CLEANER SHIPPING
– focus on air pollution, technology
and regulation
Table of content
Air pollution from shipping · page 3
Adverse effects · page 5
Technical solutions · page 12
Current regulation · page 20
Further regulation · page 25
Danish competences · page 29
Recommendations · page 30
Further information · page 31
Text: Kåre Press-Kristensen and Christian Ege
Layout: Designkonsortiet, Hanne Koch
Print: Ecoprint, printed according to the principles of the Nordic swan ecolabel
Edition: 1st edition, 1st printing – June 2011
The publication can freely be read and downloaded: www.ecocouncil.dk
The publication is free and can be ordered through the Danish Ecocouncil against payment of
postage and costs of expedition.
Citation, copying and other use of the publication is permitted under citation of the source.
The publication is financially supported by The Danish Maritime Fund, Danish Energy Net
Conservation Fund and the Ministry of Science.
Published by
Blegdamsvej 4B,
2200 København N
Denmark
Tlf. (+45) 33 15 09 77
info@ecocouncil.dk
www.ecocouncil.dk
L U F T F O R U R E N I N G F R A S K I B S FA RT
About 90 percent of the global cargo is transported
Consequently, flue gas from ships contains carbon
by ships and shipping is thereby the platform of the
monoxide as well as vapours and particles consist-
increasing global trade. However, shipping emits
ing of unburned oil composites. High sulphur con-
about 3 percent of the global CO2-emission and is
tent also increases the amount of particles in the
thereby contributing significantly to global warm-
flue gas. The most significant pollution composite
ing.
in regards to air pollution from shipping is CO2, SO2,
NOX and fine particles (PM2.5)
The majority of shipping uses bunker oil (heavy fuel
oil) as fuel. The sulphur content in bunker oil can be
Combustion of bunker oil in ships thereby generates
as high as 4.5 percent. In special SECA-areas
the same pollution components as emitted from
(Sulphur Emission Control Areas), including the Baltic
vehicles, power plants, waste incineration etc.
Sea and Danish inland waters, a maximum of 1 per-
However, most of the sulphur is removed from
cent sulphur content is allowed. For comparison, the
diesel for land based transport and both SO2, NOX
sulphur content of diesel oil is 0.001 percent.
and particles are effectively cleaned from the flue
Consequently, the bunker oil used by these ships
gas from all larger power plants in Denmark. For
can contain 1,000 times more sulphur than cars
comparison, only a very weak pollution control is
crossing the bridge between Denmark and Sweden.
implemented in regards to the flue gas from ships.
When burned, carbon and sulphur in the bunker oil
On top of the above mentioned air pollution, ultra-
is oxidised to CO2 and sulphur oxides (mainly sul-
fine particles (PM0.1) and carbon monoxide from
phur dioxide, SO2). At the same time, the content of
the flue gas could pose a risk for dock workers and
nitrogen (N2) in the combustion air is oxidized to
be a local air pollution problem for areas with many
nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the engine of the ship.
cruise ships.
However, a complete combustion does not occur.
Bunker oil is actually considered a waste product from refineries. When
all the light hydrocarbons, which is used for jet fuels, gasoline and diesel
etc. is distilled from the crude oil, the remaining parts are used as bunker
oil for ships and asphalt. The bunker oil is extremely thick and has a high
content of sulphur. The bunker oil is heated and put under high pressure
before it can be combusted in the ship engine. Today bunker oil is combusted at sea without any means of flue gas cleaning.
3
Kilde: Danmarks Rederiforening
Since SO2, NOX and particles can be transported
days of decreased activity due to illness in Denmark.
over large distances air pollution from shipping has
In Denmark the socio-economic costs are estimated
significant impact on environment and health.
to about 0.5 million euros each year.
According to Centre of Energy, Environment and
socio-economic health costs of approx. 60 billion
This publication focuses on air pollution with CO2,
SO2, NOX and fine particles from shipping, technical
euros per year are caused by air pollution from ship-
solutions, existing regulation of air pollution from
ping. On top of this is nature destruction.
shipping and possibilities for further regulation. The
Health (CEEH) about 50,000 premature deaths and
aim is to inspire decision makers and other key
Yearly around 100,000 ship passages occur in the
stakeholders to implement further regulation of air
waters surrounding Denmark. Large container ships
pollution from shipping to the benefit of climate,
only move 8-12 meters per litre bunker oil.
public health and nature.
Consequently, huge amounts of bunker oil are
burned in Danish waters resulting in serious air pol-
Shipping also causes other serious environmental
lution. Air pollution with SO2 and NOX from ship-
challenges e.g. fauna pollution with invasive
ping in waters surrounding Denmark is larger than
species, the risk of oil spills, environmental issues
pollution from Danish land based sources.
due to uncontrolled ship dumping in third world
countries etc. However, these issues are not includ-
Estimations from CEEH shows that each year the air
pollution from shipping in the North Sea and the
Baltic Sea causes 4,000 lost years of life, approx.
250,000 respiratory illnesses and approx. 400,000
4
ed below since the focus is air pollution.
ADVERSE EFFECTS
The significant pollution from shipping is mainly
Consequently, the member states of EU have to rely
due to the fact that shipping is international and
on decisions in the IMO to enforce further regula-
often occurs in international waters and is thereby
tion (see page 25).
regulated by international legislation. The easy
reflagging of ships provides the opportunity to
Only recently, the IMO have decided to reduce air
freely choose under which flag ships are sailing. If
pollution from shipping. However, the decided regu-
one nation tries to regulate shipping through
lation (see page 20) is far from optimal from an
national environmental legislation shipowners can
environmental point of view. The regulation can be
just reflag their ships to nations with less strict
considered the best possible compromise between
environmental legislation.
the conflicting interests in the member nations of
the IMO.
International shipping legislation is decided by the
shipping organisation of the UN: International
Table 1 provides an overview of the most significant
Maritime Organization (IMO). Theoretically, EU could
air pollutants, adverse effects and externality health
decide environmental regulation for ships using
costs in Europe from shipping in international
ports in EU no matter which flag the ships have.
waters on the northern hemisphere.
However, EU has not yet used this type of action.
Table 1
CO2
Direct health effects
Global warming
X
Acidification of the oceans
X
Acid rain in terrestrial ecosystems
SO2
NOX
X
X
(X) 2)
(X) 2)
X
X
X
X
X
– 4)
11.33
8.53
18.27
–
680
597
27
Harmful secondary particles
Damage costs (Euro/ton bunker oil) 5)
X
(X) 1)
Eutrophication
Damage cost (Euro/kg pollutant) 3)
Primary
particles
Table 1: Adverse effects and externality health costs due to air pollution from shipping in international waters.
1) Some particles (black carbon particles) are deposited at the inland ice in Polar Regions and accelerate ice melting.
2) Of minor importance compared to the acidification of the oceans caused by increasing CO2 concentrations.
3) Only health effects. Damage to nature is not included. Reference: Centre of Energy, Environment and Health.
4) It is impossible to find a reasonable externality cost for CO2 due to the large uncertainties related to the consequences of
global warming.
5) The emissions from combustion of 1 ton of bunker oil is estimated to be approx. 3,200 kg CO2, 60 kg SO2, 70 kg NOX and
1.5 kg primary particles.
5
Figure 1
Dry cargo 6 %
Other 3 %
Dry cargo 7 %
Other 2 %
Cargo (Ro-Ro) 13 %
Tanker 20 %
Cargo (Ro-Ro) 16 %
Tanker 22 %
Container 20 %
Container 26 %
Passenger (Ro-Ro) 32 %
Passenger (Ro-Ro) 33 %
Figure 1: Emissions of CO2 and SO2 in 2011 distributed among ship types in waters surrounding Denmark. In
2011 the total emission of CO2 and SO2 was 7.8 million tons and 41,000 tons respectively.
Reference: National Environmental Research Institute of Denmark
Table 1 shows externality costs (based solely upon
problem is that shipping does not pay the externali-
health costs) from pollution with SO2, NOX and primary particles. Estimating an externality cost from
ty costs related to damage on health and nature
CO2 is far more complicated and seems impossible
for the time being since the direct, and especially
health externality costs related to combustion of 1
the indirect, consequences of global warming are
impossible to predict in details. One possible way is
this comes nature damage and costs related to CO2
pollution. For comparison, the price of bunker oil is
only to focus upon the predicted direct conse-
approx. 450 euros per ton for shipping companies -
quences of global warming i.e. reduced harvest, dis-
they only pay for the bunker oil and not for dam-
eases, climate refugees, building and reinforcement
ages caused by pollution.
from air pollution. As seen from table 1, the overall
ton of bunker oil are approx. 1,300 euros. On top of
of dikes, sewage systems etc. However, the indirect
consequences (massive changes of society as we
know it today) will probably dominate the costs of
Figure 1 shows the emission of CO2 and SO2 in 2011
from shipping in waters surrounding Denmark dis-
global warming. Thereby it does not make much
tributed on different types of ships. It is clear that
sense to estimate a cost based upon the predicted
the emission of SO2 from different types of ships
direct consequences.
generally follows the trend of the CO2-emission. The
same trend is observed for NOX and particles since
Consequently, it is not possible to conclude whether
all pollutants can be directly related to combustion
green house gasses or health effects caused by air
of bunker oil.
pollution from shipping is most important. Action
has to be taken to reduce all pollutants. The main
6
Carbon dioxide
atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases acidifica-
The global emission of CO2 from shipping is yearly
tion of the oceans (carbonic acid, H2CO3) which has
about 1 billion tons, contributing about 3 percent of
lethal consequences for marine ecosystems e.g. the
global emissions. But at the same time shipping
unique and extremely species rich coral reefs.
accounts for approx. 90 percent of global cargo transport. However, CO2 emission from shipping is not
included in the Kyoto-protocol or any other interna-
Sulphur dioxide
tional regulation. Consequently, CO2 emission from
The emission of SO2 from shipping in waters surrounding Denmark is approx. 41,000 tons pr. year.
shipping is still not accounted or included in any
The emission is thereby four times larger than the
global agreements to reduce global warming. Danish
overall emission from land based Danish sources.
shipping companies transport 10 percent of world
trade. Thus, the emission of CO2 from Denmark
would be almost doubled if the emission of CO2 from
Danish shipping companies were included in the
In the atmosphere most SO2 from the flue gas is
converted to sulphate (SO42-) e.g. by creation of sulphuric acid (H2SO4) which could create acid rain
Danish climate accounting. On the other hand, the
and damage sensitive ecosystems. In addition, SO2
emission of CO2 from international shipping to and
is a health hazardous gas. However, the primary
from Danish harbours would only add an emission of
health effect related to SO2 from shipping is haz-
2.5 million tons CO2 per year to the Danish emissions
ardous secondary particles formed by atmospheric
and thereby increase the national CO2 emission by
reactions between SO2 and other pollutants (mainly
approx. 5 percent. The CO2 emission from shipping in
ammonia and organic compounds). The sulphur
the waters surrounding Denmark is about 7.8 million
content in bunker oil is included in an IMO agree-
tons CO2 per year and would thereby increase the
Danish CO2 emission by approx. 15 percent if included
ment. This will significantly decrease the sulphur
content towards 2020 (see page 20).
in the national CO2 accounting. It is not obvious how
the emission of CO2 should be accounted but it is
Figure 2 shows the estimated emissions of SO2 from
important to include the shipping in international
shipping in waters surrounding Denmark. The ships
agreements. Thereby the emission of CO2 will be
routes are clearly pictured. The emissions of CO2,
accounted which makes regulation of CO2 from ship-
NOX and particles follow the same pattern.
ping possible. Besides global warming, the increasing
Figur 2: The emission of SO2 in 2011 from
shipping through waters surrounding
Denmark.
Reference: National Environmental Research
Institute of Denmark
Tonnes SO2
7
Nitrogen oxides
directly from the engine of the ships as unburned
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) from the flue gas mainly
consist of nitrogen monoxide (NO) and to lesser
bunker oil. This differ the primary particles from the
extent of nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The emission of
and NOX through chemical reactions in the atmos-
NOX from shipping in water surrounding Denmark
is approx. 173,000 tons pr. year thus significantly
phere after emission of the gasses.
larger than the overall emission from Danish land
The primary particles are health hazardous.
based sources. In the atmosphere NOX can be con-
Furthermore, the particles can be transported to
verted to nitric acid (HNO3) which could create acid
Polar Regions, where black carbon particles deposit
rain and damage sensitive ecosystems.
on the inland ice. Consequently, the ice becomes
Furthermore, NOX increases the formation of health
grey thus increasing the absorption of sunlight and
damaging ozone and a significant part of NO is con-
hereby accelerating the melting of the ice which
verted to health damaging NO2. However, NOX
further increases the absorption of sunlight. Hence,
from shipping mainly contributes to health effects
this is a self-perpetuating process. According to new
through hazardous secondary particles formed
research it has been documented that black carbon
through chemical reactions in the atmosphere
particles significantly facilitate the melting of ice
between NOX and other pollutants (primarily
and temperature increases in Polar Regions.
secondary particles, which is formed from e.g. SO2
ammonia and organic compounds). Finally, NOX can
destroying the unique nature of the oligotrophic
Table 2 shows estimated emissions of SO2, NOX and
particles from the total international shipping in
ecosystems which are habitat for series of rare ani-
the northern hemisphere and shipping in the North
mals and plants. The emission of NOX from shipping is regulated by an IMO agreement which limits
Sea and the Baltic Sea in 2011. For comparison is
the emission of NOX from new ships (see page 20).
rounding Denmark and emissions from Danish land
be deposited in ecosystems and act as fertiliser thus
shown the emissions from shipping in waters surbased sources of pollution.
Particles
Primary particles (PM2.5) are emitted as particles
Table 2
The northern hemisphere (ton)
The North Sea and the Baltic Sea (ton)
SO2
1,870,000
NOX
Primary
particles
3,355,000
250,000
20,000
205,000
955,000
Waters surrounding Denmark (ton)
41,000
173,000
4,000
Land based Danish sources (ton)
10,000
130,000
25,000
Table 2: Emission of SO2, NOX and primary particles (PM2.5) in tons from international shipping in the
northern hemisphere and from shipping in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. For comparison emissions from
shipping in waters surrounding Denmark and from land based Danish sources are shown. The emissions are
estimated for 2011.
Reference: National Environmental Research Institute and Centre of Energy, Environment and Health.
8
From table 2 it is seen that pollution with SO2 and
particles from shipping in the northern hemisphere
is 10-12 times larger than in the North Sea and the
Baltic Sea, while pollution with NOX is only approx.
3.5 times larger. This is due to the regulation of the
sulphur content of the bunker oil in SECA-areas
which among others include the Danish waters and
the Baltic Sea (page 20). Finally, it is seen that the
pollution with SO2 and NOX from shipping exceeds
the pollution from all Danish land based sources.
The emission of primary particles from shipping in
waters surrounding Denmark is approx. 4,000 tons
pr. year only making up around 15 percent of the
overall particle emissions in Danish areas.
Table 3 shows estimated health effects in Denmark
and Europe in 2011 caused by pollution with SO2,
NOX and particles from shipping on the northern
Furthermore, the table shows that air pollution
hemisphere and in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.
from shipping causes several hundred thousands
years of lost living and many millions of illness days
Table 3 shows that air pollution from shipping on
in Europe. Finally it is seen that air pollution from
the northern hemisphere is causing approx. 3.3
shipping in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea causes
times as many health damages in Europe as the
around 75-80 percent of the total health damages
pollution in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.
in Denmark from shipping.
Table 3
Shipping on/in:
Effects in:
Years of lost living
Cases of lung cancer
Number of respiratory illness 1)
Number of heart failure
Number of heart diseases
Illness days 2)
The northern hemisphere
The North Sea and the Baltic Sea
Denmark
Europe
Denmark
Europe
5,300
490,000
4,000
150,000
75
6,500
60
2,000
327,500
27,500,000
257,600
8,425,000
35
2,750
25
870
60
5,500
50
1,680
500,000
43,700,000
400,000
13,400,000
Table 3: Estimated health effects for Denmark and Europe in 2011 caused by pollution with SO2, NOX and
particles from shipping on the northern hemisphere and in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.
1) Covers many different types of respiratory illnesses with different severity.
2) Days with limited activity due to health effects related to air pollution.
Reference: Centre of Energy, Environment and Health.
9
Table 4
SO2
Total
(billion euros)
21
28
4.6
53.6
3.5
10
0.7
14.2
The northern hemisphere
The North Sea and the Baltic Sea
Europe (billion euros)
NOX
Primary particles
Table 4: Estimated total socio-economic costs of health damages (billion euros in 2006-prices) in Europe in
2011 due to pollution with SO2, NOX and particles from shipping in the northern hemisphere and in the
North Sea and the Baltic Sea.
Reference: Centre of Energy, Environment and Health.
Table 4 shows the total socio-economic costs in
waters) which is regulated as a SECA-area (see page
Europe due to health effects caused by air pollution
20)
from shipping on the northern hemisphere and in
the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.
For comparison the socio-economic costs in
Denmark due to air pollution from shipping are
From table 4 it is clear that air pollution from ship-
around 0.4 billion euros per year from shipping in
ping yearly has gigantic socio-economic costs in
the North Sea and the Baltic Sea and 0.6 billion
Europe. NOX pollution causes the greatest socio-
euros per year from shipping in the northern
economic costs in relation to air pollution from
hemisphere. The health costs are (as expected)
shipping. Furthermore, it is seen that pollution with
dominated by shipping in the surrounding waters.
NOX constitute a relatively large part of the costs
The overall cost from air pollution from land based
from shipping in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea
pollution sources in Denmark is 0.65 billion Euro per
compared to shipping in the northern hemisphere.
year. Consequently, air pollution from shipping cau-
This is partly due to the lower sulphur content in
ses about the same damage in Denmark as the
bunker oil in the Baltic Sea (and inner Danish
total land based air pollution sources. However, in
this comparison the serious health
effects from ultrafine diesel particles
are not taken into account. The comparison should therefore be used
with care.
10
Climate winner but environmental loser
pare ship emissions with emissions from other
Compared to shipping, the emission from cargo
transport options. “No transport” is in any case to
transport by train has 2-5 times higher CO2 emis-
prefer from a narrow environmental point of view.
sion per ton while cargo transport by truck has 5-15
However, global transport does have a number of
times higher CO2 emission. Consequently, shipping
advantages and as long as ship transport is as
is a favourable transport in regards to global warm-
cheap as today it will continue to grow. The last 25
ing. However, shipping emits above hundred times
years global cargo transport has doubled and it is
more SO2 and particles compared to modern trucks
still rising fast.
per ton cargo and above 10 times more NOX per ton
cargo. Therefore shipping is a serious environmental
Since shipping constitutes far the largest part of
problem in regards to health and nature.
global cargo transport a quick solution would be to
lower the environmental and climate impact of
From a clear-cut air pollution perspective shipping is
shipping. This could make shipping the “green”
therefore not a favourable transport for the time
transport of the future. Luckily, many technical solu-
being. But shipping contains a series of advantages
tions can minimise air pollution from shipping and
in terms of less noise pollution, less traffic acci-
most technical solutions have low reduction cost
dents, less tearing of roads etc.
compared to further reduction from land based pollution sources. This is due to the fact that signifi-
A significant part of global cargo transport would
cant efforts to reduce land based air pollution have
never take place if cheap shipping was not avail-
already been taken, while almost no effort to reduce
able. Therefore it does not make sense just to com-
air pollution from shipping.
11
TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
Many efficient technical solutions have been devel-
However, today shipowners have no incentives to
oped to minimise the emission of CO2, SO2, NOX
implement technical solutions since the costs of
and particles from shipping. As shown in this chap-
health and nature damage is paid by society and
ter, CO2 emissions from shipping can be lowered by
not by the shipowners. Thus, it is urgent to create
25-50 percent by combining existing technical solu-
clear economic incentives to reduce pollution from
tions and the emission of SO2, NOX and particles
shipping. This can be done by further regulation
can be reduced more than 80 percent per ton of
(see page 24). Only thereby the health and nature
cargo.
benefits can be realised.
The reduction costs for most technical solutions are
There are four technical solutions:
estimated to be more than 10 times lower than the
1)
health costs of the air pollution. Hence, the invest-
2) Ships can use cleaner fuel.
ments are profitable from a socio-economic point of
3) The pollution from the engine can be
view since society save (earn) more than 100 euros
every time 10 euros are invested in technical solu-
Fuel consumption can be reduced.
reduced.
4) The flue gas can be cleaned.
tions. As an example, it will cost 0.5-0.8 euros to
reduce one kg NOX from ships with SCR-systems
It is important to stress that not all the described
according to AirClim (Marked-based instruments for
technical solutions are additive. Thus, the effects
NOX abatement in the Baltic Sea, 2009). For compa-
can not just be summed up. Furthermore, it is not
rison, the health costs are 8.53 euros per kg NOX
all types of solutions that fit all type of ships. The
(table 1). Society thereby earns around 8 euros per
largest reductions can be achieved on new ships.
kg NOX removed from ships by SCR.
12
Reduced fuel consumption
Fuel consumption can be reduced directly through
several operational actions e.g. better use of capacity and logistic (route optimisation), combined with
better maintenance of hull, propeller(s) and engines,
along with optimal sailing with respect to weather
and the physical characteristics of the ship.
Furthermore, scheduled arrivals can avoid ships
waiting for permission to enter harbour. Finally, the
ships speed has great influence on the fuel consumption. By lowering the speed it is possible to
achieve significant fuel savings. However, lowering
the speed will require more ships since the transport time increases. But still a significant net fuel
saving is possible.
The potentials from operational actions are utilised
as far as the earnings from fuel savings allow.
Consequently, further operational actions will be
taken if bunker oil prices increase. In a complete
ideal market economy, shipowners would pay for
the health and nature damages (externalities) from
air pollution. This would quadruple the price on traditional bunker oil (cf. page 5) and thereby create
incentives to further use of operational actions (to
gain fuel savings) and to limit the pollution by
development and use of cleaner fuel, better engines
and air pollution control technologies. But since
shipping is an international transport it has been
impossible to introduce the “polluter pays” principle
so far. However, the marked price on bunker oil has
increased from 20 to 50 percent of the overall transport cost over the last 10 years. This has made shipping companies reduce speed (slow steaming) to
save fuel. Furthermore, speed reduction increase
flexibility (speed can be increased in case of delays)
and thereby increases the probability of scheduled
arrival and fast harbour access. This underlines that
higher prices will result in operational actions (savings).
Reference: Maersk
13
By minimising water, wave and wind resistance of the
According to FORCE Technology, the mentioned
hull through design changes, new types of paint and
operational improvements can reduce the fuel con-
by releasing air bubbles under the hull (air lubrica-
sumption by 15-30 percent for existing ships while
tion) it is possible to achieve further fuel reductions.
more than 30 percent reduction is possible for new
Furthermore, windmills on ships may both produce
ships. Finally, series of more speculative options are
electricity and reduce the wind resistance. This can be
available for shipping e.g. kites, sails, Fletner Rotors,
combined with optimisation of the engine (e.g. waste
solar panels etc.
heat recovery) and the propeller/rudder (optimal
design) in relation the actual ship.
Reference: FORCE Technology
Reference: Danmarks Rederiforening
14
Cleaner fuel
By use of cleaner fuel the pollution can be significantly reduced. The main focus is on liquid natural
gas (LNG) or low-sulphur bunker oil (0.1 percent sulphur). Besides, the use of biofuels/biogas can in the
long run be an important way to reduce greenhouse
gas emission.
In table 5 potentials from use of cleaner fuels are
shown. There is a dispute about the effects of LNG
since there are very different opinions on how much
to LNG. One is the technical challenge regarding
methane (CH4) that leak unburned from 2-stroke
engine, pressure tank and safety. Another is the
and 4-stroke engines (the greenhouse gas potential
infrastructure (LNG supply in harbours). A project
of CH4 is 25 times higher than CO2). Likewise, the
was initiated by the Danish Maritime Authority in
reduction of SO2 dependent on how clean the gas is
2011 focusing on safety and infrastructural changes
and how much traditional bunker oil is used as aux-
in regards to use of LNG in the Baltic Sea, the North
iliary fuel (usually around 5 percent unless a pure
Sea and the British Channel. However, LNG is
gas engine is considered). Finally, there is a great dif-
already today an environmentally friendly alterna-
ference between NOX reductions for 2-stroke and 4-
tive for ferries and LNG tankers. LNG will be even
stroke engines. The values for reductions should
more favourable when the maximum limit for sul-
therefore be used with caution due to the uncer-
phur content in the SECA-areas is lowered to 0.1 per-
tainties.
cent in 2015. Finally, large CO2 reductions can be
achieved in the future by replacing LNG with Liquid
LNG has great potential to reduce pollution from
Biogas (LBG).
shipping. However, several challenges are attached
Table 5
Engine
Liquid natural gas (LNG)
CO2
SO2
NOX
Particles
2-stroke
20-25 %
90-95 %
20-25 %
35-40 %
4-stroke
0-25 % 1)
> 95 % 2)
80-90 %
> 40 %
0%
90 % 3)
5-10 %
50 %
Low-sulphur bunker oil (0.1 % sulphur)
Table 5: Reduction of pollution by the use of cleaner fuels. It should be underlined that uncertainty is attached to the reductions by use of LNG and the values should thereby be used with care.
1) Dependent on amount of unburned CH4 released through the engine.
2) Dependent on sulphur content and possible auxiliary fuel/lubrication oil.
3) Compared to bunker oil with 1 percent sulphur. The reduction for SO2 and particles are larger, if compared to traditional bunker
oil (outside SECA) with higher content of sulphur.
Reference: MAN Diesel & Turbo and Clipper Ferries
15
Reference: MAN Diesel
Bunker oil with 0.1 percent sulphur (today the con-
expected to continue to a certain degree, although
tent is 1 percent) will be required in SECA-areas from
in more attenuate fashion, as older and smaller
2015 but not in the international waters (see page
ships are replaced with new and larger ships with
20). Still, air pollution from international waters will
still more efficient engines. Several important inven-
therefore give rise to serious health and environ-
tions can reduce air pollution from engines further
mental damage. Consequently, a more general regu-
e.g. systems for utilisation of waste heat (waste
lation regarding low-sulphur bunker oil would in
the long run lower the pollution. However, at the
heat recovery, WHR) and low-NOX valves for 2-stroke
engines reducing the emission of NOX by 10-20 per-
moment it seems difficult to find the sufficient
cent and additionally reducing the particle emis-
refinery capacity to produce enough low-sulphur
sions significantly.
bunker oil just to satisfy upcoming demands in the
SECA-areas.
Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) where some of the
flue gas is recirculated through the engine is a well
Better engine technology
documented engine improvement to reduce NOX
During the last 40 years the consumption of bunker
emission. EGR can reduce the emission of NOX by
oil pr. container pr. sea mile has been reduced
80 percent from 2-stroke engines according to MAN
approx. 80 percent through development of larger
Diesel & Turbo. For comparison the reduction by
engines (for increasingly larger ships) with still
EGR on 4-stroke engines is 35-50 percent.
increasing engine efficiency. This development is
16
Cleaning the flue gas
Thereby efficient scrubbers can achieve the same
SO2 from the flue gas can be efficiently removed in
a scrubber where SO2 is “washed” out of the flue
SO2 reduction as low sulphur bunker oil and are
thereby a technical alternative to low sulphur fuels.
gas using sea water. SO2 is converted to harmless
sulphate (SO42-) in the scrubber, which can be discharged with the scrubber water at sea. However,
the scrubber water can contain several toxic tar
compounds that will cause adverse effects if discharged in coastal areas. Consequently, the scrubber
water is recirculated (under addition of sodium
hydroxide) in coastal areas. The
scrubber usually removes more
than 95 percent SO2 and 50-60
percent of the primary particles according to Alfa Laval
Aalborg. Some scrubbers have
even shown removal rates of
70-80 percent of the primary
particles (Venturi scrubber).
Reference: Aalborg
Industries
17
Reference: DANSK TEKNOLOGI
NOX from the flue gas can be efficiently removed by
several technologies. The most promising for 4-
Finally, primary particles in the flue gas can proba-
stroke engines is SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction).
heavy vehicles. Laboratory tests have shown 60-85
The SCR system automatically adds a precise
percent removal. The particles are continuously
amount of urea to the flue gas. Ammonia (NH3) is
burned in the filter (by addition of an additive) and
released from urea and reacts with NOX in a catalytic process converting NOX and NH3 to harmless
thereby transformed to CO2 and steam. It has not
been possible to find detailed results from full scale
free nitrogen (N2) and steam. Up to 90 percent
tests with particle filters. This is probably due to the
removal of NOX and 30-35 percent removal of the
fact that the high sulphur content in real life flue
primary particles are achievable by SCR systems. In
gas causes serious technical challenges. However, by
addition, SCR systems reduce noise significantly.
combining particle filters with scrubbers an almost
Today full scale SCR systems on 4-stroke engines
complete removal of sulphur and primary particles
have shown promising results. SCR systems will
should be possible. Particle filters have, as well, a
probably be efficient for 2-stroke engines as well, if
potential for reducing the more acute health effects
the technology can compete with EGR systems (see
of primary particles for the crew and dock workers.
page 16).
18
bly be removed in particle filters as known from
Combining technical solutions
As mentioned, the effects of the described technolo-
to sum up. Table 6 shows the effects of three differ-
gies are not additive. Thereby it is not possible just
ent combinations of technical solutions.
Table 6
LNG
LNG + WHR
LNG + WHR + EGR
Reduction of CO2
23 %
32 %
31 %
Reduction of SO2
95 %
96 %
97 %
Reduction of NOx
24 %
25-35 %
85-95 %
Reduction of PM2.5
37 %
45 %
61 %
Table 6: Effects of combinations of technical solutions compared to a traditional container ship.
LNG: Liquid natural gas, WHR: Waste heat recovery and EGR: Exhaust gas recirculation.
Reference: Estimated from key values provided by MAN Diesel & Turbo.
Kilde: Mærsk
19
C U R R E N T R E G U L AT I O N
Table 7
Sulphur content
2007
2010
2012
2015
2020
Non-SECA (Oceans)
4.5 %
–
3.5
–
0.5 1)
SECA (Coastal areas)
1.5 %
1%
–
0.1 %
–
Table 7: IMO-regulation of the sulphur content in bunker oil.
SECA: Sulphur Emission Control Areas.
1) If the supply of bunker oil with 0.5 percent sulphur is insufficient in 2020 the regulation will be enforced in 2025.
Reference: The International Maritime Organisation
Table 7 shows the present IMO-regulation of the
Waters surrounding Denmark are SECA-areas.
sulphur content in bunker oil.
Consequently, the SO2 pollution from shipping is
expected to be reduced by 91 percent from 2007 to
Ships can choose to clean the flue gas for SO2 as
2020. The decrease is percentage-wise less than the
alternative to using bunker oil with lower sulphur
reduction in sulphur content (93 %) since an
content. For instance, above 95 percent of the SO2
increase in shipping is expected (increase of 3.5 per-
can be removed in a scrubber. Consequently, the
cent yearly) in the waters around Denmark. The
scrubber enables the same SO2-reduction as low
Danish Centre of Energy, Environment and Health
sulphur bunker oil. Thereby the present loophole in
the 2020 regulation seems meaningless i.e. there is
has estimated that this reduction in SO2 pollution
will only reduce the total health effects from ship-
no reason to postpone the 0.5 percent sulphur regu-
ping by 10-15 percent in Denmark. This is due to the
lation five years. Not even if the supply of low sul-
fact that most health effects from shipping around
phur bunker oil is insufficient because
Denmark are caused by pollution with NOX which is
the regulation can be achieved with
expected to increase slightly towards 2020 due to
scrubbers. As an alternative, the regu-
an expected increase in shipping.
lation can be achieved by using LNG
instead of the low-sulphur bunker oil
(see table 5).
20
Kilde: Danmarks Rederiforening
Figure 3
2007
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
<
2020
<
- 2.50
- 2.25
- 2.00
- 1.75
- 1.50
- 1.25
- 1.00
- 0.75
0.50
Figure 3: Concentration of SO2 in Denmark in 2007 and 2020.
Reference: National Environmental Research Institute
SO2 from shipping) and the land based emissions in
Europe (EU27). From the figure is seen that shipping
Figure 3 shows the concentration of SO2 in Denmark
in 2007 and 2020. It is evident that shipping has a
crucial significance on the concentration of SO2 in
2007. Likewise it is evident that the IMO-regulation
emission on the northern hemisphere would have
causes large reductions in 2020, where the SO2 pol-
(EU27) in 2020 if no IMO regulation (or other regula-
lution is almost invisible.
tion) had been implemented. Furthermore, it is seen
exceeded the total land based emissions in Europe
that the 2015 regulation in SECA-areas only has
tion on SO2 from shipping in the northern hemi-
minor influence on the total SO2 emission on the
northern hemisphere underlining that the SECA-
sphere compared to the baseline (no regulation on
areas mainly have local effects upon emissions.
Figure 4 shows the estimated effect of the regula-
SO2 emissions 2010 - 2020
1,000 tonnes
4000
Figure 4: Estimated effect
3500
of the IMO regulation on
3000
SO2 from shipping on the
northern hemisphere.
2500
To comparison the baseli-
2000
ne (no regulation on SO2)
1500
and the land based emis-
1000
sions in Europe (EU27) are
shown.
500
Reference: The Air Pollution &
0
Climate Secretariat.
2010
Shipping IMO
regulation
2015
Shipping baseline
2020
Land based sources
(EU27)
21
Figure 5
Figure 5: : IMO-regulation of the emissions of
18
16
14
TIER I
NOX from shipping.
TIER II
Tier I: Ship engines (above 130 kW) installed on a ship
TIER III
built after 1. January 2000.
g/kWh
12
Tier II: Ship engines (above 130 kW) installed on a ship
10
built after 1. January 2011.
8
Tier III: Ship engines (above 130 kW) installed on a ship
6
built after 1. January 2016. Only valid in NECA-areas
4
(NOX Emission Control Areas).
2
Reference: International Maritime Organisation.
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
rpm
Figure 5 shows the IMO-regulation of NOX emissions. However, the strict 2016 regulation is only
Finally, ship engines built between 1990 and 2000
has to be upgraded to fulfil Tier I requirements.
valid for new ships in NECA-areas (NOX Emission
Control Areas).
Figure 6 compares the estimated effect of the regu-
Note, that it is the age of the ship that determines
lation on NOX from shipping on the northern hemisphere with the baseline (no regulation on NOX
the NOX pollution from the engine. A new engine
on a ship build before 1st of January 2011 can there-
from shipping) and the land based emissions in
by pollute more than a new engine on a ship build
after 1st of January 2011. Thus, the regulation moti-
emission on the northern hemisphere will increase
vates shipowners to use old ships which (other
Europe (EU27) in 2020 even though the IMO regula-
things being equal) have a higher fuel consumption
tion has been implemented. The baseline shows
and thereby a higher pollution than newer ships.
that the IMO regulation has very limited effects on
From an environmental point of view the NOX regu-
the NOX pollution from shipping.
Europe (EU27). From the figure is seen that shipping
and be close to the total land based emissions in
lation should be independent of the age of the ship.
1,000 tonnes
NOx emissions 2010 - 2020
8000
Figure 6: Estimated effect of the
7000
IMO regulation on NOX from
shipping in the northern
6000
hemisphere. In comparison the
5000
baseline (no regulation on NOX)
and the land based emissions in
4000
Europe (EU27) are shown.
3000
Reference: The Air Pollution & Climate
2000
Secretariat.
1000
0
2010
Shipping IMO
regulation
22
2015
2020
Shipping baseline
Land based sources
(EU27)
Figure 7
2007
>
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
<
2020
-
10.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
Figure 7: The concentration of NO2 (indicator for the NOX pollution) in Denmark in 2007 and 2020.
Reference: National Environmental Research Institute.
From 2007 to 2020 a minor increase (0-5 percent) in
A reduction of primary particles as a direct effect of
the NOX emission from shipping in waters around
the IMO sulphur regulation is expected. As a is
Denmark is expected, even though IMO is expected
expected that the pollution with primary particles
to recognise the waters as NECA-areas and thereby
from shipping will be reduced by approx. 55 percent
be included in the hardest IMO NOX regulation
in waters surrounding Denmark towards 2020.
from 2016. The increase is due to the fact that the
hardest regulation is only valid for new ships and
due to an expected increase in shipping towards
2020. Thereby the air pollution with NOX will be
responsible for 80 percent of the health effects in
Denmark related to shipping in 2020. At that time,
air pollution from shipping in waters around
Denmark will cause more health damage than the
overall damages from all Danish land based pollution sources. However, the new IMO regulation does
have a significant effect since the emission of NOX
in waters around Denmark would have increased by
15 percent without the new IMO regulation.
Figure 7 illustrates the concentration of NO2 in
Denmark in 2007 and 2020. The concentration of
NO2 can be used as a direct indicator for the NOX
pollution. The figure shows that the regulation from
the IMO does not have great impact on the NOX
pollution from shipping. On the other hand, regulation of land based NOX sources (through e.g. EU’s
NEC-directive) has a significant effect on the NO2
Reference: Danmarks Rederiforening
pollution.
23
Tabel 8
CO2
SO2
2011 (tons)
7,850,000
41,000
173,250
4,000
2020 (tons)
9,250,000
5,800
177,600
2,650
+ 18
- 86
+ 2.5
- 34
Difference (%)
NOx
Primary particles
Table 8: Emissionen of CO2, SO2, NOx and primary particles from shipping in waters surrounding Denmark.
Reference: National Environmental Research Institute.
Table 8 shows emissions of CO2, SO2, NOX and pri-
can still contain 100 times more sulphur in 2015
mary particles from shipping in waters surrounding
than diesel today. Compared to trucks, new ships in
Denmark in 2011 and after full implementation of
NECA-areas in 2016 can emit 5-10 times as much
IMO regulation in 2020 (SECA- and NECA-areas).
NOX pr. kWh engine performance.
As mentioned above, the emission of NOX increases
Even the hardest IMO-regulation in SECA- and
due to increasing shipping activities in waters sur-
NECA-areas will thereby not ensure that shipping
rounding Denmark. This increase exceeds the effect
becomes “green” transport. And the general regula-
of IMO’s NECA-areas. Consequently, NOX pollution
tion of shipping emissions outside these areas is
will still be a serious health challenge in 2020
much weaker. Consequently, the health effects from
unless further regulations are implemented to
air pollution caused by shipping are expected to be
reduce NOX emissions from shipping.
almost unchanged towards 2020. This is mainly due
to the very weak regulation of NOX from the exist-
The environmental regulation from the IMO is a big
ing fleet. Thus, there is an urgent need for further
step forward. However, shipping is still subject to a
regulation of air pollution from shipping.
very weak regulation compared to land based transport. Bunker oil in the hardest regulated SECA-areas
24
F U RT H E R R E G U L AT I O N
The regulation of shipping (and thus the air pollu-
emission from shipping included in international
tion from shipping) is traditionally decided by the
agreements to build a basis for reducing the CO2
IMO and applies globally. This is justified by the easy
emissions from shipping. This can be done by imple-
reflagging of ships to other nations and the legal
menting a global tax on conventional bunker fuel
challenges faced when regulating pollution in inter-
(see below).
national waters. The IMO has spent very long time
to establish the current environmental regulation.
Finally, there is an urgent need for a much harder
This is mainly due to the many different interests
represented in the IMO. If IMO-regulation is not
regulation of NOX pollution from shipping since the
regulation decided in the IMO is too weak. The regu-
tightened significantly, further regulation outside
lation can not even counterbalance the NOX pollu-
the IMO is necessary to reduce the adverse effects
tion from the increasing shipping - not even in the
of air pollution from shipping. This could be done by
hardest regulated NECA-areas. Consequently, the
market based regulation or regional regulation
(through EU/USA). Below, three options for further
NOX pollution will increase towards 2020 and be
responsible for almost the same number of health
regulation are discussed:
effects in 2020 as all air pollution from shipping
today. Even though, several technical solutions are
1)
Further IMO regulations
2) Market-based regulations
ready (LNG, EGR and SCR) which can reduce NOX
pollution more than 80 percent.
3) Regional regulations
On basis of this is only focused on further IMO reguCompared to 2011, the existing IMO regulation
lation of CO2 and NOX in this publication. However,
reduces the SO2 emissions per tonne transported
for marked-based and regional regulation is focused
goods by approx. 90 percent in 2015 in SECA-areas
upon regulation of all air pollutants since these two
and by approx. 90 percent outside SECA-areas from
regulation forms are independent of the IMO regu-
2020 (possibly 2025 cf. table 7). This significant SO2
lation.
reduction will automatically give a significant (but
smaller) reduction in the emission of primary parti-
Further IMO regulation
cles. In the short run it is unlikely that the IMO will
There are several ways to regulate CO2 emissions
do further regulation in terms of SO2 and particle
from shipping. First, it is important to regulate the
emissions from shipping. Instead it is much more
design of new ships (so they travel further per ton
important to ensure that the decided IMO regula-
of fuel). This will reduce the energy consumption
tions are actually implemented on time. Already, a
significant lobby activity for postponement of the
and thereby the pollution with CO2 (as well as SO2,
NOX and particles). In addition, a tax could be
deadlines is taking place. However, it is necessary to
implemented on bunker oil and the yield could be
reduce the SO2 and particle emissions further if
shipping is going to be the “green” transport of the
used for climate projects in developing countries,
future. Luckily, the technical solutions are ready as
i.e. additional reductions). This will, at the same
mentioned above.
time, increase the price on bunker oil and thereby
reducing the CO2 emission (compared to baseline
motivate shipowners further to save fuel which
In addition, it is of vital importance to get the CO2
would reduce the CO2 emissions as well.
25
Denmark has proposed this (energy efficient design
reductions compared to a baseline pollution e.g.
of new ships and a tax on bunker oil) in the IMO
determined on basis of how much a similar “aver-
and in the process up to COP17 in Durban in the end
age” ship pollute in 2012. The baseline value and the
of 2011. If decided in Durban this could form the
reductions must be documented by an independent
basis of guidelines to a coming IMO agreement.
and recognised auditing. The label could be issued
However, several important developing countries in
by an organisation designated by the IMO and the
IMO are against an agreement since they believe it
World Wildlife Fund.
would be implementing a binding agreement to
reduce the CO2 emission from developing countries.
Table 9 shows suggested air pollution reductions
The proposal to implement taxes on bunker oil is on
compared to a baseline for different labels.
standby so far. Mainly because of disagreement
about how the revenue should be distributed and
Consequently, to achieve a D-labelling a ship would
which tax model should be used. There is an
have to reduce its emission of CO2 by minimum 30
increasing support for the Danish tax proposal.
However, important developing countries (e.g.
percent, SO2 and NOX emissions by min. 80 percent
and particle emission by min. 50 percent. As seen
China, Brazil, India, South Africa and Saudi-Arabia)
from table 6 this can be achieved in 2-stroke
make it difficult to find an agreement.
engines by using LNG, WHR and EGR. By further
using a mix of the technical solutions which reduce
The IMO regulation of the NOX pollution (figure 5)
the fuel consumption (page 13) or biofuels/biogas a
should as soon as possible be revised to require a
C-label is achievable. On the other hand, achieving a
reduction of 80 percent NOX for all Tier III engines
B-label would require a combination of biofuel/bio-
and earlier in NECA-areas from 2016. The 80 percent
gas with a very low content of sulphur combined
NOX reduction should apply to all ships in all waters
from 2020.
with several technical solutions. This is on the edge
of what is possible today. A-labelling would require
new technology.
Market-based regulation
First step in a market-based regulation of air pollu-
The labelling should be voluntary, like the FSC-label
tion is to create transparency in the market leading
and Fairtrade (former “Max Havelaar”). Through
to full information about air pollution from ship-
labelling requirements, global companies can create
ping. This can be done by labelling ships from A to E.
a demand for cleaner shipping. The management
The labelling should be based on air pollution
could then make a CSR policy requiring that the
Table 9
A
1)
B
C
D
E
> 80 %
> 65 %
> 50 %
> 30 %
> 20 %
> 99 %
> 99 %
> 95 %
> 80 %
> 80 %
NOX
> 99 %
> 99 %
> 95 %
> 80 %
> 30 %
Particles
> 99 %
> 95 %
> 70 %
> 50 %
> 30 %
CO2
SO2
Table 9: Suggested air pollution reductions (compared to a baseline) for different ship labels.
1) For the reduction of CO2 must be included adverse climate effects from engine emission of unburned methane and CO2 and
methane emissions from the fuel lifecycle.
26
company will use e.g. 40 percent D-labelled, 30 per-
Thereby some shipowners will see an economic
cent E-labelled and 30 percent unlabelled ships in
potential in having their ships labelled since it will be
2015. The following years the requirements could be
a requirement in order to get certain shipping orders.
still more ambitious i.e. increasing the demand for
With an increasing amount of companies setting still
cleaner shipping.
more ambitious requirements for their shipping
deliveries, more shipowners will have their ships
Furthermore, the labelling makes it possible that the
labelled and start implementing technical solutions
environmental reports of the companies will provide
to achieve better labelling. Better labelling will then
a quantitative overview of their shipping deliveries
be a competitive parameter in an ongoing labelling
distributed on labels. Likewise, it becomes possible for
process reducing air pollution from shipping.
companies to require specific minimum labelling
standards for their suppliers. Consequently, the air
The real technical challenge in the suggested
pollution from shipping becomes visible and thereby
labelling is that container ships often carry cargo
the green NGO’s can start pushing the companies to
from many different clients. They will probably have
require still more ambitious labelling. Through the
different environmental requirements for labelling.
media, NGO’s can communicate whether companies
Consequently, flexibility may be needed in a transi-
are ambitious on their environmental requirements
tional period. But implementation is possible. Let us
for shipping and thereby making the pollution from
assume that 10 percent of customers require label
shipping visible to the consumer. The consumer can
C, 20 percent label D, 40 percent label E and 30 per-
thereby further accelerate more ambitious labelling
cent do not make any requirements. Then the entire
by choosing products from companies with ambi-
load could, of course, be transported with a C-label
tious labelling requirements.
ship. Alternatively, the cargo could be transported in
a manner that ensures that the overall pollution
during the ship transport is similar to the pollution
if 10 percent of the cargo had been transported
with a label C ship, 20 percent of the cargo has been
transported with a label D ship and 40 percent of
the cargo had been transported with a label
E ship. However, this would increase
the requirements for documentation and control
during the transition period.
27
Reference: Maersk Line
Regional regulation
very little influence on the consumer price. The
In continuation of the suggested labelling of ships,
supermarket price of a bottle of wine from New
large regional areas (e.g. EU and/or USA) could
Zealand would in Denmark increase less than 0.15
introduce port fees depending on the label of the
euros, if it was transported with B-labelled ships in
ships (table 9). Consequently, it would be very
the future. This would be invisible to consumers
expensive for unlabelled ships to use ports in e.g.
taking the general inflation and special offers of the
EU and/or USA, expensive for E-labelled ships,
supermarkets into account.
cheaper for the D-labelled ships etc. This would give
shipowners (a further) economic incentive to have
Consequently, there is no risk that a much harder
their ships labelled and to use technical solutions to
environmental regulation of shipping will reduce
improve the labelling in order to get reduced port
shipping in favour of alternative transport. And no
fees. Regional regulation will require all ports in a
risk that regional regulation would shift shipping to
large area e.g. EU and/or USA to have similar mini-
ports outside the e.g. EU and/or USA. Shipowners
mum port fees in relation to labelling. Hence, mini-
would just pass on the costs from pollution reduc-
mum port fees must be decided and charged at a
tions (technical solutions) to customers in the usual
supra-national level e.g. by a central authority in EU
manner, and end users will hardly notice a differ-
and/or USA.
ence. But society will achieve large gains in terms of
better public health and nature values.
Technical solutions to get the most ambitious labels
will increase the costs of shipping, while costs of
Market-based and regional regulation through
fulfilling labelling D-E are limited. The costs of the
labelling of ships should be seen as a supplement to
transportation for cargo transported by ships typi-
IMO-regulations. Thereby the IMO-regulation
cally represent less than 2 percent of the final prod-
becomes the minimum regulation, while labelling
uct price. Thereby, even retrofitting technical solu-
will motivate for faster and further reductions of air
tions to get the most ambitious labels will have
pollution from shipping.
28
DA N I S H CO M P E T E N C E S
Denmark has a unique position in relation to ship-
Denmark with an export that has grown from 3.3
ping and technical solutions to reduce air pollution
billion euros in 1992 to 23.3 billion euros in 2010.
from shipping, because Denmark is hosting the
Danish ships are generally larger, newer and thus
largest container shipping company in the world,
more “green” than the average world fleet. But at
the largest supplier of ship engines and several
the moment most Danish ships would not even be
leading clean-tech companies within flue gas clean-
able to get an “E labelling” according to table 9.
ing. In this connection, Denmark has developed several strong research and consulting communities in
It is possible to implement further regulation of
relation to mapping and reduction of air pollution
shipping to limit air pollution without jeopardising
from shipping.
the export earnings and the employment from
shipping. Properly designed environmental regula-
Danish shipping companies control approx. 10 per-
tion of air pollution from shipping is necessary if
cent of the global cargo transport and 80 percent of
shipping should be the “green” transport of the
2-stroke engines in ships origin from a Danish sup-
future.
plier. 100,000 Danes are employed in relation to
shipping incl. shipyards, technology suppliers etc.
Important Danish key stakeholders in relation to
Shipping is the second largest export industry in
“green” shipping are shown in figure 8.
Figure 8
Danish key stakeholders in
relation to ”green” shipping
The list of stakeholders is not complete
Research institutions
Technical University of Denmark
Aalborg University
National Environmental Research Institute
Centre for Energy, Environment
and Health
Consultants
Grontmij
FORCE Technology
Clean-tech suppliers
Haldor Topsoe
MAN Diesel & Turbo
DANSK TEKNOLOGI
Alfa Laval Aalborg
DK Group
AAB
APV
DESMI
GreenSteam
Hempel
Rederier
Maersk Line
Clipper Ferries
DFDS
J. Lauritzen
NORDEN
Nordic Tankers
TORM
Figure 8: Danish key stakeholders in relation to ”green” shipping
29
R E CO M M E N DAT I O N S
The basis for achieving the health and nature
(table 9) in their SCR policy (for their own as
potentials of further regulation of air pollution from
well as their suppliers ship transport).
shipping is, of course, that further regulation is
implemented in an anti-competitive form and that
shipping companies and affiliated companies take
5) Making EU and/or USA implementing minimum
port fees depending on ship labelling.
the environmental challenges seriously.
6) Making harbours in EU and/or USA implementFurther regulation
ing minimum port fees depending on labelling
Further regulation of air pollution from shipping
of ships (until minimum port fees are decided
should be promoted by:
and charged at a supranational level, cf. point 5)
1)
Increasing the pressure in the IMO for environ-
7) Support all anti-competitive environmental reg-
mental regulation in relation to CO2 as well as
ulation of shipping within and outside the IMO.
an active political effort in the climate negotia-
The pressure for harder environmental regula-
tions up to COP 17 in Durban in November 2011.
tion in IMO must be done on a pure “political
level” while the other recommendations can be
2) Increasing the pressure in IMO for a much more
carried out in collaboration between authorities,
ambitious environmental regulation of NOX by
shipping companies and other involved stake-
informing the nations in IMO about the socio-
holders including green NGO’s.
economic costs of the weak NOX regulation.
Finally, it is important to make sure that the decided
3) Working for further reductions of the sulphur
content in bunker oil after 2020 in the IMO.
IMO regulation is fulfilled on time. Progressive
countries can do this e.g. by illustrating how technical solutions already today can fulfil the IMO regu-
4) Making multinational companies (IKEA, Nike,
Wall-Mart etc.) require ambitious ship labelling
30
lation coming into force in 2020, without significantly affecting the competitiveness of shipping.
F U RT H E R I N F O R M AT I O N
Homepages
The Danish Ecocouncil: www.ecocouncil.dk
National Environmental Research Institute: www.dmu.dk
Centre for Energy, Environment and Health: www.ceeh.dk
Danish Shipowners’ Association: www.shipowners.dk
Green ships of the future: www.greenship.org
Society for Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: www.skibstekniskselskab.dk
The Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat: www.airclim.org
International Maritime Organisation: www.imo.org
European Environmental Bureau: www.eeb.org
Transport & Environment: www.transportenvironment.org
Danish Ministry of the Environment: www.mst.dk
Danish Maritime Authority: www.sofartsstyrelsen.dk
Key publications
Ship emissions and air pollution in Denmark. Present situation and future scenarios.
Devised by the National Environmental Research Institute for the Danish Environmental Ministry,
Environmental project no. 1307, 2009.
www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publikationer/2009/978-87-92548-77-1/pdf/978-87-92548-78-8.pdf
Assessment of Health Cost Externalities of Air Pollution at the National Level using the EVA Model System
Devised by the interdisciplinary research centre: Centre for Energy, Environment and Health, Denmark, 2009.
www.ceeh.dk/CEEH_Reports/Report_3/CEEH_Scientific_Report3.pdf
Market-based instrument for NOx abatement in the Baltic Sea.
The Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat, Sweden, 2009.
www.airclim.org/reports/apc24.pdf
31
CLEAN ER SH I PPI NG
– focus on air pollution, technology and regulation
Shipping accounts for around 90 percent of global cargo transport and is thereby the basis of the fast increasing global
trade. However, the significant shipping volume causes air pollution with CO2 and hazardous sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and primary particles.
Shipping thereby contributes to about 3 percent of global
warming and the air pollutants cause serious health effects on
land and harm sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Yearly, about 50,000 cases of premature deaths in Europe are
caused by air pollution from shipping. The annual costs in
Europe are approx. 60 billion euro due to health damages
related to shipping. On top of this come damages to ecosystems.
Large container ships only move 8-12 meters per litre bunker
oil. Consequently, huge amounts of bunker oil are burned each
year resulting in serious air pollution. Air pollution with SO2
and NOX from shipping in waters close to land can be significantly larger than the air pollution from land based sources –
for instance in a country like Denmark.
The International Maritime Organisation IMO has adopted a
regulation that will lead to 90 percent decrease in SO2 emissions from shipping towards 2020, while the adopted regulation of NOX will lead to far less reductions. Event though technical solutions to significantly reduce NOX as well as particles
and CO2 are available.
This publication focuses on air pollution with CO2, SO2, NOX and fine particles from shipping, technical solutions, existing regulation of air pollution from shipping and possibilities for further regulation. The aim is to
inspire decision makers and other key stakeholders to implement further regulation of air pollution from
shipping to the benefit of climate, public health and nature.