Upload
morgan-thomson
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Using International Energy Agency Data to Calculate the Environmental Impact of Connecting Maritime Ships
to Shoreside Power
Dr William HallResearch Fellow in Energy Technology, Coventry University
Introduction
• Ships at berth use auxiliary diesel engines to provide electrical power
• Berthed ships can require up to 11MWe (cruise ships)
• Ships can be connected to shoreside power supply• referred to as ‘shoreside power’ or ‘cold-ironing’
• Effect of shoreside power on CO2 emissions not considered
Existing emissions
• standard unit is: grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour of electricity
• generally accepted that auxiliary engines (AEs) emit 690 – 722 gCO2 kWhe-1
• Cooper1,2 measured emissions from a variety of ships• mean was 718.6 gCO2 kWhe-1
Cooper, D.A., 2001. Exhaust emissions from high speed passenger ferries. Atmos. Environ. 35(24): 4189; Cooper, D.A., 2003. Exhaust emissions from ships at berth. Atmos. Environ. 37(27): 3817;
Shoreside power
High voltage
National gridBerthed ship
440 – 480 V
Methodology
• IEA database on CO2 emissions from combustion sources
• data used was for plant whose main operation is regarded as electricity
generation, including combined heat and power
• IEA database on electricity generation• adjusted for transmission losses
CO2 Reduction
National Grid Power Generation
Country Port Calls /
annuma g CO2 / kWhe Price / unit
(US$) CO2
emissions (%)
China 122150 992 38.2 Japan 106466 461 -35.8
United States 104950 651 0.06 -9.4 United Kingdom 102322 543 0.09 -24.5
Italy 73695 523 0.16 -27.3 South Korea 70683 507 0.06 -29.5 Singapore 65793 598 0.08 -16.8
Spain 64143 447 -37.8 Netherlands 56461 612 -14.9
Norway 52800 3 0.04 -99.5 Indonesia 51026 917 27.6 Germany 42792 612 -14.9 Russia 42447 811 0.03 12.9 France 37677 108 0.05 -84.9
Malaysia 35528 603 -16.1 Taiwan 35098 690 0.06 -3.9 Turkey 33455 565 0.11 -21.3 Belgium 33189 310 -56.9 Brazil 32360 106 -85.3
United Arab Emirates 30971 951 32.3
a: (Lloyds MIU, 2008)
CO2 Reduction
National Grid Power Generation
Country Port Calls /
annuma g CO2 / kWhe Price / unit
(US$) CO2
emissions (%)
China 122150 992 38.2 Japan 106466 461 -35.8
United States 104950 651 0.06 -9.4 United Kingdom 102322 543 0.09 -24.5
Italy 73695 523 0.16 -27.3 South Korea 70683 507 0.06 -29.5 Singapore 65793 598 0.08 -16.8
Spain 64143 447 -37.8 Netherlands 56461 612 -14.9
Norway 52800 3 0.04 -99.5 Indonesia 51026 917 27.6 Germany 42792 612 -14.9 Russia 42447 811 0.03 12.9 France 37677 108 0.05 -84.9
Malaysia 35528 603 -16.1 Taiwan 35098 690 0.06 -3.9 Turkey 33455 565 0.11 -21.3 Belgium 33189 310 -56.9 Brazil 32360 106 -85.3
United Arab Emirates 30971 951 32.3
a: (Lloyds MIU, 2008)
CO2 Reduction
National Grid Power Generation
Country Port Calls /
annuma g CO2 / kWhe Price / unit
(US$) CO2
emissions (%)
China 122150 992 38.2 Japan 106466 461 -35.8
United States 104950 651 0.06 -9.4 United Kingdom 102322 543 0.09 -24.5
Italy 73695 523 0.16 -27.3 South Korea 70683 507 0.06 -29.5 Singapore 65793 598 0.08 -16.8
Spain 64143 447 -37.8 Netherlands 56461 612 -14.9
Norway 52800 3 0.04 -99.5 Indonesia 51026 917 27.6 Germany 42792 612 -14.9 Russia 42447 811 0.03 12.9 France 37677 108 0.05 -84.9
Malaysia 35528 603 -16.1 Taiwan 35098 690 0.06 -3.9 Turkey 33455 565 0.11 -21.3 Belgium 33189 310 -56.9 Brazil 32360 106 -85.3
United Arab Emirates 30971 951 32.3
a: (Lloyds MIU, 2008)
CO2 Reduction
National Grid Power Generation
Country Port Calls /
annuma g CO2 / kWhe Price / unit
(US$) CO2
emissions (%)
China 122150 992 38.2 Japan 106466 461 -35.8
United States 104950 651 0.06 -9.4 United Kingdom 102322 543 0.09 -24.5
Italy 73695 523 0.16 -27.3 South Korea 70683 507 0.06 -29.5 Singapore 65793 598 0.08 -16.8
Spain 64143 447 -37.8 Netherlands 56461 612 -14.9
Norway 52800 3 0.04 -99.5 Indonesia 51026 917 27.6 Germany 42792 612 -14.9 Russia 42447 811 0.03 12.9 France 37677 108 0.05 -84.9
Malaysia 35528 603 -16.1 Taiwan 35098 690 0.06 -3.9 Turkey 33455 565 0.11 -21.3 Belgium 33189 310 -56.9 Brazil 32360 106 -85.3
United Arab Emirates 30971 951 32.3
a: (Lloyds MIU, 2008)
CO2 Reduction
National Grid Power Generation
Country Port Calls /
annuma g CO2 / kWhe Price / unit
(US$) CO2
emissions (%)
China 122150 992 38.2 Japan 106466 461 -35.8
United States 104950 651 0.06 -9.4 United Kingdom 102322 543 0.09 -24.5
Italy 73695 523 0.16 -27.3 South Korea 70683 507 0.06 -29.5 Singapore 65793 598 0.08 -16.8
Spain 64143 447 -37.8 Netherlands 56461 612 -14.9
Norway 52800 3 0.04 -99.5 Indonesia 51026 917 27.6 Germany 42792 612 -14.9 Russia 42447 811 0.03 12.9 France 37677 108 0.05 -84.9
Malaysia 35528 603 -16.1 Taiwan 35098 690 0.06 -3.9 Turkey 33455 565 0.11 -21.3 Belgium 33189 310 -56.9 Brazil 32360 106 -85.3
United Arab Emirates 30971 951 32.3
a: (Lloyds MIU, 2008)
Case study 1: Mediterranean Cruise
Port
time (hr)
gCO2
(kWhe-1)
MWhe
consumed
CO2 from AE
(tonnes)
CO2 from shoreside
(tonnes)
Change in
CO2 (%)
Southampton
12
543
84
60.4
45.6
-24.5
Cadiz 8 447 56 40.2 25.0 -37.8 Piraeus 9 928 63 45.3 58.4 29.1 Naples 10 523 70 50.3 36.6 -27.3 Lisbon
9
611
63
45.3
38.5
-15.0
• emissions reduced by 15.7% (38 tonnes)
• emissions reduced by 21.1% (51 tonnes) if Greece exempt
Case study 2: Baltic cruise
Port
time (hr)
gCO2
(kWhe-1)
MWhe
consumed
CO2 from AE
(tonnes)
CO2 from shoreside
(tonnes)
Change in
CO2 (%)
Southampton
10
543
70
50.3
38.0
-24.5
Oslo 7 4 49 35.2 0.2 -99.5 Copenhagen 10 605 70 50.3 42.3 -15.9 Stockholm 10 56 70 50.3 3.9 -92.2
Tallinn 9 1341 63 45.3 84.5 86.6 St Petersburg 10 811 70 50.3 56.8 12.9
Helsinki 9 309 63 45.3 19.5 -57.0 Zeebrugge
8
310
56
40.2
17.4
-56.9
• Emissions reduced by 28.5% (104 tonnes)
• Emission reduced by 41% (150 tonnes) if Russia and Estonia exempt
Case study 3: Caribbean cruise
Port
time (hr)
gCO2
(kWhe-1)
MWhe
consumed
CO2 from AE
(tonnes)
CO2 from shoreside
(tonnes)
Change in
CO2 (%)
Fort Lauderdale
10
651
70
50.3
45.6
-9.4
Cartagena 6 206 42 30.2 8.7 -71.3 Cristobal 6 333 42 30.2 14.0 -53.6
Limon 11 30 77 55.3 2.3 -95.8 Montego Bay
8
808
56
40.2
45.3
12.5
• emissions reduced by 43.8% (90.4 tonnes)
• emissions reduced by 46.3% (95 tonnes) if Jamaica exempt
Effect of fuel type
26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120C
hang
e in
CO
2 em
issi
ons
(%)
Plant Efficiency (%)
gas coal
Conclusions• Shoreside power can deliver significant CO2 savings
• Not suitable for all Nations (notably China)
• Countries with high renewable or nuclear mix will benefit the most
• Consideration must be made about Countries ability to deliver necessary power (particularly in developing world)