Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety (해양환경안전학회지)

The Korean Society of Marine Environment and safety (해양환경안전학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of the Emission Benefits of Using Alternative Maritime Power (AMP) for Ships

  • Kim, Kyunghwa (Future Technology Research Team, Korean Register (KR)) ;
  • Roh, Gilltae (Future Technology Research Team, Korean Register (KR)) ;
  • Chun, Kangwoo (Future Technology Research Team, Korean Register (KR))
  • Received : 2019.04.15
  • Accepted : 2019.05.28
  • Published : 2019.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The marine industry contributes a large proportion of the air pollutant emissions along coastal regions, and this air pollution has been strongly linked to cardiovascular diseases and other illnesses. To alleviate the problem, many ports have installed alternative maritime power (AMP) facilities that enable onboard marine auxiliary engines with generators (gensets) to be shut down while a ship is at berth. This study compared the emissions from conventional gensets with those from AMP facilities, focusing on four emission types: greenhouse gases (GHG), sulphur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate matter (PM). Both direct (combustion / operation) and indirect (upstream) emissions were considered together for the emission comparison. The results showed that AMP has lower emissions than conventional onboard gensets, and this benefit is highly dependent on the electricity generation mix onshore. On average, GHG emissions could be reduced by about 18.3 %, while the other emissions (SOX, NOX, and PM) would decrease more dramatically (88.4 %, 90.1 %, and 91.5 %, respectively). Additionally, future benefits of the AMP would increase due to the expansion of renewable energies. Thus, this study supports the potential of AMP as a promising solution for environmental concerns at ports worldwide.

Keywords

References

  1. ABB(2017). Shore-to-ship Power Converters ACS6000 SFC & PCS100 SFC Description, p. 54.
  2. ABS(2017), ABS Advisory on exhaust gas scrubber systems, p. 37.
  3. AQEG(Air Quality Expert Group)(2017), The Potential Air Quality Impacts from Biomass Combustion. Crown, p. 31.
  4. Barrenechea, A.(2017), Reykjavik Harbor System Analysis: Shore Side Electricity Connections for Containerships in the Eimskip Terminal, Thesis of Master degree, p. 9.
  5. Bates, J. and S. Henry(2009), Carbon factor for wood fuels for the Supplier Obligation Final report, AEA. Doc. No. AEA/ED01858010/Issue2, pp. 6-12.
  6. Cai, H., M. Wang, A. Elgowainy and J. Han(2012), Updated greenhouse gas and criteria air pollutant emission factors and their probability distribution functions for electricity generating units, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Report No. ANL/ESD/12-2, p. 33.
  7. Castelazo, E. S.(2011), Sustainability Assessment of Electricity Options for Mexico: Current Situation and Future Scenarios. School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science. p. 157.
  8. CEC(Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America)(2004), North American Power Plant Air Emissions, 23-32, pp. 44-49.
  9. Clarksons Research(2017), Summary of Selected Shipping, Regulation and Design Issues, Retrieved from https://www.clarksons.net/docdata/public/newsdownloads/Environmental_Table_September_2017.pdf (Accessed: 1 Aug. 2018).
  10. Clarksons Research(2018), Environmental and Regulatory Update - Presentation to Shipbuilding Forecast Club, p. 6.
  11. $CO_2$ emissiefactoren(2017), Lijst emissiefactoren, Retrieved from https://www.$CO_2$emissiefactoren.nl/lijst-emissiefactoren/ (Accessed: 6 Aug. 2018).
  12. DEA(Danish Energy Agency)(2016), Technology Data for Energy Plants Updated chapters, ENERGINET, p. 39.
  13. Devasahayam, S., K. Dowling and M. K. Mahapatra(2017), Sustainability in the mineral and energy sectors, CRC Press.
  14. EIA(U.S. Energy Information Administration)(2013), The mix of fuels used for electricity generation in the United States is changing, Article (Issued: 8 Nov. 2013), Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=13731 (Accessed: 22 July 2018).
  15. EIA(U.S. Energy Information Administration)(2015), Analysis of the Impacts of the Clean Power Plan, p. 23.
  16. EIA(U.S. Energy Information Administration)(2018), Monthly Energy Review (May 2018), Doc. No. DOE/EIA-0035(2018/5), p. 112.
  17. EPA(United States Environmental Protection Agency)(2017), Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports, Report No. EPA-420-R-17-004, p. 12, pp. 17-18.
  18. ERG(Eastern Research Group) and EERA(Energy & Environmental Research Associates)(2017), Shore Power Technology Assessment at U.S. Ports. Technical Report for EPA. Doc. No. EPA -420-R-17-004, p. 10.
  19. EU(European Commission)(2016), EU Reference Scenario 2016 - Energy, transport and GHG emissions Trends to 2050, p. 66.
  20. FEPC(Federation of Electric Power Companies)(2014), Graphical Flip-chart of Nuclear & Energy Related Topics 2014.
  21. Gilbert, P., C. Walsh, M. Traut, U.Kesieme, K. Pazouki and A. Murphy(2018), Assessment of full life-cycle air emissions of alternative shipping fuels, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 855-866, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.165.
  22. Greenport(2017), Shore power could slash Norwegian emissions. Article, (Issued: 4 Sep 2017), Retrieved from http://www.greenport.com/news101/energy-and-technology/shore-power-could-achieve-zero-emission-scandinavian-ports (Accessed: 10 Aug. 2018).
  23. Han, W. and K. Lim(2010), A Study on the Reduction of $CO_2$ Emissions and Operating Costs of the Ship in Port by Shore Electric Power, Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety (KOSOMES), Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 229-234.
  24. HATCH(2014), Lifecycle Assessment Literature Review of Nuclear, Wind and Natural Gas Power Generation prepared for The Canadian Nuclear Association, Doc. No. H345621-236-02, p. ix.
  25. HATCH(2008), Lifecycle Emissions of Nuclear, Wind and Natural Gas Power Generation-CNA Summary, p. 8.
  26. Hill, N., R. Bramwell and B. Harris(2017), 2017 Government GHG conversion factors for company reporting - Methodology Paper for Emission Factors. Final Report, Department for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), p. 13, p. 394.
  27. Holdway, A. R., A. R. Williams, O. R. Inderwildi and D. A. King(2010), Indirect emissions from electric vehicles: emissions from electricity generation, Energy & Environmental Science, Vol. 3, No. 12, pp. 1825-1832. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0ee00031k
  28. ICF(2013), Yukon Power Plant Fuel Life Cycle Analysis, Final Report (Released: 2 July 2013), p. iii.
  29. IEA(International Energy Agency)(2017), Electricity Information: Overview, Statistics Report, pp. 4-5.
  30. IEA(International Energy Agency)(2018), World Energy Outlook 2017: China, Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/weo/china/ (Accessed: 11 July 2018).
  31. IMO(2015), Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014, p. 104, pp. 249-250.
  32. IMO(2016), Module 5 - Ship Port Interface for Energy Efficiency, IMO Train the Trainer (TTT) Course on Energy Efficient Ship Operation, p. 28.
  33. IMO(2017a), 2014 Guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained energy efficiency design index (EEDI) for new ships, as amended (Resolution MEPC. 245 (66)-as amended by Resolutions MEPC.263 (68) and MEPC.281 (70)), Doc. No. MEPC.1/Circ.866 (Issued: 30 Jan. 2017), p. 3.
  34. IMO(2017b), FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) - The 2020 global sulphur limit.
  35. IMO(2018), Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), 72nd session, 9-13 April 2018, Issued: 13 April 2018, Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/MEPC/Pages/MEPC-72nd-session.aspx (Accessed: 3 July 2018).
  36. IPCC(2014), 5th Assessment Report (AR5), Chapter 8- Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, p. 731.
  37. IRENA(International Renewable Energy Agency)(2018), Global Energy Transformation - A Roadmap to 2050, Report No. ISBN 978-92-9260-059-4, pp. 31-32, p. 39.
  38. Ke, W., S. Zhang, X. He, Y. Wu and J. Hao(2017), Well-to-wheels energy consumption and emissions of electric vehicles: Mid-term implications from real-world features and air pollution control progress, Applied Energy, Vol. 188, pp. 367-377, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.011.
  39. Khaenson, W., S. Maneewan and C. Punlek(2017), A Comparison of the Environmental Impact of Solar Power Generation Using Multicrystalline Silicon and Thin Film of Amorphous Silicon Solar Cells: Case Study in Thailand, Journal of Ecological Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.12911/22998993/74386.
  40. Khartchenko, N. V. and V. M. Kharchenko(2014), Advanced Energy Systems, 2nd Edition, CRC Press, p. 265.
  41. Kristenen, H. O.(2015), Energy demand and exhaust gas emissions of marine engines. Project No. 2014-122, p. 6, p. 23.
  42. Kristensen, P. G., J. K. Jensen, M. Nielsen and J. B. Illerup(2004), Emission factors for gas fired CHP units < 25 MW. IGRC, p. 18.
  43. Krittayakasem, P., S. Patumsawadand S. Garivait(2011), Emission inventory of electricity generation in Thailand, Journal of Sustainable Energy & Environment, Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 67.
  44. Kuo, P.(2014), Should UC Berkeley Use Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) to Achieve Zero-Carbon Electricity By 2025?, Class project for CE268, p. 5.
  45. Liu, H., M. Fu, X. Jin, Y. Shang, D. Shindell, G. Faluvegi, C. Shindell and K. He(2016), Health and climate impacts of ocean-going vessels in East Asia, Nature climate change, Vol. 6, No. 11, p. 1037, doi: 10.1038/nclimate3083.
  46. Lopez-Aparicio, S. and D. A. Tonnesen(2015), Pollutant emissions from LNG fuelled ships - Assessment and recommendations, Scientific Report, NILU (Norwegian Institute for Air Research), p. 10.
  47. Louwen, A.(2011), Comparison of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of shale gas, conventional fuels and renewable alternatives from a Dutch perspective, Utrecht University in Netherlands, p. 43.
  48. Lowell, D., H. Wang and N. Lutsey(2013), Assessment of the fuel cycle impact of liquefied natural gas as used in international shipping, ICCT White paper, p. 23.
  49. Lueken, R., K. Klima, W. M. Griffin and J. Apt(2016), The climate and health effects of a USA switch from coal to gas electricity generation, Energy, Vol. 109, p. 1162, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.078
  50. MAK(2015), VM32E Technical Brochure. Standard model (VM32E).
  51. MAN(2018), Marine Gensets - Overview, Retrieved from https://marine.man-es.com/gensets/marine-gensets (Accessed: 19 July 2018).
  52. MARINE(2017), Sea Shipping Emissions 2015: Netherlands Continental Shelf, 12-mile Zone and Port Areas, Report No. 29555-1-MSCN-rev.2 (Issued: 16 June 2017), pp. A11-A13.
  53. MARINE(2018), Sea Shipping Emissions 2016: Netherlands Continental Shelf, 12-mile Zone and Port Areas, Report No. 30508-1-MSCN-rev.0 (Released: 18 Jan 2018), pp. A9, 11-13.
  54. Marinelog(2017), Get ready for China's ECA requirements, Newsletter. Retrieved from https://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=27975:get-ready-for-china%E2%80%99s-eca-requirements&Itemid=257 (Accessed: 17 July 2018).
  55. Molly, N.(2016), The IMO's 2020 global sulfur cap - What a 2020 sulfur-constrained world means for shipping lines, Refineries and bunker suppliers. Shipping Special Report, S&P Global Platts, p. 2.
  56. Moreno-Gutierrez, J., V. Duran-Grados, Z. Uriondo and J. Angel Llamas(2012), Emission-factor uncertainties in maritime transport in the Strait of Gibraltar, Spain, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques Discussions, Vol. 5, No. 4, p. 5974.
  57. Moro, A. and L. Lonza(2017), Electricity carbon intensity in European Member States: Impacts on GHG emissions of electric vehicles, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.012.
  58. Nicewicz, G. and D. Tarpanowicz(2012), Assessment of marine auxiliary engines load factor in ports, Management Systems in Production Engineering, pp. 12-17.
  59. Olmer, N., B. Comer, B. Roy, X. Mao and D. Rutherford (2017), Greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping 2013 - 2015 - Detailed methodology, ICCT (The International Council on Clean Transportation), p. 52.
  60. Ozawa, A., M. Inoue, N. Kitagawa, R. Muramatsu, Y. Anzai, Y. Genchi and Y. Kudoh(2017), Assessing Uncertainties of Well-To-Tank Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Hydrogen Supply Chains, Sustainability, Vol. 9, No. 7, 1101, doi:10.3390/su9071101.
  61. Pant, D. and S. I. Olsen(2013), Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Energy Sources, Springer, p. 231.
  62. Peng, C. S.(2016), Application of Shore Power for Ocean Going Vessels at Berth in China. DEStech Transactions on Environment, Energy and Earth Sciences (seeie), p. 9, doi: 10.12783/dteees/seeie2016/4489.
  63. Peng, T., S. Zhou, Z. Yuan and X. Ou(2017), Life cycle greenhouse gas analysis of multiple vehicle fuel pathways in China, Sustainability, Vol. 9, No. 12, p. 2183, doi: 10.3390/su9122183.
  64. Petr Guryev(2014), Analyzing the cost efficiency of emissions reduction with shore-to-ship power, ABB review 4(14), p. 66-69.
  65. Rolls-Royce(2017), Project Guide Bergen Engine Type B35: 40 Gas, Technical data (Model No. B35:40 L9AG), p. 3.
  66. Rolls-Royce(2018), Bergen B32:40V genset, Retrieved from https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/marine/product-finder/generating-sets/diesel-generating-sets.aspx (Accessed: 8 Aug. 2018).
  67. Sandbag & Agora Energiewende(2018), The European Power Sector in 2017 - State of Affairs and Review of Current Developments, Doc. No. 128/02-A-2018/EN, p. 7.
  68. Schmied, M. and W. Knorr(2012), Calculating GHG emissions for freight forwarding and logistics services in accordance with EN 16258 - Terms, Methods, Examples. European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and Customs Services (CLECAT), p. 11, p. 26, p. 55, p. 61.
  69. Schneider-electric(2015), Low Voltage and Medium Voltage Products - Power and Distribution Transformers, Catalogue, p. 25.
  70. Skone, T. J., J. Littlefield, G. Cooney and J. Marriott (2013), Power generation technology comparison from a life cycle perspective, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), US Department of Energy (DOE). Doc. No. DOE/NETL-2012/1567, p. ix.
  71. Skone, T. J., G. Cooney, M. Jamieson, J. Littlefield and J. Marriott.(2014), Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on exporting liquefied natural gas from the United States. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), US Department of Energy (DOE), Doc. No. NETL-2014/1649, pp. 11-12.
  72. Starcrest Consulting Group(2017), White Bay Cruise Terminal Shore Power Analysis. Final Report for Port Authority of New South Wales (Accessed: 30 July 2018).
  73. Stenersen, D. and O. Thonstad(2017), GHG and NOx emissions from gas fuelled engines, SINTEF Ocean AS Report (Issued: 13 June 2017), p. 6.
  74. ThinkStep(2017), Greenhouse Gas Intensity of Natural Gas, Final Report on behalf of NGVA Europe (Issued: 5 May 2017), p. 89.
  75. Trozzi, C.(2010), Emission estimate methodology for maritime navigation. 19th International Emission Inventory Conference, Emission Inventories - Informing Emerging Issues, San Antonio, Texas, 27 - 30 Sep. 2010, p. 6.
  76. Turconi, R., A. Boldrin and T. Astrup(2013), Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: Overview, comparability and limitations, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, Vol. 28, pp. 555-565, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.013.
  77. Vaishnav, P., P. S.Fischbeck, M. G. Morgan and J. J. Corbett (2016), Shore Power for Vessels Calling at US Ports: Benefits and Costs, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 1102-1110, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04860.
  78. Wang, H., X. Mao and D. Rutherford(2015), Costs and benefits of shore power at the port of Shenzhen, The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).
  79. Wartsila(2017), Wartsila 31 Product Guide, Technical Data, Model No. Wartsila 8V31 (Issued: 28 Sep. 2017), p. 3-2.
  80. WNA(World Nuclear Association)(2017), Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources, pp. 6-7.
  81. Woo, J., H. Choi and J. Ahn(2017), Well-to-wheel analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for electric vehicles based on electricity generation mix: A global perspective, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 51, pp. 340-350, doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.01.005.
  82. WRI(World Resources Institute)(2017), A clean Air Challenge for China's Ports: Cutting Maritime Emissions, (Issued: 24 Oct. 2017), Retrieved from http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/clean-air-challenge-chinas-ports-cutting-maritime-emissions (Accessed: 21 July 2018).
  83. Xcel Energy(2018), Inside your 2018 electric bill, Brochure.
  84. Yuksel, T., M. A. M. Tamayao, C. Hendrickson, I. M. Azevedo and J. J. Michalek(2016), Effect of regional grid mix, driving patterns and climate on the comparative carbon footprint of gasoline and plug-in electric vehicles in the United States, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 11, No. 4, No. 044007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044007