ShareThis
Cost/benefit
analysis considerations and the like are out the window in today's
emotionally-charged political debate about curbing gas emissions and improving
air quality at ports.
Politicians and regulators cartwheel over public indignation and come up with restrictions on emissions that ignore hard-pressed economies.
Port executives mostly shy away from being drawn into discussions about costs, because overriding public opinion decrees that any effort that succeeds in reducing deaths and/or illness is worth price. The result is that, publicly, ports proclaim unconditional support but in private are more realistic and base emission reduction plans on the assumption that private partners will be involved and/or help from government grants.
Coupled with this are arguments about the main sources of emissions. In no way can ports themselves be cited as the main culprits. That position continues to be held by vessels and heavy vehicles - the fixed assets in a port (including terminals) emit anything between 2% and 20% of the total. Vessels and vehicles are at least 60%.
So, the ports are telling the carriers to stump up, in no-nonsense terms. Until 2008, carriers were happy to do as much as possible but the subsequent slump has made them nervous. The main reduction method is still cold ironing at berth - and therein lies huge costs. APL in the US reckons that modifying a terminal costs $4m, while the cost for each vessel is $2m. Robert Clark, environmental affairs head at APL, told an environmental conference in Long Beach in February that the 23 years it would take to get back the cost of equipping a terminal "is not very good. We need partnerships."
The carriers have other cost worries, most notably in bunker fuel and ballast water. Maersk says the cost of equipping its vessels with ballast water treatment to IMO standards will eat up $500m.
Shipping line customers are voicing their vexation at Europe's determination to impose 0.1% sulphur in bunker fuel by 2015. Juan Riva Francos, president of the European Community Shipowners' Association, warns that the cost to shipping lines will be at least 70% more, which could end up with 45% of cargo switching from sea to road.
Unfortunately for the carriers, the debate about emissions control has moved on and the talk on the boundaries of the environmental universe now is openly about zero emissions. Los Angeles/Long Beach stake their claim as the most advanced and ambitious in the world in heading down that path.
Reaching the prize at the end of the path is probably not a case of settling the argument of whether the ports or the lines should do more but attaining co-operation between the two sides. Ashebir Jacob, vice-president at Moffatt and Nichol, reckons that a combination of slow steaming (17.5 knots) and 40 quay-crane moves per hour can reduce CO2 emissions by 150,000 tonnes a year and reduce fuel costs by $20/teu (compared with 25 crane moves an hour and a vessel speed of 19.8 knots).
But despite all the technological progress and planning, sudden changes in national policy can throw a spanner into the works. Such has been the case with aviation and the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme. Payments are due from 2013, and the EU can fine carriers E100 for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, which airlines have not offset.
Port executives wince at the thought that a similar measure might be applied to maritime commerce, but do not discount the possibility.
Allied to this is the contentious issue of carbon offsetting. At the moment, this is an unpopular device, but if the economic situation gets worse it could come in for greater consideration.
An indication of this has been given by the company Carbon Positive, which has just issued its Carbon Positive Programme for Ports. Three elements make up the approach - measure, reduce and offset.
While ports are anxious to further the cause of emissions reduction, they are equally keen to make sure that politicians and the public see the full picture of the causes of emissions. "A port is a combination of privately owned assets such as vehicles, ships and companies operating their own assets,” says Meredith Martino, director of Environmental Policy and Advocacy Outreach for the American Association of Port Authorities. "The port itself is responsible for very few emissions."
Also fundamental to the success of emissions reduction is the right balance between incentive and regulation. In the US, incentives are used at the federal level through laws such as the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, which rewards users who achieve set reductions. States such as California are upending this approach through an "or else" policy that slaps on heavy penalties for failure to comply, even though the technology has still to be developed.
The two ports of the San Pedro Bay in Southern California may well be justified in claiming to be the world leaders. And yet their combined throughput is about 13m teu, while Shanghai is more than double that and has this to say about modifying rubber-tyred gantries: "To effectively reduce air emissions from cargo handling equipment, Shanghai Port implemented an RTG electrification programme in 2008 and by 2010, a total of 131 have been retrofitted with electric motors. The result is a reduction of energy consumption by 47% and a 72% reduction of energy consumption costs."
Such a huge exercise in such a short time is an amazing achievement. There have been ports in the Western Hemisphere that have taken more than two years to modify less than 10 RTGs.
For the International Association of Ports and Harbors, emissions control continues to be high on the agenda. Says Geraldine Knatz, IAPH president (and Port of Los Angeles executive director): “IAPH's near-term priorities include encouraging new ports to adopt the Environmental Ship Index, an IAPH WPCI initiative that rewards ships that obtain an environmental score based on its NOx, SOx, and greenhouse gas emissions, and curbing pollution from vessels and port-related operations. Other IAPH projects include developing international guidelines for fuelling ships with liquefied natural gas.”
Politicians and regulators cartwheel over public indignation and come up with restrictions on emissions that ignore hard-pressed economies.
Port executives mostly shy away from being drawn into discussions about costs, because overriding public opinion decrees that any effort that succeeds in reducing deaths and/or illness is worth price. The result is that, publicly, ports proclaim unconditional support but in private are more realistic and base emission reduction plans on the assumption that private partners will be involved and/or help from government grants.
Coupled with this are arguments about the main sources of emissions. In no way can ports themselves be cited as the main culprits. That position continues to be held by vessels and heavy vehicles - the fixed assets in a port (including terminals) emit anything between 2% and 20% of the total. Vessels and vehicles are at least 60%.
So, the ports are telling the carriers to stump up, in no-nonsense terms. Until 2008, carriers were happy to do as much as possible but the subsequent slump has made them nervous. The main reduction method is still cold ironing at berth - and therein lies huge costs. APL in the US reckons that modifying a terminal costs $4m, while the cost for each vessel is $2m. Robert Clark, environmental affairs head at APL, told an environmental conference in Long Beach in February that the 23 years it would take to get back the cost of equipping a terminal "is not very good. We need partnerships."
The carriers have other cost worries, most notably in bunker fuel and ballast water. Maersk says the cost of equipping its vessels with ballast water treatment to IMO standards will eat up $500m.
Shipping line customers are voicing their vexation at Europe's determination to impose 0.1% sulphur in bunker fuel by 2015. Juan Riva Francos, president of the European Community Shipowners' Association, warns that the cost to shipping lines will be at least 70% more, which could end up with 45% of cargo switching from sea to road.
Unfortunately for the carriers, the debate about emissions control has moved on and the talk on the boundaries of the environmental universe now is openly about zero emissions. Los Angeles/Long Beach stake their claim as the most advanced and ambitious in the world in heading down that path.
Reaching the prize at the end of the path is probably not a case of settling the argument of whether the ports or the lines should do more but attaining co-operation between the two sides. Ashebir Jacob, vice-president at Moffatt and Nichol, reckons that a combination of slow steaming (17.5 knots) and 40 quay-crane moves per hour can reduce CO2 emissions by 150,000 tonnes a year and reduce fuel costs by $20/teu (compared with 25 crane moves an hour and a vessel speed of 19.8 knots).
But despite all the technological progress and planning, sudden changes in national policy can throw a spanner into the works. Such has been the case with aviation and the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme. Payments are due from 2013, and the EU can fine carriers E100 for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, which airlines have not offset.
Port executives wince at the thought that a similar measure might be applied to maritime commerce, but do not discount the possibility.
Allied to this is the contentious issue of carbon offsetting. At the moment, this is an unpopular device, but if the economic situation gets worse it could come in for greater consideration.
An indication of this has been given by the company Carbon Positive, which has just issued its Carbon Positive Programme for Ports. Three elements make up the approach - measure, reduce and offset.
While ports are anxious to further the cause of emissions reduction, they are equally keen to make sure that politicians and the public see the full picture of the causes of emissions. "A port is a combination of privately owned assets such as vehicles, ships and companies operating their own assets,” says Meredith Martino, director of Environmental Policy and Advocacy Outreach for the American Association of Port Authorities. "The port itself is responsible for very few emissions."
Also fundamental to the success of emissions reduction is the right balance between incentive and regulation. In the US, incentives are used at the federal level through laws such as the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, which rewards users who achieve set reductions. States such as California are upending this approach through an "or else" policy that slaps on heavy penalties for failure to comply, even though the technology has still to be developed.
The two ports of the San Pedro Bay in Southern California may well be justified in claiming to be the world leaders. And yet their combined throughput is about 13m teu, while Shanghai is more than double that and has this to say about modifying rubber-tyred gantries: "To effectively reduce air emissions from cargo handling equipment, Shanghai Port implemented an RTG electrification programme in 2008 and by 2010, a total of 131 have been retrofitted with electric motors. The result is a reduction of energy consumption by 47% and a 72% reduction of energy consumption costs."
Such a huge exercise in such a short time is an amazing achievement. There have been ports in the Western Hemisphere that have taken more than two years to modify less than 10 RTGs.
For the International Association of Ports and Harbors, emissions control continues to be high on the agenda. Says Geraldine Knatz, IAPH president (and Port of Los Angeles executive director): “IAPH's near-term priorities include encouraging new ports to adopt the Environmental Ship Index, an IAPH WPCI initiative that rewards ships that obtain an environmental score based on its NOx, SOx, and greenhouse gas emissions, and curbing pollution from vessels and port-related operations. Other IAPH projects include developing international guidelines for fuelling ships with liquefied natural gas.”
Post to be found at:
http://www.portstrategy.com/features101/safety-and-security/environment/zero-emissions-is-becoming-the-aim-in-the-environmental-debate
No comments:
Post a Comment