Shipping Emissions

Port Botany EmissionsIn terms of emissions (CO2, NOx, SOx1 and PM2.5), the large majority occurs outside the Port areas studied. As depicted in Table A below, Port Jackson and the Port of Newcastle have approximately the same share of emissions (of total GMA) even with contrasting dominant ship types – passenger vessels in the case of the former and bulk carriers in the case of the latter. Port Botany has approximately double the emissions as these two, dominated by container vessels. Port Kembla, has approximately half of Port Jackson/Port of Newcastle, dominated by bulk carriers as well.

Health Effects of Air Pollution Richard Broome

Recent studies have demonstrated PM2.5 has health effects at levels below those measured in NSW

CONCLUSIONS from EPA Report

“Ship emissions are quite significant in the GMA and the analysed ports; quite high emission loads of CO2, SOx, NOx and PM 2.5 were found. However, annual ship emissions account for only approximately 5% of the total anthropogenic emissions in the GMA when comparing the AIS emission estimates with reported figures for NSW (32). However there are emission hot spots in the inner city with high emission rates. The expected financial growth in the region will likely cause more ship traffic and emissions – the latter can be assumed unless specific measures are taken. IMO’s global sulphur limit of 0.5% sulphur in fuel being phased in between 2020 and 2025 will reduce SOx and PM significantly but not CO2 and NOx. Of all 2013 GMA ship CO2 emissions, Port Jackson, Port Botany, Port of Newcastle and Port Kembla account for approximately 3.9%, 10%, 4.5% and 2.0% respectively. The percentages for the other emission components are comparable. Based on experience with ECAs worldwide, in deciding how to move forward, there are some principal issues to consider:

1. Timing for implementing local regulations and how to establish a fair system giving a robust, non-manipulative emission reduction regime if deemed necessary?

2. Should the ports prepare for removing emissions only for ships that are stationary at berth? Or should the potential measure give effect also off the coast, in GMA waters?

3. Should an emission reducing regime focus on fewer but more dominant emitters, or all ships trafficking in the GMA?

4. How can the abatement strategy be cost-effective for ship owners, charterers, fuel or technology providers, and at the same time effectively reduce emissions?

5. How will potential measures be scrutinized and at what penalty levels?

6. Many of the emission abatement options are novel technologies not proven through decades of operation. For instance, fuel switching between HFO and distillates has shown difficulties, with several ships recently having lost all engine power and thus causing safety hazards off the coasts of the UK and California. Scrubber and LNG retrofits have also proved difficult. Thus, these pose a potential technical and financial risk to the ship owner. How can such risks be mitigated?”

Port Botany Emissions 2Port Botany Emissions 3

Port Botany Emissions 4

Further EPA Links

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s