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