$E)[“#()&%)279$?%-(#2$;We$E8()(&”8$/)’2#1&%)2’4
=U58$
=48$!Z)PP&>!8LCB02E!%P[$!5@2:D@2:CA!CB!CH2!5::2;!BF!CH2!7EBCBLB1!BF!%”,!CB!
/@2:D!CH2!=:C2E:/C”B:/1!UB:#2:C”B:!FBE!CH2!7E2#2:C”B:!BF!7B11KC”B:!FEB@!
MH”IA>%’,*>!/A!@BD”F”2D!0R!CH2!7EBCBLB1!BF!%’,&!E21/C”:J!CH2E2CB!ZE2#”A2D!456789!
5::2;!<=[$!!))%I$!5KJKAC!%,[$!XK”D21″:2A!FBE! $!=48$
=48$!Z)PP+>!54ELH!+[$!=48!7B1″L”2A!/:D!7E/LC”L2A!E2/1C2D!CB!CH2!E2DKLC”B:!BF!
XE22:HBKA2!X/A!Q@”AA”B:A!FEB@!MH”IA$!?%'(912″()$!4SLJC;JD $!=48$
=48$!Z)PP’>!hK1R!%*3%'[$!@7#”)%$E)[“#()&%)2$H#(2%82″()$6(&&”22%%$C@EH6D$5S2,$
‘%””()$4 62CE”2#2D!5KJKAC!)>!)P%%>!FEB@!MH”I!XdX!2@”AA”B:A!H”JH!B:!/J2:D/!/C!=48!
2:#”EB:@2:C!@22C”:Jp!
HCCIp\GGG-$”@B$BEJMH/E27B”:C@/”:FE/@2$/AIoCBI”Ls”Dq%,,*gDBLs”Dq%%-)-
=48$!Z:$D$[$!4/EO2C3b/A2D!42/AKE2A!7EBIBA/1A!K:D2E!LB:A”D2E/C”B:!G”CH”:!CH2!
Q;I2EC!XEBKI!B:!T2/A”0″1″CR!MCKDR!/:D!=@I/LC!5AA2AA@2:C!BF!7BAA”012!4/EO2C!b/A2D!
42/AKE2A$!=48$
=48$!Z)P%%>!4/R[$!@EH6$L;)0$’%””()$0(81&%)24
,*
=48$!Z:$D$[$!H#%[%)2″()$(*$!”#$H(9912″()$*#(&$+,”-‘4 62CE”2#2D!5KJKAC!*P>!)P%%>!FEB@!
=48p!HCCIp\GGG-$”@B$BEJMH/E27B”:C@/”:FE/@2$/AIoCBI”Ls”Dq)**
=48$!Z)PP’>!hK1R!)&[$!62IBEC!BF!CH2!4/E”:2!Q:#”EB:@2:C!7EBC2LC”B:!UB@@”CC22!B:!”CA!
T”FCR3:”:CH!M2AA”B:$!@EH6$5Sd;>d!004< $
=:C2EJB#2E:@2:C/1!7/:21!B:!U1″@/C2!UH/:J2!Z=7UU[$!Z)PP%[$!+1&&7#3$*(#$
H(9″83&7X%#’$Y 69″&72%$8,7).%$;W<!h/:K/ER!)'[$!
7E2#2:C”B:!BF!/”E!IB11KC”B:!FEB@!AH”IA!3 5!E20/C2!@2LH/:”A@!FBE!/!@/EO2C30/A2D!
“:ACEK@2:C!FBE!”:C2E:/C”B:/1!AH”II”:J$!@7#”)%$E)[“(#)&%)2$H#(2%82″()$6(&&”22%%$
eLW2,$’%””()$e$!.%)07$”2%&$> $!9B:DB:>!`Wp!=48$
=7=QU5!/:D!8U=4T$!Z)PP,[$!@7#”2″&%$7″#$%&”””()’$7)0$@!?HAQ$!))%I$f/$Y +2#72%.”%’$
7)0$8()’%b1%)8%’4 =7=QU5$
91BRDSA!9″AC$!Z)P%%>!5IE”1!%'[$!MLEK002E!KA2!CB!E”A2!/A!BG:2EA!F/L2!1BG3AK1IHKE!FK21!
AHBEC/J2$!I$!-$
9BLO>!8$!b$!Z)PP’>!4/R[$!4/”:C/”:”:J!CH2!JE22:!@B@2:CK@$!Z7$!g$!d/E0BEA>!
=:C2E#”2G2E[!7BECA!g!d/E0BEA$
4/>!M$!_,%$U7)0O((X$(*$@7#”2″&%$E8()(&”8’$7)0$Z1′”)%” Z)PP)!2D$[$!ZU$!.$!
XE/@@2:BA>!QD$[!997$
4/2EAO!9″:2$!Z)P%P[$!+1’27”)7O”9″23$H#(.#%”$?%-(#2$;W!QU8?>!U/E:2J”2!4211B:!g!N?<$!Z)PPP[$!+2103$(*$T#%%),(1’%$T7’$
E&”””()’$*#(&$’,”-‘4 .EB:DH2″@>!?BEG/Rp!?BEG2J”/:!4/E”:2!.2LH:B1BJR!62A2/ELH!
=:AC”CKC2!3 456=?.QW$
4b43QX$!Z)P%P[$!]BEO!K:D2EC/O2:!0R!CH2!4b43QX$
?BEG2J”/:!4/E”:2!.2LH:B1BJR!62A2/ELH!=:AC”CKC2!3 456=?.QW$!Z4/ELH!)PPP[$!+2103$
(*$T#%%),(1’%$T7’$E&”””()’$*#(&$+,”-‘$Y R”)79$?%-(#2$(2$2,%$/)2%#)72″()79$@7#”2″&%$
,+
A#.7)”B72″()4 ?BEG2J”/:!4/E”:2!.2LH:B1BJR!62A2/ELH!=:AC”CKC2$!.EB:DH2″@p!
456=?.QW$
7BECA!g!d/E0BEA$!Z)PP&>!4/R[$!T2/CKE2!3 51C2E:/C”#2!4/E”C”@2!7BG2E$!Z#%72,”).$&(#%$
%7′”93 $
7BECA!g!d/E0BEA$!Z)PP’!>!4/ELH[$!XE22:!7BEC!Q_K”I@2:C$!+&799$P73’$2($.($.#%%) $
7BECA!g!d/E0BEA$!Z)PP’>!M2IC2@02E[$!d/:DA!KI!FBE!L1″@/C2!LH/:J2$!6([%#$+2(#3 >!I$!
*($
7BECA!g!d/E0BEA$!Z)P%P>!hK1R[$!4/E”C”@2!`ID/C2$!69%7)%#$’,”-‘$7,%70 >!I$!*($
7BECA!g!d/E0BEA$!Z)PP’>!4/R>!?B#2@02E>![$!?Q]M$!H(#2$F-072%’ >!I$!’$
MH21CB:>!5$!W$!/)2%#)72″()79$E)[#”()&%)279$Q7P$Z.H”ED!QD”C”B:!2D$[$!.E/:A:/C”B:/1!
7K01″AH2EA>!=:L$
MK0A”D”/ER!0BDR!FBE!AL”2:C”F”L!/:D!C2LH:B1BJR!/D#”L2!Z`?TUUU[$!Z)P%P[$!/)*(#&72″()$
#%9%[7)2$2($%&”””()’$*#(&$*1%9$1’%0$*(#$”)2%)#72″()79$7[“72″()$7)0$&7#”2″&%$2#7)’-(#24
bB::p!`?TUUU$
MG2D”AH!4/E”C”@2!5D@”:”ACE/C”B:$!Z)PP'[$!6()’%b1%)8%’$(*$/@Ag’$K%P$@7#”)%$R1%9$
+19-,1# ?%.1972″()’4 ?BEEOBI”:Jp!MG2D”AH!4/E”C”@2!5D@”:”ACE/C”B:$
`?Q7$!69″&72%$6,7).%4 7/E”Ap!`?Q7$
`?Q7$!Z)PPP[$!_,%$@()2#%79$H#(2(8(9$()$+1O’27)8%’$2,72$V%-9%2%$2,%$AB()%$Q73%#4
?/”EB0″p!M2LE2C/E”/C!FBE!.H2!<“2::/!UB:#2:C”B:!FBE!CH2!7EBC2LC”B:!BF!CH2!8VB:2!9/R2E!
g!.H2!4B:CE2/1!7EBCBLB1!B:!MK0AC/:L2A!CH/C!N2I12C2!CH2!8VB:2!9/R2E$
`:”C2D!?/C”B:A!TE/@2GBEO!UB:#2:C”B:!B:!U1″@/C2!UH/:J2!Z`?TUUU[$!Z)P%%>!hK1R!
)'[$!FKR666$!62CE”2#2D!hK1R!)’>!)P%%>!FEB@!`?TUUUp!HCCIp\K:FLLL$”:C
]”::2A>!d$!Z)P%P[$!!”#$H(9912″()$*#(& +,”-‘$Y E&”””()$@%7’1#%&%)2’$7)0$/&-782$
!”%”&%)2’4 XBC2:0KEJp!UH/1@2EA$
,-
Appendix 1 – Representative health and environmental effects of air
pollutants
Table 8 – Representative health effects of air pollutants.
Air Pollutants Possible Health Effects
Ozone Lung functional impairment, increased airway
responsiveness, increased susceptibility to respiratory
infection, increased pulmonary inflammation, lung structure
damage.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Cardiovascular effects, especially in those persons with heart
conditions.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Lung irritation and low resistance to respiratory infections.
Particulate Matter (PM) Premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, changes in lung function and
increased respiratory symptoms, changes to lung tissues and
structure, and altered respiratory defense mechanisms.
Volatile Organic Eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness,
visual disorders, and memory impairment.
Source: https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/californiaskywatch.com/
Table 9 – Representative environmental effects of air pollutants.
Air Pollutants Possible Environmental Effects
Ozone Damage and reduction in resistance to diseases to crop and
agriculture.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Similar health effects on animals as in human.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Acid rain, visibility degradation, particle formation,
contribution towards ozone formation.
Particulate Matter (PM) Visibility degradation and monument and building soiling.
Volatile Organic Contribution towards ozone formation, odours and some
direct effects on buildings and plants.
Source: https://monkessays.com/write-my-essay/californiaskywatch.com/
,(
Appendix 2 – EU progress towards Kyoto targets in 2008
Figure 24 – EU current progress towards Kyoto targets in 2008.
Source: EEA, Report in tracking of progress towards Kyoto targets and 2020 targets in Europe, 2010.
“”
Appendix 3 – Overview of existing and developing regulations
Table 10 – Overview of existing regulations implemented, or going to be implemented for reduction ship emissions.
IMO Regulations EU Regulations California (US)
Regulations
Canada Regulations
Timeline
Restriction
Status
Coverage/
Timeline
Restriction
Status
Coverage/
Timeline
Restriction
Status
Coverage/
Timeline
Restriction
Status
Coverage/
Technical Requirements Technical Restrictions Technical Restrictions 1 Jan 2000
Engines built
from Jan
2000 to
comply with
NOx
Technical
Code
Global/
In force
16 Aug 2006
No sale of
>1.5% SOx
MDO
EU
ports/
In force
1 Oct 2007
No sale of
>0.05%
SOx
MDO
In
force
“#
IMO Regulations EU Regulations California (US)
Regulations
Canada Regulations
13 Apr 2008
International
Air Pollution
Prevention
Certificate
Global/
In force
1 Jan 2010
No sale of
>0.1% SOx
MGO
EU
ports/
In force
1 Jun 2012
No sale of
>0.0015%
SOx
MDO
In
force
Restrictions on SOx contents
(Global)
Restrictions on SOx contents
(EU Ports)
Restrictions on SOx
contents
(California waters
extending upto 24 NM
from baseline)
Restrictions on emission
of black smoke
(Canada waters amd
within 1NM of land)
19 May 2005
Max. 4.5%
m/m SOx on
bunker fuel
In force
Jul 2000
Max. 0.2%
m/m SOx of
MGO
In force
1 Jan 2007
Max. 1.0%
SOx in
MGO &
0.5% in
MDO
In
force
2007
Subject to
density
level
determine
on Smoke
Chart
In
force
“$
IMO Regulations EU Regulations California (US)
Regulations
Canada Regulations
1 Jan 2012
Max. 3.5%
m/m SOx on
bunker fuel
Due for
enforcem
ent
11 Aug 2006
Max. 1.5%
m/m SOx on
bunker fuel
(Scheduled
passenger
ships
carrying
more than
12)
In force
Jan 2012
Max. 0.1%
SOx in
MGO &
MDO
In
force
1 Jan 2020
Max. 0.5%
m/m SOx on
bunker fuel
Under
debate
1 Jan 2008
Max. 0.1%
m/m SOx on
MGO
In force
1 Jan 2010
Max. 0.1%
m/m SOx on
bunker fuel
At berths
and
inland
waterwa
ys /
#%
IMO Regulations EU Regulations California (US)
Regulations
Canada Regulations
In force
Restrictions on SOx contents
(SECA/ ECA)
Restrictions on SOx contents
(SECA)
19 May 2006
Max. 1.5%
m/m SOx on
bunker fuel
Baltic
Sea/
In force
11 Aug 2006
Max. 1.5%
m/m SOx on
bunker fuel
Baltic
Sea /
In force
22 Nov 2007
Max. 1.5%
m/m SOx on
bunker fuel
North
Sea/
In force
11 Aug 2007
Max. 1.5%
m/m SOx on
bunker fuel
North
Sea /
In force
#&
IMO Regulations EU Regulations California (US)
Regulations
Canada Regulations
1 Mar 2010
Max. 1.0%
m/m SOx on
bunker fuel
Baltic &
North
Seas/ Due
to for
enforceme
nt
1 Jan 2015
Max. 0.1%
m/m SOx on
bunker fuel
Baltic &
North
Seas/ Due
to for
enforceme
nt
Source: Summarized by author, master’s dissertation, World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: AI Plagiarism free essay writing tool, Australian best tutors, best trans tutors, buy essay uk, cheap dissertation writer