171110-Presentaties 3 PDF

Seminar 17th of November 2010
CO2 charges on shipping

What can be expected
International context of IMO

legislation and
EEDI, how does it work
David Anink
IMO Update Study GHG Emissions from Ships

Total CO2 emission by international shipping in 2007;
843 MT CO2 = 2.7% of the total worldwide CO2

emission;
- Estimated total fuel consumption 2007: 332 MT;
Increase average g CO2/ton-mile emission 2050:

min. 3 x comp. with 2007 max 5,4 x comp. with 2007;
- Efficiency potential 2050: min: 35% - max: 75%.
Maritime Rail - Road
IMO measures in development

Market Based instruments
Operational measures
Operational indicator (EEOI)
CO2 management plan (SEEMP)
Energy Efficiency Design index
MEPC 61
Development of MARPOL Annex VI part 2

No finalization of regulatory text
CBDR vs Non favourable treatment
Current political differences in way of new
reduction measures
COP 15 meeting
International effort to build on a successor
of the Kyoto protocol
No big steps made
Common but
Differentiated
Responsibility
Can Cun 2010 (cop 16)
CO2: Why a design index?

IMO was assigned to develop CO2
reduction measures
Quick Win expected from a labeling system
(design index)
The index can be applied to new vessels
Index will give incentive to ship designer to
build vessels with lower CO2 emissions
The EEDI
The EEDI formula

Main
Engine
power
M
PME(i ) .CFME(i ) .SFCME(i )

i 1
Power take in
M
nME
fj
j 1
Auxiliary power
PAE .CFAE .SFCAE *

j 1
neff
nPTI
f j.
PPTI (i )
i 1
Mech power
reduction
neff
f eff (i )..PAEeff (i ) CFAE .SFCAE

i 1
fi Capacity Vref
Capacity
Aux power
reduction
f eff (i ) .Peff (i ) .CFME .SFCME

i 1
fW
Reference
speed
g.CO 2
ton.Nm
Reference line (tanker fleet)

Tankers
(>=400 gt, built 1995-2004, excl shuttle tankers and gas tankers)
Dutch tankers
20
Excluded
18
Included
Grams per tonnenm
16
Baseline
14
12
10
y = 2401,1x -0,54
R2 = 0,9691
8
6
4
2
0
0
50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 250 000 300 000 350 000 400 000 450 000 500 000
Dwt
EEDI of Dutch general cargo ships

y = 125,21x-0,1985
R2 = 0,2107
80,00
70,00
Bad ships?
EEDI
index (gCO2/Tnm)
60,00
>15000 ton DWT

Better correlation
50,00
40,00
30,00
20,00
10,00
0,00
0
5.000
10.000
15.000
Deadweight mT
Deadweight
20.000
25.000
MARPOL Annex VI part 2

8 rules
4 guidelines:
Guideline on method of calculation of EEDI
Guideline on inspection and Certification
Guideline for method of calculation of the
reference line for use with the EEDI
Guideline on the SEEMP
Attainded and required EEDI

Attained EEDI: is the EEDI value actually
achieved by an individual ship as verified in
accordance with the relevant regulations
Required EEDI: Is the maximum value of

attained EEDI that is allowed by these
regulations for the specific ship type and
size.
Regulation 3: Attained EEDI

Attained EEDI to be caclulated for following ships above
400 GT:
Bulk carrier
Gas tanker
Tanker
Container Ship
General Cargo Ship
Refrigerated cargo carrier,
Combination carrier
Passenger ship
Ro-ro Cargo ship (Vehicle carrier)
Ro-ro Cargo carrier (Volume carrier)
Ro-ro Passenger Ship
Reference line
Reference line value = a x b-c
Ship type
1.4 Bulk carrier
DWT of the ship
1.5 Gas Tanker
DWT of the ship
1.6 Tanker
DWT of the ship
1.7 Container ship
DWT of the ship
1.8 Genneral Cargo Ship
DWT of the ship
1.9 Refrigerated cargo carrier
DWT of the ship
1.10 Combination carrier
DWT of the ship
Regulation 4 required index

Attained EEDI Required index = (1-X/100)
x Reference line value
Required EEDI Table

Ship Type
Size
Phase 0
[1 Jan 2013 31 Dec
2014]
Phase 1
[1 Jan 2015 31 Dec
2019]
Phase 2
[1 Jan 2020 31 Dec
2024]
Phase 3
[1 Jan 2025 onwards]
0%
10%
20%
30%
n/a
0-10%
0-20%
0-30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
n/a
0-10%
0-20%
0-30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
n/a
0-10%
0-20%
0-30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
n/a
0-10
0-20
0-30
0%
10%
15%
30%
n/a
0-10%
0-15%
0-30%
0%
10%
15%
30%
n/a
0-10%
0-15%
0-30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
n/a
0-10%
0-20%
0-30%
20.000 DWT and Above

Bulk Carrier
10.000 20.000 DWT
10.000 DWT and above
Gas Tanker
2.000 10.000 DWT
Tanker

4.000 20.000 DWT
Container Ship
10.000 15.000 DWT
General cargo Ship
3.000 15.000 DWT

5.000 DWT and above
Refrigerated cargo
carrier
3.000 5.000 DWT

Combination carrier
4.000 20.000 DWT
Basic flow of survey and certification process
EEDI technical file

Shipyard is responsible of establishing a
technical file
Verifier, for example a class society, will
verify the content of the file
During tank test, a reference speed will be
established
The Vref will be verified during seatrial
Finally
EEDI remains the same during lifetime of a
ship
Only by major changes to the ship a new
EEDI will need te be calculated
No guideline develloped for the case when
a ship does not meet the required EEDI
value
Future steps
Finalization of last guidelines
Establishing reference lines for RORO and pax
ships
Prepare proposal for different reference line for
small ships
IMO shall review at beginning of phase 1 the
status of technological developments and if
proven necessary, adjust the time periods and
reduction rates set out in Phase 2 and 3
Questions?
DEVELOPMENT IN ENGINE
TECHNOLOGY
FOR THE FUTURE MARINE
ELIAS BOLETIS
Director, Programs & Technologies
Propulsion
WRTSIL CORPORATION
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
MARKET
Strategy - How we see the future
- Engine development and trends
- Concluding remarks
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
19 November 2010
Changes in customer demands:

Total cost of ownership
Environmental footprint
and global awareness
System integration approach
Reliability
14
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
Wrtsil Diesel Engine Portfolio (1)

20
26
4L20
0.8 MW
6L20
1.2 MW
8L20
1.6 MW
9L20
1.8 MW
6L26
8L26
9L26
12V26
2.0 MW
2.7 MW
3.1 MW
4.1 MW
16V26
5.4 MW
18V26
32
6L32
6.1 MW
3 MW
7L32
3.5 MW
8L32
4 MW
9L32
4.5 MW
12V32
6 MW
16V32
8 MW
18V32
9 MW
20V32
15
Wrtsil 19/11/2010
9.2 MW Only for Power Plant use

15
10
Wrtsil Diesel Engine Portfolio (2)

38
6L38
8L38
4.35 MW
15
10
5.8 MW
9L38
6.5 MW
12V38
8.7 MW
16V38
46
11.6 MW
12V46
12.6 MW
16V46
16.8 MW
18V46
46F
20
17.55 MW
Only for Power Plant use
6L46F
7.2 MW
7L46F
8.4 MW
8L46F
9.6 MW
9L46F
10.8 MW
12V46F
14.4 MW
14V46F
16.8 MW
16V46F
64
19.2 MW
20V46F
Only for Power Plant use
6L64
12.9 MW
7L64
16
Wrtsil 19/11/2010
08L64
15.1 MW
5
10
15
17.2 MW
23 MW
Wrtsil 46F
W46F references
18 engines / 126 cylinders successfully in operation
on 10 vessels
8 engines / 160 cylinders successfully in operation
in powerplants
More than 180000 cumulative running hours
More than 16000 running hours on one engine
Order book
82 engines on order for marine and powerplant
installations
Performance development progress of the W46F:

Engine
NOx level
17
W46F engine
W46 engine
IMO Tier2
IMO Tier2
Power per cyl
kW/cyl
1200
1050
Engine speed
rpm
600
514
SFOC with pumps 85% load
g/kWh
182
185
SFOC with pumps 75% load
g/kWh
191
193
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
Wrtsil 12V32E
Increased power output:
580 kW / cylinder @ 750 rpm, i.e.
16% higher output compared to current W32
Main design actions:

pmax increased to 230 bar
New reinforced engine block, crankshaft
and cylinder head
Turbocharging system with increased
pressure ratio
Additional features:
arctic option, i.e. -50 C suction air
engine inclination of 25 degrees in all directions
18
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
Wrtsil Auxpac 26
The Auxpac 26 extends the
standard range of low voltage
generating sets for commercial
vessels
Key feature is the compact design
with common base frame and fully
integrated auxiliary components
(pumps, valves, filters, coolers)
All connections available at free
end for easy installation and
maintenance
19
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
Wrtsil 6L20L locomotive genset

Engine characteristics
Nominal output 1025kW

Speed range 350-1000rpm
Fast load response
For wide range of altitudes
and ambient conditions
Engine features
Designed as flange-mounted
genset
Common rail fuel injection
system
Variable valve timing
Low inertia, high pressure ratio turbocharger
Closed crankcase ventilation system with oil mist separation
Fully integrated advanced UNIC C3 engine control system
20
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
Wrtsil dual-fuel (DF) engines Wrtsil 50DF

LNG vessels equipped with W50DF engines
2250
Provalys and Gaselys
56 vessels with an
installed power of
2000 MW
DF-electric LNG Carrier

Gaz de France
Alstom Chantiers de lAtlantique
2x Wrtsil 12V50DF + 2x6L50DF
2000
1750
1500
Gaz de France Energy

1250
Gaz de France
Alstom Chantiers de lAtlantique
1000
4x Wrtsil 6L50DF
Total 42000 running hours
750
British Emerald
500

BP Shipping
Hyundai Heavy Industries
250
2x Wrtsil 12V50DF + 2x9L50DF

Total 38000 running hours
0
2006
21
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Estimated ship delivery date
Installed power [ MW ]
Total 72000 running hours for 2 ships
Wrtsil 34DF for offshore applications

The Wrtsil 34DF applies the latest dual fuel engine
concept on the Wrtsil 32 platform, replacing the
32DF engine
Applicable as generating set as well as direct
mechanical drive (CPP)
Fuel flexibility and redundancy with dual fuel
technology
IMO Tier II-compliant in diesel mode
IMO Tier III-compliant in gas mode
Closed-loop cylinder pressure control

Wrtsil 34DF
Cylinder bore / stroke [mm]
340 / 400
Engine speed [rpm]
720 / 750
Output per cylinder [kW]
435 / 450
Available cylinder configurations

22
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
6L, 9L, 12V, 16V & 20V
Latest dual fuel engine development: Wrtsil 20DF

Latest member of the Wartsila DF family
W20DF design is based on proven W20
engine platform to ensure reliability and
maximum communality for easy conversion
Applicable as marine genset and main
engine
Otto principle with a common rail pilot fuel
system for gas ignition
Embedded UNIC C3 automation system
Efficiency of >40% in gas mode
Wrtsil 20DF
Engine speed [rpm]
23
200 / 280
1000 / 1200
146 / 176
6L, 8L, 9L
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
Wrtsil dual-fuel (DF) engine portfolio

20DF
6L20DF 1.0 MW
8L20DF
34DF
1.4 MW
9L20DF
1.6 MW
6L34DF
2.7 MW
9L34DF
Paper s #95,
#112, #212
4.0 MW
12V34DF
5.4 MW
16V34DF
7.2 MW
20V34DF
50DF
9.0 MW
6L50DF
5.85 MW
8L50DF
Higher output for 60Hz / Main engines
7.8 MW
9L50DF
8.8 MW
12V50DF
11.7 MW
16V50DF
15.6 MW
18V50DF
0
24
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
17.55 MW
5
10
15
Wrtsil 34SG spark ignited engine

The cylinder output of the Wrtsil 34SG raised to 500kW/cyl.
With this new C2-output stage the cylinder output is on a par
with the Wrtsil 32 power plant diesel engine
Available in 9L, 16V and 20V cylinder configurations for a
maximum unit output of 10 MW
Wrtsil 34SG
340 / 400
Engine speed [rpm]
720 / 750
480 / 500
25
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
9L, 16V, 20V
Wrtsil 34SG spark ignited engine

The Wrtsil 34SG-C2 engine applies closed-loop cylinder
pressure control for control and monitoring of firing pressure,
knocking and
combustion quality
Benefits:
Improved detection of
knocking and misfiring
30% reduction in peak
pressure fluctuations
Future potential to
support automatic power
and de-rating control as
well as improved
diagnostics for
preventive maintenance
Papers #95, #106
26
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
Automation & Controls

UNIC an integrated automation platform
for embedded applications
Introduced in 2004, meanwhile fully rolled out
on all Wrtsil medium speed engines
Based on experience with WECS 2000 - 8000
Developed and optimized for demanding
industrial machinery, for robustness, capacity
and flexibility
Validated in rig tests (HALT = Highly
accelerated lifecycle test), full scale engine
tests in the laboratory and field installations
Prepared for future developments
UNIC population by 2010

Systems
2000
UNIC C3: 150 inst.

UNIC C2: 600 inst.
UNIC C1: 1300 inst.
1000
Year
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Reliability improvement
Failures
per
reference
period
Year
2002
2004
Paper #10,
#207, #209
27
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
2006
2008
2010
Wrtsil Common Rail Injection

CR2 the next generation common rail system to meet
future requirements
Injector with integrated
accumulator and flow
fuse
Capability for 1800 bar

pressure and multiple
injections
Benefits of CR2:
Multi cylinder pump
No servo oil circuit, reduced complexity

Less pressure oscillation
Increased robustness of the concept
Improved flexibility and performance
optimisation potential
Paper #119
28
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
Mini rail with safety and circulation valve
Emission reduction focus

Different options to comply with emission legislation schemes
29
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
Wrtsil NOx reduction package for IMO Tier 2 / 3

IMO TIER 2
Improved combustion system

Valve timing optimization (Miller timing)
High-efficiency turbo charging system
Similar concept for 2-stroke and 4-stroke
Reference vs. Miller
TDC
BDC
Roller lift
300,0
300,0
320,0
320,0
340,0
340,0
360,0
360,0
380,0
380,0
400,0
400,0
420,0
420,0
CA
Reference
IMO TIER 3 (Emission Controlled Areas)

SCR catalyst and scrubbers for exhaust gas
aftertreatment
Different alternative concepts under
30
evaluation:
2-stage turbocharging + flexible valve timing
+ exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) or wet
technologies (e.g. charge air humidification)
Gas as a marine fuel (DF / SG engines)
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
440,0
440,0
460,0
460,0
480,0
480,0
500,0
500,0
520,0
520,0
540,0
2-stage turbocharging on medium-speed engines

Validation results of the first 2-stage turbocharging installation on a
full-scale Wrtsil 20V32 engine
Power output
kW/cyl
500
BSFC
g/kWh
-8
NOx
Vol-ppm
Exhaust gas
temperature
before turbine
deg C
Turbocharging
efficiency
Paper #73, #82, #210

31
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
576
< 540
< 74
Emission aftertreatment technologies
Development of emission aftertreatment and efficiency technologies

in Delivery Center Ecotech
Emission reduction:
NOx CO and HC
reduction
Emission reduction:
SOx and PM
reduction
Catalysts: SCR, oxidation catalysts
Flue gas desulphurisation (scrubbers),

electrostatic precipitators
Emission reduction:
Emission
monitoring
Total economy:
Energy
efficiency
32
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
Emission monitoring systems
Energy efficiency: combined cycles, combined

heat and power, chillers
Test results from the Wrtsil SOx scrubber
Wrtsil scrubber on Neste Oil MT Suula with a

4R20 auxiliary engine rated at 680 kW
Tests in 2008-2009, including certification
Tests on HFO with 3.4% sulphur and HFO of
1.5% sulphur
Test results:
SOx removal > 99% in all operating
conditions
Particle matter reduction: 30 60%
33
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
Discussion Items
19 November 2010
Thank you for your kind attention
40
Wrtsil
19 November 2010
Market Based Measures voor

klimaatbeleid zeevaart
Comparative analysis of proposals at IMO MEPC
CE Delft
Independent, not-for profit consultancy,

founded in 1978
Based in Delft, the Netherlands
Transport, Energy, Economy
15+ years of experience with environmental
policies for shipping
Clients include UNFCCC, IMO, European
Commission, national governments, ports,
shipping companies, NGOs
Jasper Faber / 17 november 2010
Outline
Policy context
Overview of proposals
Criteria for evaluation
Evaluation of proposals
What will the future bring?
Conclusion
Policy context
Maritime transport is the most energy

efficient transport mode
Responsible for 90% of world trade by volume
Maritime transport is responsible for
approximately 3% of global GHG emissions
Most projections show a rapid increase in
emissions
Despite improvements in fuel efficiency
Growth in world trade outpaces efficiency
improvements
Policy context
IMO 2003 Assembly Resolution A.963(23) urges the Marine Environment

Protection Committee to identify and develop the mechanism or
mechanisms needed to achieve the limitation or reduction of GHG
emissions from international shipping
Little progress until MEPC57 (2007)
Currently an intensive debate
Ten proposals
Evaluation by expert Group (representatives of IMO members and
NGOs)
Report to MEPC61, but not thoroughly discussed
Intersessional planned for March 2011
Intention to select proposals for further elaboration at MEPC62 (July
2011)
Main proposal
Variant
Point of
application
Use of
revenues
ETS (Norway,
France, UK)
GHG Fund
(Denmark et
al.)
Leveraged
Incentive
Scheme
(Japan)
IUCN
Vessel
Efficiency
System (WSC)
Port Levy
(Jamaica)
SECT (US)
Do Nothing
(Bahamas)
Emissions Trading Scheme (METS)

MEPC 60/4/22, 26 and 41
Norway, France, Germany, UK
Ships need emission allowances to emit CO2
Allowances can be obtained at an auction, at the market, or from
other sectors
The number of allowances auctioned is limited (cap)
Shipping as a whole can only emit more than the cap if it purchases
emission reduction credits from other sectors
GHG Fund
MEPC 60/4/8 (variant MEPC 60/4/37)
Denmark, Cyprus, Japan, and others
Ships or fuel suppliers pay a contribution to a fund
The fund is used to buy emission credits from other sectors
The level of the contribution suffices to limit the net CO2 emissions of
shipping (=shipping emissions CDM credits)
The level of the contribution is adjusted periodically in line with CDM
prices and shipping activity
Baseline-and-credit trading scheme (SECT)

MEPC 60/4/12
US
A energy efficiency target is established per ship type, depending on
size
The energy efficiency of each ship is measured
A ship that is more efficient, earns credits, while a ship that is less
efficient has to surrender credits
System regulates average efficiency of the fleet
10
Evaluation
11
Criteria for evaluation

MEPC57: instruments for maritime shipping should be:
1. effective in contributing to the reduction of total global emissions of
GHGs;
2. binding and equally applicable to all flag states, in order to avoid evasion;
3. cost-effective;
4. able to limit or, effectively minimize competitive distortion;
5. based on sustainable environmental development without penalizing
global trade and growth;
6. based on a goal-based approach and not prescribing specific methods;
7. supportive of promoting and facilitating technical innovation and R&D in
the entire shipping sector;
8. accommodating to leading technologies in the field of energy efficiency;
9. practical, transparent, fraud-free and easy to administer.
2. Was not accepted by all countries
12
GHGs
Depending on the emissions target

Target not specified in any proposal
GHG Fund and METS reward all measures to reduce emissions
Baseline-and-credit system reward only technical measures to reduce
emissions
GHG Fund and METS allow for a more stringent target
13
GHGs
Difference in certainty that a target is met:

METS most certain
Absolute target
GHG fund slightly less certain
Target is absolute, but whether the target is met depends on thhe
amount of fuel sold and the price of CDM credits
Baseline-and-credit least certain
Energy-efficiency target
When activity is higher than expected, emissions are higher
14
3. cost-effective
Cost-effectiveness of measures
Cost-effectiveness of the system (admin burden)
Cost-effective from which perspective?

Social perspective
Cost-effectiveness is optimal if all cheap measures to reduce
emissions are taken
Financial incentive is the same in all systems
Sector
Cost-effectiveness is optimal if costs for sector are lowest
15
METS
Price of allowances is equal to price in other systems
Optimal cost-effectiveness from a social perspective
Sector pays the market price for all emissions
Most expensive for the sector
Reduction costs
(/ton CO2)
Measures outside
maritime sector
CDM
price
Measures within
maritime sector
Target
Emissions (ton CO2)
16
GHG Fund
Level of contribution is lower than the carbon price in ETS
Socially not most cost-effective because relatively cheap options in
the shipping sector are not used
Sector only pays a share of the carbon price
Cost-effective from sectoral perspective
Reduction costs
(/ton CO2)
Credit price
US
proposal
ETS proposal
CDM price
Cyprus et al.
proposal
GHG contribution
Emissions
(ton CO17
Reduction
2)
Jasper
Faber / 17 november
2010
Baseline-and-credit
Sector increases efficiency until target is met
Not cost-effective from a social perspective because it requires
expensive measures
no financial flow from sector to other sectors
Cost-effective from sector perspective
Reduction costs
(/ton CO2)
Credit price
US
proposal
ETS proposal
CDM price
Cyprus et al.
proposal
GHG contribution
Reduction
Emissions (ton CO2)
18
19
Many administrative tasks are the same in all systems

Monitor fuel and emissions
Report emissions
Usually, monitoring and reporting constitutes 75% of ETS or tax
There may be a difference in the number of actors
GHG Fund for fuel suppliers has a lower number of actors
Difference in instrument
Paying a contribution or acquiring and surrendering allowances
Administrative costs are comparable: 1-5% of value
20
Social cost-effectiveness
Sectoral costeffectiveness
METS
Best
Less
GHG Fund
Less
Good
Baseline-and-credit
Less
Good
21
7. supportive of promoting and facilitating technical innovation and R&D in
the entire shipping sector;
All systems increase the incentive to innovate in emissions saving

technology
All systems increase demand for innovation and R&D
Baseline-and-credit provides the largest incentive

METS provides a larger incentive than the GHG fund, because the cost of
emitting CO2 is higher in the METS
22
What will the future bring?
Why has the discussion dragged on for so long?

Opposing principles of UNFCCC and IMO
UNFCCC: Common but Differtentiated Responsibilities some
countries do more, others less
IMO: No more favourable treatment all ships are treated equally,
regardless of flag
Certain developing countries do not want mandatory measures for
their ships
Most developed countries want equal treatment because
differentiation would be ineffective
What are the chances of a global policy?
As long as the disagreement remains, opposition from developing
countries will continue
What happens then?
Regional policy?
23
Conclusion
Main differences
Effectiveness achievable target
Higher for GHG Fund and METS
Effectiveness certainty of reaching a target
METS best
GHG Fund slightly less
Baseline-and-credit lowest
Cost-effectiveness sectoral perspective
GHG fund and baseline-and-credit best
METS less
Cost-effectiveness social perspective
METS best
GHG fund and baseline-and-credit less
Administrative burden
Division over actors different in GHG Fund aimed at fuel supplier
Probably lower overall costs in GHG Fund aimed at fuel supplier
24
Thank you!
faber@ce.nl
25
Evaluatie voorstellen
2. binding and equally applicable to all flag states, in order to avoid evasion
Alle voorstellen zijn van toepassing op alle schepen in internationaal

transport, onafhankelijk van hun vlag
Alle voorstellen hebben de mogelijkheid van een drempel op basis van
scheepsgrootte
26
4. able to limit or, effectively minimize competitive distortion;
Alle systemen bevoordelen efficinte schepen (bedoeld effect)
Administratieve lasten kunnen relatief lager zijn voor grote bedrijven

(schaalvoordelen)
Grotere verstoring naarmate administratieve lasten hoger zijn
Verstoring van de transportmarkt modal shift

Alleen als andere modi klimaatkosten niet internaliseren
27
5. based on sustainable environmental development without penalizing
global trade and growth;
Alle voorstellen verhogen kosten transport (zie kosteneffectiviteit sector)

Beperking van handel
Alle voorstellen internaliseren externe kosten tot op zekere hoogte (zie
kosteneffectiviteit maatschappij)
Bevorderen duurzame economische ontwikkeling
28
6. based on a goal-based approach and not prescribing specific methods;
Alle systemen zijn goal-based

Geen systeem schrijft specifieke methoden voor
Baseline-and-credit systeem schrijft technische maatregelen voor en

beloont het nemen van operationele maatregelen niet
29
8. accommodating to leading technologies in the field of energy efficiency;
Alle voorstellen belonen technische maatregelen die energie efficintie

verhogen
Baseline-and-credit systeem het meest
GHG Fund het minst
30
9. practical, transparent, fraud-free and easy to administer
Alle systemen vereisen additionele administratieve handelingen

Omvang van administratieve lasten niet vast te stellen op basis van de
algemene voorstellen
Systemen verschillen in de verdeling van administratieve lasten
Alle systemen hebbben aandacht voor handhaving en gebruiken Flag
States en Port States
31
CO2 Charges on seagoing ships

How to reduce and to comply with new legislation and rules
EU DEVELOPMENTS
Rotterdam, 17th November 2010
EUROPEAN SHIPPING
AND ECSA
EUROPEAN SHIPPING AND ECSA
ESTABLISHED IN 1965 - BRUSSELS

DAILY CONTACTS WITH EU INSTITUTIONS:
COMMISSION
MEMBER STATES (COUNCIL)
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
ECOSOC
COMMITTEE OF REGIONS
ECSA MEMBERS
BULGARIA
BELGIUM
CYPRUS
DENMARK
ESTONIA
FINLAND
FRANCE
GERMANY
GREECE
IRELAND
ITALY
LATVIA
LITHUANIA
LUXEMBOURG
MALTA
NETHERLANDS
NORWAY
POLAND
PORTUGAL
SLOVENIA
SPAIN
SWEDEN
UK
4
EUROPEAN SHIPPING (EEA)

EEA FLAGS: 23 % OF WORLD FLEET
CONTROLLED FLEET 41% OF WORLD FLEET
KEY PLAYER IN CROSS TRADES BETWEEN
DIFFERENT CONTINENTS
EUROPE
GLOBAL TRADE: 80-90 % TRANSPORTED

BY SEA
INTRA EUROPEAN TRADE: UP TO 41 %
TRANSPORTED BY SEA
CLIMATE CHANGE
EU GENERAL POSITION
CLIMATE CHANGE EU GENERAL POSITION
Current EU position for the Cancn climate conference:

Post 2012 international regime to protect the climate.
Conditional move from unilateral 20% reduction to 30%.

EU willingness for a 2nd commitment period under Kyoto Protocol.
EU Parliament draft Resolution on UN Climate Change

Conference: call for unilateral 30% reduction in EU emissions.
Commission Communication on options for moving beyond a
20% GHG emission reduction target.
CLIMATE CHANGE
EU POSITION TOWARDS
INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPING
9
CLIMATE CHANGE EU POSITION TOWARDS

INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING 1/3
INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
Shipping main transporter of global trade (90%) counts for 2 to 4%
of global co2
Ongoing technical/operational (EEDI and EEOI) developments in
IMO
Ongoing Market-based measures (MBM) developments in IMO
Potential measures to raise revenue from shipping and finance
developing countries UN AGF recommendations.
10

EU CURRENT POSITION AND CONSIDERATIONS
Need for a global solution - IMO is the appropriate body to deal
with measures to reduce GHG emissions from international
shipping
BUT Regional solution being explored by the EU Commission
according to the EU legislation (End 2011 deadline)
11

At this time, No EU consensus on MBM
20% absolute reduction by 2020 compared to 2005 level
All sectors should contribute
At this time, No EU consensus on MBM
Technical and operational measures only will be not considered as
sufficient
International shipping is a potential source of revenues
12
CLIMATE CHANGE
SHIPPING POSITION
13
CLIMATE CHANGE SHIPPING POSITION

PRIORITY = REDUCTION OF CO2 IN PRACTICE (based on efficiency
improvements capabilities)
Need for a global solution - IMO is the appropriate body to deal with
workable measures to efficiently deliver CO2 emission reduction from
international shipping
Climate Change Conference to give a clear mandate to IMO
Need for a strategy to conciliate IMO and UN principles to avoid globalscale carbon leakage and distortion of competition
No firm position on emissions reduction target but firm commitment to
reduce CO2 emissions
Any revenues to be used to reduce emissions from ships
14
THANK YOU
www.ecsa.eu
www.kvnr.nl
www.scheepsemissies.nl
Further information:
altena@kvnr.nl
loicq@ecsa.eu
15
Maritime Environment Seminar 17-11-2010
Maritime Environment Seminar 17-11-2010
Emission Indices from a Shipowners point of view

Bob Derks, Director Projects and New Building, Royal Wagenborg
Content
1. Introduction Royal Wagenborg

2. Upcoming regulations and its effect
3. Key conditions for successful implementation of new
regulations/ initiatives.
4. EEDI, CSI, ESI and how it could work out
5. Concluding remarks
Royal Wagenborg
Our company...
serves clients since 1898
is 100% privately owned
provides integrated logistic solutions
works with state of the art equipment
Our people
focus on solutions
are dedicated and experienced
have passion for the job
dont know the word impossible
Wagenborg Nedlift
Crane rental (Benelux and Germany)

Heavy transport and logistic management
Turnkey heavy transport and lifting projects
Factory-to-foundation projects with 100% Wagenborg resources
Engineering and project management
Wagenborg Passenger Services
Almost 10,000 departures a year

1.8 million passengers a year
5 ferries
Reining
Integrated solutions: transport, warehousing and distribution

400 vehicles
Warehousing 100,000 m2
Intermodal solutions
Real-time information throughout supply chain
Wagenborg Offshore
Area of operations
Worldwide
Focus on activities in former CIS and Caspian Sea
Activities in the Oil- & Gas industry
Operator and owner of vessels, rigging- and hydraulic
piling equipment
Rig move-, Inspection-, Management- and Consultant activities
Commissioning of offshore structures and assembly of
new drilling rigs
Wagenborg Offshore
Wagenborg Foxdrill
Wagenborg Foxdrill Oilfield Services
Femcoborg, JV between Wagenborg and Femco
Wagenborg Kazakhstan
Wagenborg Kazakhstan
Provides maritime services to support oil and gas exploration
and exploitation in the North Caspian Sea since 1998
First foreign shipping company in Republic of Kazakhstan
North Caspian Sea/ Kazakhstan:
o Shallow waters
o Ambient conditions: -35C - +40C
o Challenging operating environment
Since 1998 Wagenborg has accumulated largest local
experience/ knowledge base
In 2009/ 2010 this resulted in the tender award of 7 Living
Quarter Barges, one Ice Breaking Tug and contract renewal for
IBSVs Arcticaborg and Antarcticaborg.
Wagenborg Kazakhstan Operations
Wagenborg Shipping
170 modern multi-purpose vessels ranging from 2.000 to 22.000
tons, mostly fully ice-classed, geared and gearless
One of the largest ship owners in Europe by number of vessels
Youngest fleet in Europe with an average age of 6.2 years due to
continuous new building program
World wide chartering and trading
Offices in Finland, Sweden, North America, Spain, Greece and
the Far East
Seamless access to the entire logistic chain through close
cooperation with other Wagenborg companies
More than 150.000 m2 of high quality storage facilities
Wagenborg Shipping
Over 100 new deliveries since 1998 of various vessel types:
Ice Breaking Supply Vessels;
Ice Classed Multi Purpose Vessels ranging in size from 3,000 to
22,000 ton DWT, ice class FS 1A or 1AS;
Ice Classed Offshore Barges;
RoRo/ RoLo Paper Carriers;
Open Top Ice Classed Container Feeder;
Living Quarter Barges.
ISO 14,001 certified since 1997
Wagenborg Shipping
Spaarne-/ Schie-/
Slingeborg
1. SCR on two stroke main diesel
engine
2. Zero Dumping
3. Closed water lubricated propeller
shaft
4. Low solvent paint system
5. 6 kV Shore connection
6. Waste management system
In operation since 1999.
Wagenborg Shipping
Baltic-/ Bothniaborg
1. Electrical shore connection
2. SCR
3. Environmental friendly
propeller shaft seals
4. Zero Dumping
5. Ballast Water Treatment
6. Environmental Design
Review
In operation since 2004.
Upcoming Regulations
ILO Convention
Ballast Water Management

Convention
PSPC
Anti fouling paint
EEDI, EEOI, SEMP
MARPOL Annex 1 (oilpollution prevention)
MARPOL Annex 6 (CO2, NOx,

SOx, PM)
BNWAS
Ship recycling
Sewage treatment
Effect of Upcoming Regulations

EEDI, EEOI, SEMP even further
up?
Key Conditions
Key conditions for a successful implementation of new regulations or
initiatives to lower emissions by shipping:
From: http://www.2angels.net/images/Level_Playing_Feild.gif
Idea from John Elkington, www.johnelkington.com

Picture from: http://portal.vibewire.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/SustainablityChart.jpg
Energy Efficiency Design Index

Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI):
A possible instrument from IMO to regulate shippings contribution to the GHG
emissions.
Not yet mandatory regulation.
Base line applicable for general cargo vessels > 15,000 DWT ton.
Focus on CO2 emissions by cargo vessels.
Basis for Market Based Instruments?
Easy to customize. This requires clear instructions for validation, which should
be easy to verify (F.e. Vref, cargo capacity at maximum operating draft).
Deltamarin Ltd on average lower EEDI values for EU built general cargo ships
compared to Chinese built general cargo ships: ..EU ships are more custom
made and carefully designed, whereas Chinese ships are more standard
design type opportunity?
Energy Efficiency Design Index

Energy Efficiency Design Index for Wagenborg Vessels:
20,00
18,00
H
16,00
Nassauborg old
DWT optimization
FS 1A versus
FS 1A Super
L
14,00
Index getal
12,00
DWT and MCR optimization
Prinsenborg old
F
Prinsenborg new
Lengthenin
10,00
Nassauborg new
8,00
6,00
4,00
2,00
0,00
0
5000
10000
15000
DWT
20000
25000
Clean Shipping Index

Clean Shipping Index (CSI):
The Clean Shipping index is an easy-to-use, transparent tool, no matter if
youre a shipping company, a cargo owner or a forwarder. As a shipping
company the reporting of information regarding your vessels will help you
reach out with your environmental work. The index may also serve as a
benchmark towards good environmental performance. As a cargo owner the
database is a unique tool to compare the environmental performance of your
tenderers during the procurement process. As a forwarder you can help your
clients put focus on the environmental issues of shipping., from
www.cleanshippingproject.se.
Currently more than 20 of the larger cargo owners in Sweden have joined the
initiative. Amongst them: H&M, Stora Enso Logistiscs and Setra Group.
Takes a holistic approach on the environmental impact of shipping.
Web based instrument.
Voluntary for shipowners.
Clean Shipping Index

Baltic-, Bothniaborg
Spaarne-, Schie-, Slingeborg
Environmental Ship Index

Environmental Ship Index (ESI):
Initiative by World Ports Climate Initiative (55 major ports, mainly European)
Aim is to stimulate shipowners to cause less (air) pollution in their ports, by
giving a discount on harbor dues.
Holistic approach towards ships emissions (NOx, SOx and CO2).
Web-based and voluntary.
From: http://esi.wpci.nl/Public/Home
Environmental Ship Index

Environmental Ship Index (ESI):
Discount percentage of the ship-specific part of the harbor dues only. Typically
10-20% of the total port costs.
For a general cargo vessel visiting Rotterdam this ship specific part is 28.2% of
the Gross Tonnage in Euros, and discount is max 10%. These percentages
differ from port to port, as well as the minimum score a vessel must attain to be
eligible for discount. Highly confusing!
Beforehand, one has to complete the website questionnaire, including Sulphur
content of all bunkers and this data has to be updated regularly, at least twice a
year.
It is doubtful if the costs of keeping this information up to date outweigh the
benefit of the discount.
In real life this discount accounts for some E 250,- per visit for an F-borg to
Rotterdam
How could EEDI, CSI, ESI work out?

EEDI
CSI
ESI
Balance 3Ps
Not required, if the

EEDI will be
mandatory.
Challenge when used
as a basis for MBIs.
Due to a pull from

stakeholders such as
cargo owners and
shippers the CSI
seems to full fill this
condition.
To be successful
requires critical mass.
Incentive seems too low to

stimulate sustainable
shipping.
May change attitude of
stakeholders involved.
Impact of reducing
emissions on the
environment is evident.
Level Playing
Field
EEDI shall be
worldwide mandatory
for each vessel; an
absolute requirement
to ensure fair
competition
All players have to use Rules are not the same for
the same formulae.
the participating ports.
Benchmarking
possible.
Concluding remarks
EEDI could be successful if it will become mandatory for the
entire shipping industry, provided that an easy to apply and to
verify formula will be established.
CSI takes a holistic approach towards emissions and seems
more appropriate to achieve sustainable shipping provided it
achieves a critical mass.
Given the size of investments to comply with the upcoming
regulations a Level Playing Field is of utmost importance to
prevent unfair competition.
The investments to comply with the upcoming (environmental)
regulations will have a upwards effect on the freight rates. Are
we, as consumers, willing to bear the consequences?
Thank you!

171110-Presentaties 3 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

171110-Presentaties 3 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seminar 17th of November 2010

CO2 charges on shipping

International context of IMO

IMO Update Study GHG Emissions from Ships

843 MT CO2 = 2.7% of the total worldwide CO2

Increase average g CO2/ton-mile emission 2050:

- Efficiency potential 2050: min: 35% - max: 75%.

Maritime Rail - Road

IMO measures in development

Energy Efficiency Design index

Development of MARPOL Annex VI part 2

CO2: Why a design index?

The EEDI formula

PME(i ) .CFME(i ) .SFCME(i )

PAE .CFAE .SFCAE *

f eff (i )..PAEeff (i ) CFAE .SFCAE

f eff (i ) .Peff (i ) .CFME .SFCME

Reference line (tanker fleet)

Grams per tonnenm

EEDI of Dutch general cargo ships

>15000 ton DWT

MARPOL Annex VI part 2

Attainded and required EEDI

Required EEDI: Is the maximum value of

Regulation 3: Attained EEDI

1.4 Bulk carrier

DWT of the ship

1.5 Gas Tanker

DWT of the ship

DWT of the ship

1.7 Container ship

DWT of the ship

1.8 Genneral Cargo Ship

DWT of the ship

1.9 Refrigerated cargo carrier

DWT of the ship

1.10 Combination carrier

DWT of the ship

Regulation 4 required index

Required EEDI Table

20.000 DWT and Above

20.000 DWT and above

3.000 15.000 DWT

3.000 5.000 DWT

Basic flow of survey and certification process

EEDI technical file

Strategy - How we see the future

- Engine development and trends

Strategy - How we see the future

- Engine development and trends

Changes in customer demands:

Wrtsil Diesel Engine Portfolio (1)

9.2 MW Only for Power Plant use

Wrtsil Diesel Engine Portfolio (2)

Only for Power Plant use

Only for Power Plant use

Performance development progress of the W46F:

Power per cyl

SFOC with pumps 85% load

SFOC with pumps 75% load

Main design actions:

Wrtsil 6L20L locomotive genset