Air Pollution from Ships in Danish Harbours: Feasibility ... · PDF fileAir Pollution from...
Transcript of Air Pollution from Ships in Danish Harbours: Feasibility ... · PDF fileAir Pollution from...
THESIS FOR DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Air Pollution from Ships in Danish Harbours: Feasibility Study
of Cold-ironing Technology in Copenhagen
FABIO BALLINI
Department of Naval, Electrical, Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering
UNIVERSITY OF GENOA, Italy 2013
i
BALLINI FABIO Department of Naval, Electrical, Electronic and
Telecommunication Engineering (DITEN), University of Genoa,
Italy
ABSTRACT
Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention (IMO) and a number of EU
directives, principally Council Directive 1999/32/EC, set the
regulatory framework for the shipping industry and signature
member states, while at the same time limiting unilateral regulatory
measures.
This thesis has studied best-practice examples of unilateral emission
control in the North Sea and Baltic Sea region. The main study case
has been the Port of Copenhagen. To accommodate the growing
cruise traffic, a new cruise pier has been constructed that is
prepared for cold-ironing, a technology that allows vessels at berth
to use shore power rather than electricity generated by auxiliary
engine.
To assess the socio-economic impact of this technology, I applied an
advanced external air pollution evaluation model, studying emissions
from international shipping in the North Sea and Baltic Sea within
the specific timeframe of May-August 2012. My calculations
demonstrated that the total external health cost of emissions from
cruise ships at berth in Copenhagen within the 5-month timeframe
was €5,384,086. My calculations also showed that a scenario of 60%
of visiting cruise ships using shore power (i.e. approx. the total
capacity of the proposed cold ironing utility) would result in an
ii
external health cost saving of NOx SO2 and PM emissions
respectively of €2,675,384, €28,535 and €175,590. My cost-benefit
analysis demonstrated that the external health costs would balance
the capital cost in harbour-side cold-ironing infrastructure in 10-15
years.
The thesis also identified two prerequisites for the economic
feasibility of shore power in Copenhagen. Firstly, Denmark needs to
obtain an exemption from Community Directive (2003/96/EC),
Article 14(1)(c) to exempt vessels from paying local Danish
environmental tax on shore power. Secondly, a pool of major Baltic
destinations needs to be created to ensure that cold-ironing becomes
a benchmark incentive-based technology in the region with which to
reduce emissions in harbour environments.
Keywords: air pollution, cost-benefit analysis, ship exhaust
emissions, socio-economic impact, cost-effectiveness, cold-ironing
technologies, shore power, impact assessment, feasibility study,
external heath costs, investment cost, international maritime law,
incentive-based emissions reduction, abatement technology, market
penetration, pooling, business case.
.
iii
iv
v
INDEX
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………..1
1.1.STUDY BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………………………………………1
1.2 AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS…………………………………………………………………………………..3
1.3METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES AND SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION……………..…………………..5
2. THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK………………………………………………………………………………….7
2.1INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS…………………………………..………………………………………………….7
2.2 EU REGULATIONS…………………………….……………………………….………………………………………….14
2.3 REGULATIONS APPLYING TO DANISH PORTS…………..……………………………………………………18
2.3.1 POLICY TO REDUCE NOx EMISSION IN DENMARK………………............................19
2.4 COST BENEFIT OF TREADABLE EMISSION CREDIT SYSTEM……………………………………………20
2.5 NORWEGIAN NOx TAXATION AND SUBSIDIES………………………………………………………………23
2.6 NOx TAXATION AND STATE SUBSIDIES IN AN EU PERSPECTIVE……………………………………25
2.7 PM TAX ON PORT EMISSIONS………………………………………………………………………………………29
2.8 DIFFERENTIATED PORT DUES……………………………………………………………………….………………30
2.9 VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AND CONSORTIUM BENCHMARKING……………………………….33
3. ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE FUELS………………………….………………….36
3.1 COST OF NOX ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY…………………………………………………..……………….36
3.2 USING WATER TO LOWER THE COMBUSTION TEMPERATURE……………………………………..37
3.2.1 WIFE ON DEMAND……………………………………………………………….………………………38
vi
3.2.2 HUMID AIR MOTOR……………………………………………….…………..…………………………39
3.3 TREATMENT OF THE EXHAUST GAS……………………………………………….…………………………….39
3.3.1 SCRUBBER…………………………………………………………….……………..……………………….39
3.3.2 SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR)…………………….………………….….………...40
3.3.3 EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION (EGR)……………………………………………………………41
3.3.4 LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG)………………………………………….…………..…………..43
4. COLD-IRONING TECHNOLOGIES ………………………….………………………….….……………………..47
4.1 COLD-IRONING TECHNOLOGY IN CRUISE SHIPS……………………..…………………………………….47
4.2.ISO STANDARD: HIGH VOLTAGE SHORE CONNECTION (HVSC) SYSTEMS.…….……….……...51
4.3 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION…………………………………………………………………….……….………….……….52
4.4 WORK BARGES AND LNG POWER BARGES…………………………………………………………..………53
4.5 COLD-IRONING AS RETROFIT………………………………………………..……………………………………..56
4.6 CURRENT COLD-IRONING MARKET SHARE…………………………….….…………………………………58
4.7 COLD-IRONING PENETRATION IN THE BALTIC SEA.………….……………….………………………….60
5. DANISH ELECTRICITY SUPPLY – THE NORDIC ENERGY MIX AND THE COPENHAGEN
CLIMATE PLAN 2015…………………………………..……………………………………………………………….62
5.1 NORDIC ENERGY MIX…………………………………………………………………………….……………………62
5.2 DANISH ELECTRICITY SUPPLY…………………………………………………………………………….………..64
5.3. COPENHAGEN CLIMATE PLAN……………………………………………………………..…………………….65
vii
6. HEALTH COST- EXTERNALITY OF AIR POLLUTION IN DENMARK………………………….……..68
6.1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..68
6.2. THE EXTERNAL VALUATION OF AIR POLLUTION MODEL ……………..…………..………………..70
6.3 DEFINITION OF THE SCENARIOS……………………………………………………………………………….….71
6.4 PRESENT AND FUTURE HEALTH IMPACT IN EUROPE AND DENMARK
OF INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING ……………………………………………………………..………………………76
6.5 EXTERNALITY COSTS PER KG EMISSION………………………………………………………………………..79
7. PRESENTATION OF STUDY CASE: COPENHAGEN CRUISE PORT.……………………………………82
7.1 CRUISE INDUSTR………………….……………………………………………………………………………………...82
7.2TOTAL TRAFFIC ………………………………..……………………………………………………………………….….82
7.3 SIZE OF VESSELS…………………………………………………………………..……….……………………….…….84
7.4 COMPETITIVE POSITION ………………………………………………..…………………………………………...88
7.5 LOGISTICS…………………………………..……………………………………….…………………………………….…92
7.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT………………………………………………………………………………….……….93
8.COLD IRONING FEASIBILITY AND COST BENEFIT……………………………………………………….100
8.1 COST OF ON-BOARD GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY USING
AUXILIARY ENGINES…………………………………………………………………………………..……………….100
8.2 ELECTRICITY COST: MARKET RATE AND REDUCED RATE……..………………………………….....102
8.3 COLD-IRONING BUSINESS CASE …………………………..…………………………………………………….103
8.4 CALCULATION OF EMISSION FACTORS OF AUXILIARY ENGINES………………..………………..108
8.5 TOTAL EMISSIONS REDUCTION…………………………….….………………………………………………..108
viii
8.6 EXTERNAL HEALTH COST ……………………………………………..…………………………………………..110
8.7. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (CBA)…………………………………………………..…………………………….116
9. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………..………..……………120
10 FUTURE WORK…………………………………………………………………………………………….…………126
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….127
APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..140
ix
x
xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank my supervisor Associate Professor Riccardo Boz-
zo, the Department of Naval, Electrical, Electronic and Telecommunica-
tion Engineering, University of Genova, for his scientific support and
guidance during the work on this thesis. And I would also like to thank
Jørgen Brandt, Head of Section, and Helge R. Olesen, Senior Advisor, at
the Department of Environmental Science & DCE, Aarhus University,
for their scientific guidance and valuable advice.
I would like to thank Kirsten Ledgaard, Director of Planning, By &
Havn, for her help and assistance and Bengt Olof Jansson from Copen-
hagen Malmö Port for his valuable guidance.
I would also particularly like to thank Kristian Anders Hvass and Profes-
sor Niels Mygind, Department of International Economics and Manage-
ment, Copenhagen Business School, for their scientific guidance. And I
would also like to thank the Copenhagen Business School for hosting me
in Copenhagen during my fieldwork.
Finally, I would like to thank friends and colleagues at the department
who helped me by answering my many questions and for our inspiring
talks.
xii
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AE Auxiliary Engine
ATRS Air Transport Research Society
BaS-NoS Baltic Sea + North Sea (pertaining to EVA)
BIMCO Baltic and International Maritime Council
CAFÉ Clean Air for Europe
CEEH Centre for Energy, Environment and Health
CH4 Methane
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO(NH2)2 Urea
CMP Copenhagen Malmö Port
CTM Chemical Transport Model
DEHM Danish Eulerian Hemispheric Model
DKK Danish currency unit (kroner)
ECA Emission Control Areas
EEB European Environmental Bureau
EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation
ENSO European Network of Transmission System Operators for
Electricity
EPA Danish Environmental Protection Agency
EU The European Union
EVA External Valuation of Air Pollution Model
GAINS Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies
HAM Humid Air Motor
HVSC High-Voltage Shore Connections
xiv
IMDG Code International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code
IMO The International Maritime Organization
IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
ISO International Organization for Standardization
KBH2025 Copenhagen Climate Plan
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from MCR Maximum Continuous Rotation
MGO Marine Gas Oil
N2 Nitrogen
NaOH Caustic soda
NEC National Emission Ceilings
NECA Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Control Area
NH3 Ammonia
NOx Nitrogen Oxide
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
OECD/EEA Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/
European Economic Area
PM Particle Matter
R&D Research and Development
RAINS Regional Air Pollution INformation and Simulation
SECA Sulphur Emissions Control Area
SEEMP Energy Efficiency Management Plan
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SOMO35 Sum of Ozone Means Over 35ppb
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WHO Word Heath Organization
xv
WiFE Water in Fuel Emulsion
YOLL Years of Lost Live
xvi
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND
Projections indicate that without further regulatory action the continued
growth in emissions of SO2 and NOx from the maritime sector would
surpass that of all land-based sources in the EU by 2020. A wide range
of initiatives and regulatory measures have in recent years been adopted
to air pollution from land-based sources, including the CO2 emissions
trading scheme regulated by the European Emissions Trading Scheme.
Within shipping, Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention (IMO) and a
number of EU directives, principally Council Directive 1999/32/EC,
represent the regulatory framework for tackling the issue of reducing
exhaust gas emissions from ships. These regulatory measures set
minimum values and standards, requiring industry players and
authorities to take action, although at the same time limiting the options
of individual states to set out their own regulatory measures and
unilateral initiatives to reduce emissions from ships.
In 2015, the North Sea and Baltic Sea will become a Sulphur Emissions
Control Area (SECA) under the IMO, which will result in the reduction
of SO2 emissions from shipping. In 2016, the region is also expected to
become a Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Control Area (NECA) under the
IMO, which will target NOx emissions in the region, although the effect
will be incremental since the regulatory measures deal with engine
design and a near total renewal of the fleet would be required to achieve
the full potential benefit. With the introduction of the SECA, shipping
companies have been given the option of reducing exhaust emissions,
2
either by using marine fuels with a maximum content of 0.1% sulphur,
or by using abatement technologies. The overall reduction in NOx
emissions in the Baltic Sea and North Sea in the coming years will
therefore depend on the choice of technologies and investment strategies
that shipping companies make within the framework of SECA and
NECA requirements. In the light of these international regulatory
initiatives within shipping, the main political focus in the North Sea and
Baltic Sea region in relation to emissions control will in the coming
years no doubt shift to adopting measures that can further reduce NOx
and PM emissions.
This thesis will study some of the best-practice examples of unilateral
initiatives adopted within the region in relation to curbing NOx
emissions, including the mandatory Norwegian NOx tax introduced in
2003, which also applies to shipping, and the differentiated harbour dues
introduced in Sweden in 2002.
The core study case of this thesis represents a current example of the
range of challenges, legally and economically, that individual states in
the region experience when seeking to adopt unilateral initiatives to curb
exhaust emissions from shipping that have a direct impact on the health
and wellbeing of their citizens. The study case is the Port of
Copenhagen, Denmark, where over the past decade the considerable rise
in cruise ship holidaymaking in the North Sea and Baltic Sea has made
the Danish capital the region’s leading cruise ship hub. To accommodate
the rise in cruise ship traffic and reduce the local impact of ship exhaust
emissions in urban areas close to the harbour, the Copenhagen harbour
development company and port authority, By & Havn, has constructed a
new cruise pier, which is set to open in 2013, at some distance from
residential areas. In accordance with the city’s climate policy, the new
3
pier is prepared for the introduction of cold ironing, a technology that
allows vessels at berth to use shore power rather than rely on electricity
generated by their auxiliary engines.
This thesis will seek to assess the socio-economic benefit of introducing
cold ironing in Copenhagen based on a project for shore power
infrastructure proposed by the port operator, Copenhagen Malmö Port. I
will assess the socio-economic benefit of applying this technology in
Copenhagen by developing a cost-benefit analysis based on an advanced
model for local-scale air pollution valuation in addition to site-specific
data pertaining to the geographical parameter and timeframe of the
study. Furthermore, this thesis will seek to identify the legal framework
under international law that would allow Denmark and other nations in
the region to potentially adopt cold-ironing as a benchmark incentive-
based mechanism to reduce NOx and PM emissions from cruise ships in
harbour environments.
1.2 AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The aim of this thesis is to quantify the positive socio-economic benefit
of reducing airborne exhaust emissions from cruise ships hoteling in
Copenhagen by offering a cost-benefit analysis of the introduction of
cold-ironing technology at the city’s new cruise ship pier. The aim is
furthermore to identify the legal framework under international law that
would allow Denmark and other nations bordering the North Sea and
Baltic Sea to adopt cold-ironing as a benchmark incentive-based
mechanism to reduce NOx and PM emissions from cruise ships in
harbour environments.
4
To achieve these objectives I have pursued the following research
questions:
To which extent does current international and EU law give
leverage to unilateral initiatives to reduce NOx and PM emissions
from shipping?
Which best-practice, incentive-based mechanisms have been
applied in the North Sea and Baltic Sea region within a unilateral
framework to reduce NOx and PM emissions?
To which extent does best-practice abatement technology offer a
cost-effective solution to emission reduction?
What is the external health cost of NOx and PM emissions (€/kg) in
the context of the given geographical parameter and timeframe of
the study case using a benchmark model for air pollution
valuation?
What is the socio-economic impact of exhaust emissions from
cruise ships hoteling in Copenhagen, based on 2012 data?
What is the cost-benefit to society of the implementation in the Port
of Copenhagen of the planned cold-ironing utility?
How could cold-ironing technology in the Port of Copenhagen be
developed as a benchmark incentive-based mechanism to reduce
emissions in harbour environments in the North Sea an Baltic Sea
region?
5
1.3 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES AND SCIENTIFIC
FOUNDATION
This thesis adopts an interdisciplinary approach to research, drawing on
the scientific disciplines of chemistry, environmental science,
engineering, economy and law. The methodological approach is based
on quantitative research with a bottom-up approach to local-scale
inventory.
To assess the external health cost of each individual compound of ship
exhaust emission in the Port of Copenhagen, I modified individual
standards in the applied External Valuation of Air Pollution Model
(EVA), an advanced model developed by the University of Aarhus. The
key advantage to this model, which tracks the impact pathway of
regional-scale air pollutant and chemical transportation, is that it can
account for the non-linear chemical transformations and feedback
mechanisms influencing air pollutants from a particular regional source
(in this case international shipping) within a given geographical region
(in this case the Baltic Sea and the North Sea) and within a given
timeframe (in this case May-August 2012). The model is based on local-
scale information from the Centre for Energy, Environment and Health,
CEEH. I furthermore modified the standard scenario of the EVA model
to focus on the specific harbour environment rather than the sea
environment (i.e. SNAP category BaS-NoS/15). In addition, I obtained
location-specific shipping data from 2012 from the Copenhagen Malmö
Port (CMP) and port authority on the basis of which I calculated the
average energy consumption of each vessel, etc. The data used for these
calculations was supplied by the port operator, Copenhagen Malmö Port
(CMP), and the city’s port authority.
6
I have assumed that auxiliary engines in port use fuel with a sulphur
level of 0.1% in compliance with current EU regulation. To calculate the
external cost of CO2 emissions I have assumed the rate of €0.02/kg
applied to rural areas in Denmark as cited by the Danish Ministry of
Transport. The PM emission factor is based on EU25 emissions data
from the RAINS model and EU25 electricity production data from the
EU report on Energy and Transport Trends to 2030.
7
2 THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
2.1 INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS
IMO MARPOL ANNEX VI
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships(1) (MARPOL) represents the main IMO Convention currently in
(1)The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. The MARPOL Convention was adopted on 2 November 1973 at IMO. The Protocol of 1978 was adopted in response to a spate of tanker accidents in 1976-1977. As the 1973 MARPOL Convention had not yet entered into force, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol absorbed the parent Convention. The combined instrument entered into force on 2 October 1983. In 1997, a Protocol was adopted to amend the Convention and a new Annex VI was added which entered into force on 19 May 2005. MARPOL has been updated by amendments through the years. The Convention includes regulations aimed at preventing and minimizing pollution from ships - both accidental pollution and that from routine operations - and currently includes six technical Annexes. Special Areas with strict controls on operational discharges are included in most Annexes. The MARPOL Convention is divided into VI annex: Annex I Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil (entered into force 2 October 1983) covers prevention of pollution by oil from operational measures as well as from accidental discharges; the 1992 amendments to Annex I made it mandatory for new oil tankers to have double hulls and brought in a phase-in schedule for existing tankers to fit double hulls, which was subsequently revised in 2001 and 2003. Annex II Regulations for the Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk (entered into force 2 October 1983): details the discharge criteria and measures for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk; some 250 substances were evaluated and included in the list appended to the Convention; the discharge of their residues is allowed only to reception facilities until certain concentrations and conditions (which vary with the category of substances) are complied with. In any case, no discharge of residues containing noxious substances is permitted within 12 miles of the nearest land. Annex III Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances Carried by Sea in Packaged Form (entered into force 1 July 1992), contains general requirements for the issuing of detailed standards on packing, marking, labelling, documentation, stowage, quantity limitations, exceptions and notifications. For the purpose of this Annex, “harmful substances” are those substances which are identified as marine pollutants in the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) or which meet the criteria in the Appendix of Annex III.
8
force regarding the protection of the marine environment, representing
50% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant fleets.
The MARPOL convention’s principle articles mainly deal with
jurisdiction and powers of enforcement and inspection. Six annexes
cover the various sources of pollution from ships and provide an
overarching framework for international objectives.
MARPOL Annex VI, also known as the ‘International Convention for
Prevention of Air Pollution by Ships’, has been adopted to control
exhaust emissions in international shipping. This Convention limits
sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from vessels
whereas volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter (PM)
and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are not presently subject to IMO
regulation.
Annex IV Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships (entered into force 27 September 2003) contains requirements to control pollution of the sea by sewage; the discharge of sewage into the sea is prohibited, except when the ship has in operation an approved sewage treatment plant or when the ship is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage using an approved system at a distance of more than three nautical miles from the nearest land; sewage which is not comminuted or disinfected has to be discharged at a distance of more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land. In July 2011, IMO adopted the most recent amendments to MARPOL Annex IV, which entered into force on 1 January 2013. The amendments introduce the Baltic Sea as a special area under Annex IV and add new discharge requirements for passenger ships while in a special area. Annex V Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships (entered into force 31 December 1988): Deals with different types of garbage and specifies the distances from land and the manner in which they may be disposed of; the most important feature of the Annex is the complete ban imposed on the disposal into the sea of all forms of plastics. In July 2011, IMO adopted extensive amendments to Annex V that entered into force on 1 January 2013. The revised Annex V prohibits the discharge of all garbage into the sea, except as provided otherwise, under specific circumstances. Annex VI Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (entered into force 19 May 2005): Sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances; designated emission control areas set more stringent standards for SOx, NOx and particulate matter. In 2011, after extensive work and debate, IMO adopted ground-breaking mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures which will significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from ships; these measures were included in Annex VI entered into force on 1 January 2013.
9
The MARPOL Annex VI 2008 revision offers an estimated €15 to €34
billion reduction in external costs to the EU in improved public health
and reduced mortality. The cost estimates of implementing the revision
range from €2.6 to €11 billion. As such the revision offers benefits that
are 3 to 13 times greater than the cost(2).
SULPHUR DIOXIDE (SO2)
MARPOL Annex VI regulates the emission of SO2 by prescribing limits
on fuel sulphur content, which significantly reduces particle emissions.
The sulphur content of a liquid fuel essentially determines the SO2
emissions released in the combustion of that fuel, i.e. the combustion of
low sulphur fuels leads to low levels of SO2 emissions. Equally, a
reduction of SO2 emissions can be achieved by using higher sulphur
fuels in combination with emission abatement methods.
The most significant changes to MARPOL Annex VI in the 2008
revision addressed SO2 pollution:
(1) A reduction from 1.5% by weight of the sulphur content of all marine
fuels used in SECAs:
– To 1% by 1 July 2010
– To 0.1% by 1 January 2015
(2) A reduction from 4.5% by weight of the sulphur content of all marine
fuels used globally outside of Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECAs),
i.e. the “global standard”.
– To 3.5% by 1 January 2012
(2)DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL, amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels. Brussels, 15.7.2011; EC (2011) 919.
10
– To 0.5% by 1 January 2020, subject to review in 2018, with a pos-
sible delay to 2025
(3) Allowing access to a broad range of emission abatement methods
(“equivalents”), such as equipment, methods, procedures or alternative
fuels.
Figure 1–Regulation timeline: sulphur marine fuels.
Source: Lloyd's Register EMEA
NITROGEN OXIDE (NOX)
Annex VI of the MARPOL convention regulates NOx emissions from
large marine diesel engines as defined in the Tier I, Tier II and Tier III
standards.
The Tier I standards were defined in the 1997 version of Annex VI,
while the Tier II/III standards were introduced by the Annex VI
11
amendments adopted in 2008. Furthermore, the amendment defines two
sets of emission and fuel quality requirements: 1) global requirements,
and 2) more stringent requirements applicable to ships in Emission
Control Areas (ECAs).
The current Tier II standard is approx. 20% lower than Tier I, while the
Tier III standard is approx. 80% lower than Tier I.
The MARPOL Annex VI regulation for NOx applies to all diesel engines
of 130 kW or larger, implying that the limits are also binding for most
Auxiliary Engines (AE). Under the 2008 Annex VI amendments, Tier I
standards became applicable to existing engines installed on ships built
between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1999, with a displacement of
≥ 90 litres per cylinder and rated output ≥ 5000 kW, subject to
availability of approved engine upgrade kit(3).
The following table shows the emission limits in the MARPOL
Convention.
Table1 The MARPOL NOx emission limits (g NOx / kWh)
EMISSION CONTROL AREAS (ECAs)
Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention provides an opportunity for
coastal states to designate part of the sea as an Emission Control Area
(ECA) in order to prevent or reduce the adverse impacts on human
(3)Source: DIESEL – www.dieselnet.com.
<130 130≤rpm2000 rpm≥2000
Tier I 2000 17 45*rpm -0,2 9,8
Tier II 2011 14,4 44*rpm -0,23 7,7
Tier III 2016 3,4 9*rpm -0,2 1,96
TIER From year g Nox / kWh
Engine revolvements per minute
12
health and the environment through measures that control exhaust
emissions. An ECA can cover NOx, SO2 or PM or all three types of
emissions. A Sulphur Emissions Control Area is called a SECA and a
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Control Area is subsequently called a NECA.
The North Sea (including the English Channel) and the Baltic Sea have
been designated as SECAs.
Figure 2. Sulphur Emissions Control Area (SECAs) - Baltic and North Sea SECAs
Source: http://www.atobviaconline.com/helpFiles/WebService/bp_shipping_marine_distance_ta.htm
A designated SECA area requires the use of fuel with low sulphur(4)
content. At present, fuel of a sulphur content not greater than 1% must
be used in the ECAs. In 2015, this limit will be lowered to 0.1% sulphur.
Low sulphur fuel must be used in main engines, Auxiliary Engines (AE)
(4) See Figure 1.
13
as well as auxiliary boilers. Furthermore, IMO has adopted a proposal
from the United States and Canada to jointly designate an Emission
Control Area (ECA) for specific US and Canadian coastal waters. The
proposed ECA area in North America would extend up to 200 nautical
miles from the coast(5).
Figure 3 shows the existing and potential Emission Control Areas worldwide
Source: Baltic Ports Organization Secretariat
Furthermore, the nations surrounding the Baltic Sea and the North Sea
are expected to introduce a NECA that will come into force in 2016.
However, if implemented, a hypothetical negative side effect of creating
the NECA could be that ship owners (including cruise ship owners)
respond by predominantly using ships built before 2016 in the NECAs.
This could delay the renewal of the fleets operating in the NECAs, to the
disadvantage of public health and the environment. On the other hand, a
significant reduction of NOx emissions can be expected within
( 5 )http://www.atobviaconline.com/helpFiles/WebService/index.html?seca_and_eca_areas.htm
14
designated NECAs within a few years after the average lifetime of a ship
engine, which is 25 years(6) (C. Trozzi).
Table 2. Special areas under MARPOL (Annex VI)
Source: IMO (International Maritime Organization)
# Status of multilateral conventions and instruments in respect of which the International Maritime
Organization or its Secretary-General perform depositary or other functions as of 31 December 2002.
2.2 EU REGULATIONS
EXHAUST GAS EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS
Projections indicate that without further regulatory action the continued
growth in emissions of SO2 and NOx from the maritime sector would
surpass total emissions of such pollutants from all land-based sources in
the EU by 2020(7).
The Council Directive 97/68/EC(8) was adopted with the aim of reducing
health and environmental effects from NOx, HC and PM emissions from
(6)Emission estimate methodology for maritime navigation, Carlo Trozzi, ( 7 )SEC (2005) 1133: Commissions Staff Working Paper accompanying the Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution (COM(2005)446 final) and the Directive on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe(COM(2005)447 final). (8)Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures
SPECIAL AREAS ADOPTED# DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE IN EFFECT FROM
Baltic Sea (SOX) 26 September 1997 19 May 2005 19 May 2006
North Sea (SOX) 22 July 2005 22 November 2006 22 November 2007
North American (SOX, NOX and
PM) 26 March 2010 1 August 2011 1 August 2012
United States Caribbean Sea
ECA (SOX, NOX and PM) 26 July 2011 1 January 2013 1 January 2014
15
ships. In order to balance SO2 emissions from non-road mobile
machinery and road transport emissions, the directive offers an option
for member states to set stricter emission limits in special areas of inland
waterways. Such emission limits would be valid for all ships passing
through these inland waterways.
The European emission standards for new non-road diesel engines have
been structured as gradually more stringent tiers known as Stage I...IV
standards.
Stage I/II: The first European legislation to regulate emissions from non-
road (off-road) mobile equipment was promulgated on 16 December
1997(9). The regulations for non-road diesels were introduced in two
stages: Stage I implemented in 1999 and Stage II implemented from
2001 to 2004, depending on the engine power output. Engines used in
ships, railway locomotives, aircraft, and electricity generating sets were
not covered by the Stage I/II standards.
Stage III/IV. Stage III/IV emission standards for non-road engines
(including engines used in ships) were adopted by the European
Parliament on 21 April 2004(10
), and for agricultural and forestry
tractors on 21 February 2005(11
).
against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery. (9) Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament. (10) DIRECTIVE 2004/26/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery (11)COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2005/13/EC of 21 February 2005 amending Directive 2000/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by engines intended to power agricultural or
16
Stage III standards, which are further divided into Stages IIIA and
IIIB were phased in from 2006 to 2013, Stage IV enters into force in
2014. The Stage III/IV standards, in addition to the engine categories
regulated at Stage I/II, also cover railroad locomotive engines and
marine engines used for inland waterway vessels. Stage III/IV
legislation applies only to new vehicles and equipment; replacement
engines to be used in machinery already in use (except for railcar,
locomotive and inland waterway vessel propulsion engines) should
comply with the limit values that the engine to be replaced had to
meet when originally placed on the market.
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 1999/32/EC
Council Directive 1999/32/EC(12
) establishes limits on the maximum
sulphur content of gas oils, heavy fuel oil in land-based applications as
well as maximum sulphur content of marine fuels and serves as the EU
legal instrument to incorporate the sulphur provisions of the MARPOL
Annex VI.
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2005/33/EC
Council Directive 2005/33/EC(13
) amends Council Directive
1999/32/EC. The new directive prescribed that a ship at berth must not
forestry tractors, and amending Annex I to Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the type-approval of agricultural or forestry tractors. (12)COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC. (13)DIRECTIVE 2005/33/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 July 2005 amending Directive 1999/32/EC.
17
use marine fuel with a sulphur content exceeding 0.1%, a provision that
came into force on 1 January 2010. There were a few exemptions to the
0.1% sulphur cap, which included ships moored at berth for less than
two hours. This EU requirement nonetheless came into force 5 years
earlier than the IMO-standard 0.1% sulphur cap. The directive also
offered a strong operator compliance mechanism, while the MARPOL
Annex VI had no such enforcement mechanism. And furthermore, the
directive allows for a more limited range of equivalent emission
abatement methods compared to the revised MARPOL Annex VI.
However, on one issue the EU directive was less stringent than
MARPOL Annex VI However: Where the MARPOL Annex VI allowed
a maximum sulphur content of 1% in SECAs, the EU directive allowed
ships to use fuels with a sulphur content of up to 1.5%.
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 1999/32/EC
On 15 July 2011, the EU adopted a proposal for an amendment of
Council Directive 1999/32/EC(14
)to align the directive with the latest
IMO provisions on the sulphur content of marine fuels and adapt the
directive to the MARPOL Annex VI provisions on alternative
compliance methods. The adopted proposal furthermore maintains the
links between the stricter fuel standards in SECAs and the fuel
requirements for passenger ships on regular service and improves the
implementation of the directive by harmonising and strengthening
provisions for monitoring of compliance and reporting.
(14)See footnote 12.
18
2.3 REGULATIONS APPLYING TO DANISH PORTS
Council Directive 1999/32/EC (amended by Council Directive
2005/33/EC) was implemented in Denmark by Statutory Order No. 1663
of 14 December 2006, which was later amended by Statutory Order No.
372 of 15 April 2011(15
).
International conventions and EU legislation limit Denmark’s options in
adopting tougher regulation on emissions from ships around Denmark.
Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS)(16
) rules out emission charging of “innocent passage”, while
Article 26(17
) rules out distance-based emission charges for international
sea transport, even for those vessels calling at national ports. And
although international conventions provide an option for national
regulation of “innocent passage” for special environmental concerns(18
),
(15)https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=136787 (16) Article 24 “Duties of the coastal State” - Section 3, innocent passage in the territorial sea subsection a. rules applicable to all ships - 1. The coastal State shall not hamper the innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea except in accordance with this Convention. In particular, in the application of this Convention or of any laws or regulations adopted in conformity with this Convention, the coastal State shall not: (a) impose requirements on foreign ships which have the practical effect of denying or impairing the right of innocent passage; or (b) discriminate in form or in fact against the ships of any State or against ships carrying cargoes to, from or on behalf of any State. 2. The coastal State shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation, of which it has knowledge, within its territorial sea. (17)Article 26 “Charges which may be levied upon foreign ships” Section 3. innocent passage in the territorial sea subsection a. rules applicable to all ships - 1. No charge may be levied upon foreign ships by reason only of their passage through the territorial sea. 2. Charges may be levied upon a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea as payment only for specific services rendered to the ship. These charges shall be levied without discrimination. (18)UNCOLS Convention; Article 21 “Laws and regulations of the coastal State relating to innocent passage”, The coastal State may adopt laws and regulations, in conformity with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law, relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea, in respect of all or any of the following:[…]paragraph
19
it is not common practice for a country to do so, especially for ships not
calling at ports in the nation. In practice, this means that the Danish
authorities can only regulate exhaust gas emissions from ships calling at
Danish ports in accordance with EU directive 2005/33/EC(19
) and
MARPOL Convention Annex VI.
The SECA that takes effect in 2015 throughout the Baltic Sea and North
Sea does not include NOx emissions. Although 70% of NOx emissions in
the waters around Denmark are emitted by foreign-flagged ships that
never call at a Danish port, the only options for Danish legislators has
been to join other nations in the region and the EU to seek the
introduction of a NECA, which is expected to come into force in 2016.
2.3.1 POLICY TO REDUCE NOx EMISSION IN DENMARK
Denmark levies a tax on emission of NO2-equivalents from
combustion(20
). The obligation to pay the tax covers emissions of NO2-
equivalents on Danish territory, including the territorial sea and the
Danish continental shelf area.
Large industrial units, for instance industrial processes with heavy
energy consumption, waste incineration plants and industry processes
emitting more than 200 tons NOx annually must measure NOx emissions.
In 2010, the tax rate was €680 per metric ton NOx emitted. The tax rate
will increase gradually reaching €730 per ton in 2015(21
).
(f): the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution thereof. (19) See footnote 13. (20) Act no. 472 af 17/06/2008, “Lov om afgift af kvælstofoxider”. (21) Danish Environmental Protection Agency; Environmental Project no. 1421, 2012.
20
In the absence of measurements of emissions to air of NO2-equivalents
during combustion, the estimated quantity of NO2-equivalents is
estimated relative to the quantity of goods delivered and consumed. The
Danish Ministry of Taxation may lay down rules for the metering and
rules for the measurement of NO2 emissions into the air.
The NOx tax is also applied to fuel used in the transport sector. However,
in the transport sector the tax is very small, approximately €1.56 per ton
fuel or approximately €0.026 per kg NOx. Sea transport is, in general,
exempt from the NOx tax, also large vessels with emissions above 200
metric tons of NOx annually(22
).
2.4 COST BENEFIT OF TRADABLE EMISSION CREDIT
SYSTEM
The nations around the Baltic Sea and North Sea are expected to
introduce a NECA in 2016, but since such a zone is basically about
engine efficiency standards it would take time before the benefits of
emissions reduction would materialise since the Tier III requirements
would only apply to new vessels. So studying the case of the cost-benefit
of a tradable emissions credit system is nonetheless relevant.
Despite the current woes of the international carbon emissions trading
system, which has resulted in low prices for CO2 quotas, market-based
instruments, such as the Kyoto Flexible Mechanisms(23
), including
credits for greenhouse gas reductions tradable permits, are often
considered an efficient measure with which to reduce emissions. Market-
(22)See previous footnote. (23)Haoran Pan, 2001. "The economics of Kyoto flexible mechanisms: a survey,"Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series ete 0111, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën, Energy, Transport and Environment.
21
based instruments such as emission charges or cap-and-trade systems
offer shipping companies a high level of freedom in responding to a
given regulation. Such a system would cover all NOx emissions from
ships registered in nations that are signatories to the treaty.
A baseline would need to be defined (i.e. geographical demarcation of
the NOx tax zone). A critical issue of the credit-based programme
concerns the setting up of a method for measurement of emission
savings and determining the initial level of emissions to avoid giving
credits to emission savings that would have occurred anyway. An
emission credit programme would furthermore require the development
of a reliable monitoring, reporting, and verification method. In order to
get a reasonably detailed system, parameters such as ship location, ship
engine characteristics, emissions factor, activity level and energy
consumption could be included. There would be a trade-off between the
cost and precision of the monitoring system and administrative costs will
increase with the complexity of systems. The efficiency of the credit-
based programme would also depend on the number of agents
participating in the market for credits. A limited number of actors in the
programme also limit the potential for emission reductions.
Nonetheless, an international NOx tradable emissions credit system
would encourage shipping companies to invest in NOx abatement
technology and speed up compliance with Tier III engine standards.
Estimates based on the current scenario (i.e. before the introduction of a
NECA in the Baltic Sea and North Sea in 2016) could, depending on the
applied technology, reduce NOx emissions in Denmark by up to 60-80%.
The potential reduction is estimated to be in the range of 60% to 80% of
total annual NOx emissions from national Danish sea transport,
corresponding to between 5,718 and 7,624 tons of NOx. The 5,718 tons
22
figure corresponds to 60% of the NOx emissions from national
navigation transport in Denmark and 4% of total NOx emissions in
Denmark.
The benefit to society of will be approx. €7.11 per kg NOx, in total
€40,661,211 for all 5,718 tons of NOx annually. Technologies applied
under this scheme would focus on exhaust gas recirculation (EGR),
water injection in turbo-charge-air (HAM) and selective catalytic
reduction (SCR). The average capital and operational cost of these three
technologies is €0.5179 per kg of NOx. Applying these technologies
would amount to a total cost of €2,916,180.
An additional cost of this measure would include monitoring and
inspection plus additional costs of setting up an organisation that can
facilitate emission trading. Furthermore, additional administrative
resources would initially be required to design the system and to find the
right level of credits to issue in the market. It is estimated that these costs
would amount to €2.5 million annually. The total value to the Danish
society would therefore be approx. €35,245,031 annually.
However, tradable credits may not be the best measure to reduce PM,
since there are only a few technologies available in addition to those
already applied in SECAs.
Table 3. Cost benefit from reducing NOX emissions by a tradable emission credits
Source: Danish Environmental Protection Agency; Environmental Project no. 1421, 2012.
EU/Yeara) Benefit 40661211
b) Cost 2916180
c) Administration 2500000
Cost per kg NOx (B+C)/kg NOx 0,95
Cost benefit, a- b - c (Eur/Year) 35245031
23
2.5 NORWEGIAN NOx TAXATION AND SUBSIDIES
Norway, which is not an EU member, levies a higher tax on NOx
emissions than Denmark, and unlike the Danish NOx tax, the Norwegian
NOx tax also applies to sea transport. The Norwegian NOx tax is
accrued to a NOx Fund that offers subsidies for NOx emissions reducing
measures in the shipping industry. All enterprises obligated to pay NOx
tax in Norway are eligible to join the Environmental Agreement
regardless of nationality. These enterprises may apply for support from
the NOx Fund to cover investments and operating costs. The NOx fund
subsidises investments with up to 80% of the actual cost(24
)
The Norwegian NOx tax is €2.21 per kg of NOx emissions (1 Jan 2011
tax rate, 2013 exchange rate)(25)
The Norwegian tax is based on measured
emissions or source-specific emission factors and energy consumption.
Calculation of emissions must represent ordinary and representative
operating conditions. If actual emission figures are not available, and if
source-specific emission factors based on fuel consumption have not
been determined, emissions are calculated according to the following:
Engines:
rpm less than 200: 100 kg NOx per metric ton of fuel
200 rpm to 1,000 rpm: 70 kg NOx per metric ton of fuel
1,000 rpm to 1,500 rpm: 60 kg NOx per metric ton of fuel
1,500 rpm upwards: 55 kg NOx per metric ton of fuel
(24)See APPENDIX I for a more detailed list of subsidy limits in the Norwegian NOX fund. (25)Danish Environmental Protection Agency; Environmental Project no. 1421, 2012.
24
Turbines:
Turbines: 16g NOx per m3 LNG
Turbines: 25kg NOx per ton liquid energy fuel
Low NOx turbines: 1.8g NOx per m3 gas.
These NOX emission factors are on level with standard emission factors
of approx. 12g NOx/kWh for medium-speed engines and 17g NOx/kWh
for low-speed engines.
The tax covers:
Emissions from traffic in Norwegian territorial waters, i.e. sea ar-
eas around the Norwegian mainland as defined by Act No. 57 of
26 June 2003(26) concerning Norway’s territorial waters and ad-
joining areas.
Emissions from domestic traffic even if, in part, operating outside
Norwegian territorial waters. Domestic traffic is defined as traffic
between two Norwegian ports.
Norwegian registered vessels are liable to pay Norwegian NOx tax
when operating in waters where the distance to the Norwegian
coast (baseline) is less than 250 nautical miles.
Foreign owners based outside of Norway are liable to pay Norwe-
gian NOx tax through a representative registered for taxable traf-
fic. Upon arrival in Norway, the captain should notify the customs
authority of the representative that will pay the tax.
(26)Act No. 57 relating to Norway’s territorial waters and contiguous zone, 27 June 2003.
25
Exemptions:
Direct foreign traffic, fishing and hunting in remote waters are ex-
empt from the Norwegian NOx tax.
Vessels in direct traffic between Norwegian and foreign ports are
exempt from tax for the entire voyage.
Emissions from sources that are encompassed by an environmen-
tal agreement with the Norwegian State on the implementation of
NOx-reducing measures in accordance with a predetermined envi-
ronmental target are exempt from the tax.
2.6 NOx TAXATION AND STATE SUBSIDIES IN AN EU
PERSPECTIVE
The overall purpose of fuel tax is to reduce fuel consumption. Denmark,
which is an EU member state, levies fuel taxes although sea transport is
exempted. All revenues from fuel tax in Denmark, including NOx and
CO2 taxes, accrue to the state. Unlike the Norwegian NOx taxation
programme, the Danish NOx taxation scheme does not include a state
subsidy programme and does not cover sea transport.
The question is whether the introduction of programme inspired by the
Norwegian example would be beneficial and feasible in the EU. One
EU-based example of a combined taxation and subsidy program is the
French NOx tax, which finances subsidies for land-based emissions-
reducing technologies. Stationary sources in France pay an NOx tax of
26
€53.60 per ton(27
). Of the total French NOx tax revenues, 75% are
earmarked for subsidies for emissions-reducing technologies and R&D.
All companies subject to the NOx tax are eligible to apply for the
subsidy. The subsidy rates are 15% for standard abatement technologies
and 30% for particularly innovative technologies with an additional 10%
subsidy for small and medium-sized companies.
In general, subsidies and state aid programmes are prohibited by EU
law(28
), although certain categories of aid are exempt. As a rule, the EU
should be notified of all public subsidies and the EU Commission then
assesses whether they can be exempt from prohibition. Common to EU
regulation is that public aid should be accessible to all companies. The
EU Commission distinguishes between three types of state aid:
Horizontal schemes: Horizontal schemes allow multiple compa-
nies across sectors to receive state subsidy designed to improve
the conditions for business by allowing support for e.g. R&D.
Sector schemes: Sector schemes exclusively address companies in
certain sectors. The transport sector is one of the major beneficiar-
ies of such schemes, including the ship building industries and au-
tomakers.
Regional aid schemes are designed to support regions with partic-
ular economic or employment problems.
(27)Source: OECD/EEA database on instruments used for environmental policy and natural resources management (28)Article 87 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 92), “Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market”.
27
Most Danish public aid (85%) supports horizontal schemes, while 14%
applies to specific sectors(29
). Regional aid only plays a very small part
in Denmark.
The Norwegian NOx Fund would probably comply with EU rules in the
following two aspects:
The combination of tax and funding in the Norwegian system is
balanced, meaning that the sector as a whole is not distorted.
The subsidy of NOx reducing equipment is open to all applicants
that pay the NOx tax. The scheme therefore does not favour specif-
ic sectors of the shipping industry.
There are in addition obvious benefits to a NOx taxation scheme
combined with state subsidies for abatement technologies:
The general increase in cost of NOx emissions is an incentive to
introduce NOx emissions reducing measures supported by the
NOx Fund
The program speeds up investment in NOx emissions reducing
measures in the shipping sector.
The NOx tax applies to all transport sectors and therefore does not
disadvantage shipping over road transport.
(29)Source: Danish Competition and Consumer Authority.
28
However, there may also be serious legal challenges and possible
financial drawbacks to seeking to introduce such a combined NOx tax
and state subsidy programme in the EU to cover sea transport:
Unless the national NOx tax and subsidy programme were to be
introduced on a purely voluntary basis the programme may be
challenged legally as a breech of Article 14(1)(c) of the Energy
Taxation Directive (2003/96/EC)30
that obliges EU member states
to exempt power produced on board a craft (including while at
berth in a port) from taxation.
If the NOx tax and subsidy programme were to be introduced on a
voluntary basis the incentive to stay outside the scheme may be
higher than the incentive to join the scheme.
The NOx tax could result in inefficient subsidy funding if subsi-
dised investment is made in areas that would have found sufficient
investment even without the scheme.
The system will require administrative funding and evaluation that
would incur an added cost to overall investment.
( 30 )COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity; Article 1 “In addition to the general provisions set out in Directive 92/12/EEC on exempt uses of taxable products, and without prejudice to other Community provisions, Member States shall exempt the following from taxation under conditions which they shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of such exemptions and of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse:[…] (c) energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purposes of navigation within Community waters (including fishing), other than private pleasure craft, and electricity produced on board a craft.
29
2.7 PM TAX ON PORT EMISSIONS
According to EPA(31
), PM emissions in Danish ports amount to approx.
57 tons annually. Approx. half of the ships calling at Danish ports are
national transport, while the rest is international transport.
Introducing a PM tax in Denmark would involve many of the same
issues as those regarding a NOx tax when it comes to quantifying
emissions. The tax would either be based on emission factors or actual,
measured emissions. However, when it comes to shipping, a PM tax may
not provide an incentive for companies to introduce measures to reduce
PM emissions. There are only three technologies that can be adopted to
reduce PM emissions:
To use gas rather than oil fuel. However, since one of the major
barriers to switching to gas is limited bunkering facilities a PM
emission tax would not necessarily constitute an incentive for the
shipping industry. Boosting bunkering facilities would require a
concerted international programme.
To install scrubbers. However, since the technologies related to
low-sulphur fuels are already an option for the shipping industry
when complying with the North Sea and the Baltic Sea SECAs to
be introduced in 2015, a PM tax would not represent an added in-
centive for the shipping industry to introduce scrubbers.
(31) Calculation made on “Danish Environmental Protection Agency; Environmental Project no. 1421, 2012” based on energy consumption from Work report No. 11, 2003, Emissions from ships at berth combined with new emission factors from national emission inventory.
30
To use shore power when docked. However, at present Article
14(1)(c) of the Energy Taxation Directive (2003/96/EC)(32
)
obliges EU member states to exempt electricity produced on board
a craft (including while at berth in a port) from taxation.
Notably, the health damage of PM emissions are higher in densely
populated areas(33
). Therefore, the hoteling of ships in ports signifies a
particular challenge. The emissions from AE-generated electricity in
Danish harbours amount to 20 tones of PM annually(34
). Manoeuvring
cannot be based on electricity from land.
Estimates(35
) show that a PM tax of €100 per kg of PM could
nonetheless potentially shift 60% of the energy consumption by ships
from AEs to shore-based electricity, which would result in a
considerable reduction in PM emissions since PM emission from land-
based power stations is 85% lower per kWh than AE-generated power.
2.8 DIFFERENTIATED PORT DUES
Another tool to promote the investment in technologies with low NOx
emission in the shipping industry in Denmark could be to introduce a
fee-bate system, which implies that differentiated port dues are paid by
vessels based on an environmental index, including emissions intensity
(32)See footnote 30, page 43. (33)Damage costs calculated by the Ministry of Transport, National Environmental Research Institute (2010). (34)Based on EPA, 2003, it is estimated that auxiliary engines use 109,000 MWh for light, air consumption etc. in Danish ports every year. This amount combined with average emission factors of NOX and PM of 12 g/kWh and 0.18 g/kWh respectively give the total emissions per annum. (35)Emissions from electricity production based on average electricity production according to the TEMA2000 model from Danish Ministry of Transport. Danish Environmental Protection Agency; Environmental Project no. 1421, 2012.
31
(e.g. g/kWh) and level (e.g. engine size). Port dues already generally
vary with regard to vessel class and size, the type of port, the frequency
of calls to port and the type of service offered.
A fee-bate system requires a certification scheme to be established to
ensure valid calculations of the environmental index to be used by port
authorities to levy differentiate port dues. Such certifications need to
build on the classifications of the EEDI Energy Efficiency Design
Index(36
), which as of 2013 defines an upper limit for CO2 emissions per
transport unit (i.e. CO2 grams per metric ton of dead weight per nautical
mile).
The Swedish Maritime Administration introduced differentiated port
dues in 2002 to support the development and introduction of low NOx
emitting technologies, such as SCR and HAM. The Swedish
organisation is funded by “fairway dues” consisting of two parts: one
related to the size of the ship and one related to the tonnage of the cargo.
Only the share related to the size of the ship is calculated relative to NOx
(36)The amendments to MARPOL Annex VI Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships, add a new chapter 4 to Annex VI on Regulations on energy efficiency for ships to make mandatory the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), for new ships, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships. Other amendments to Annex VI add new definitions and the requirements for survey and certification, including the format for the International Energy Efficiency Certificate. The regulations apply to all ships of 400 gross tonnage and above and are expected to enter into force on 1 January 2013. However, under regulation 19, the Administration may waive the requirement for new ships of 400 gross tonnage and above from complying with the EEDI requirements. This waiver may not be applied to ships above 400 gross tonnage for which the building contract is placed four years after the entry into force date of chapter 4; the keel of which is laid or which is at a similar stage of construction four years and six months after the entry into force; the delivery of which is after six years and six months after the entry into force; or in cases of the major conversion of a new or existing ship, four years after the entry into force date. The EEDI is a non-prescriptive, performance-based mechanism that leaves the choice of technologies to use in a specific ship design to the industry. As long as the required energy-efficiency level is attained, ship designers and builders would be free to use the most cost-efficient solutions for the ship to comply with the regulations. The SEEMP establishes a mechanism for operators to improve the energy efficiency of ships.
32
emissions to offer ships a rebate system starting progressively at 10
g/NOx per kWh. When the fee-bate system was introduced in Sweden in
2002, the general level of port fees was raised to keep revenues constant.
A fee-bate system offers a relatively cost-neutral tool with which to
encourage investment in environmentally friendly sea transport.
However, there are serious challenges and drawbacks to the system:
The potential effects of differentiated port dues will depend on the
number of ports participate in the program. If only a limited num-
ber of ports participate then there is a risk that ships with a low
environmental index will seek ports without differentiated port
dues rather than investing in abatement technology. A pool of har-
bours is therefore needed before the adopted measures can have a
beneficial impact.
There needs to be a substantial differentiation in port dues to en-
courage shipping companies to invest in abatement technology.
Existing port dues may be too low to enable sufficient differentia-
tion. In Sweden, 37 ships were registered in 2009 as low NOx
emission vessels. Almost all of these had been fitted with SCR
units that had been subsidised following a subsidy program in
2002(37
).
Ships with high emissions may choose to take a detour rather than
seek the shortest travel route in order to save on port fees. This
may increase emission levels rather than curb them.
(37)Environmental Project no. 1421;page 98; Danish Environmental Protection Agency , 2012; Denmark.
33
The negotiating element of port dues means that vessels subject to
high fairway due may seek to negotiate a lower overall tariff and
port authorities may have a commercial interest in settling for
lower dues.
2.9 VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS AND CONSORTIUM
BENCHMARKING
Large corporations that market themselves as environmentally friendly
also require that their suppliers also comply with their Corporate Social
Responsibility policies. It could therefore be argued that environmental
improvements could be effectively achieved through corporate and
consumer demand.
In consortium benchmarking, shipping companies commit voluntarily to
achieving an average emission rate, known as the benchmark.
Companies that are part of the consortium can then trade among
themselves to achieve the average rate (much like a credit-based
system).
Setting the benchmark emission rate is a key element of the consortium
benchmark programme design. Benchmark rates based on inputs (e.g.
emissions per unit fuel) are the easiest to define, while benchmarks
based on outputs (e.g. emissions per kWh, transport service, etc.) may be
more difficult to quantify but would offer stronger incentives to reduce
emissions through a wide range of initiatives.
34
There are several obvious advantages to voluntary schemes:
Unlike a credit-based approach there is no need to establish and
certify a baseline emission rate in the case of benchmarking since
the benchmark rate effectively serves as the baseline.
Part of the administration and monitoring of the programme could
be handled by the consortium itself.
If appropriate penalties are applied, all consortium members will
have a vested interest in ensuring that they comply with require-
ments.
Voluntary schemes however also have their drawbacks and pitfalls:
Ships with low environmental indexes will have no incentive to
stay in the programme other than the threat of a perceived loss of
brand value, which may have only limited impact on their compet-
itive standing in the shipping industry.
The shipping industry could effectively fall into two categories,
both with inefficient investment strategies in relation to environ-
mental gain and competitive standing: On the one hand consorti-
um member companies that invest to improve already efficient
vessels with relatively little environmental gain in relation to in-
vestment. And on the other hand, non-consortium companies sail-
ing vessels with low environmental indexes in which they fail to
invest sufficiently although relatively large environmental gains
could be made with small investments.
35
Emissions reduction is incremental because the benchmark is set
too low and is only very gradually improved
Member companies pursue “green-washing”, i.e. give emphasis to
public relations and easy, highly visible environmental initiatives
with limited substance.
36
3 ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND ALTERNATIVE FUELS
3.1 COST OF NOX ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY
With the introduction of the SECA in the North Sea and Baltic Sea,
shipping companies will basically have three choices
To use low-sulphur (1.0%) fuel oil/MGO
To use heavy fuel oil (HFO) with abatement technology (either
technologies that prevent NOx from forming during combustion or
post-combustion technologies)
To use liquefied natural gas (LNG) or other fuel alternatives.
However, the SECA does not target emissions of NOx, which along with
other harmful compounds, such as VOC and PM, will continue to impact
the environment. However, abatement technologies also offer benefits in
the reduction of such emissions. See table 4 and 5.
Table 4. NOx reduction and cost effectiveness of abatement technology
Source: Bosh et. All (2009) NOX control methods
Table 4 shows the reduction in NOx emissions offered by two
abatement technologies described below. EGR + WiFE = a combination
of Exhaust Gas Recirculation and WiFE on Demand (75-80%). SCR =
Selective Catalyst Reduction (85-90%).
Technologi
es Ship type
Investiment
(k€)Lifetime
Operation and
Maintenance
( k€)
Fuel Cost
( k€)
Annual
cost
(k€)
Cost per NOX
tonne
(€/tonne)
Reduction NOX
(%)
EGR+WIFE
(0,1% S)NEW 743 25 15 103 166 340 75 - 80; 50
SCR NEW 949 25 169 0 297 600 85 - 90
37
Table 5. Cost effectiveness of NOX reduction measured per €/ton
Source: data are in accordance with those reported in ENTEC (2005b), Rahai and Hefazi
(2006), Lovblad and Fridell (2006) and IIASA (2007).
Table 5 shows the reduction of NOx in €/tons of abatement technologies
described below. SCR inside SO2 ECA = Selective Catalyst Reduction
inside Sulphur Dioxide Emissions Control Area.
3.2 USING WATER TO LOWER THE COMBUSTION
TEMPERATURE
The formation of NOx can be prevented by lowering the temperature in
the combustion chamber either by emulsifying water in fuel prior to
injection (WiFE) or by charging the cylinder with humidified air
(HAM). NOx emissions reductions from these technologies vary from
50%-90%.
Technologies Ship typeSmall Vessels
(€/tonne)
Medium Vessels
(€/tonne)
Large Vessels
(€/tonne)
Humid air
motorsNEW 255 222 188
Humid air
motorsRetrofit 291 274 250
SCR inside
SO2 ECANEW 517 419 379
SCR inside
SO2 ECARetrofit 583 469 422
38
3.2.1 WIFE ON DEMAND
WiFE on Demand (“Water in Fuel Emulsion on Demand”) is a fuel
emulsion technology that reduces NOx emissions by providing Water in
Fuel Emulsion (WiFE) “on demand”. When the water evaporates in the
combustion chamber the temperature is lowered and NOx emissions are
reduced.
Studies(38
) show that 1% NOx reduction is obtained per 1% of added
water. A water-to-fuel-ratio of 30% can reduce NOx emissions by 30%
and PM by 60-90%. The maximum amount of water that can be added to
fuel depends on the engine load, but the maximum water-to-fuel-ratio is
50%, (= NOx reduction of 50%). A water content of 50% increases the
fuel consumption by approx. 2%.
Table 6. Total annual investment(39
) cost of WiFE retrofit in two-stroke engines(40
).
Source: Danish Ministry of the Environmental – Project n. 1421, 2012
(38)MAN Diesel and Turbo (2010): two-stroke engine emission reduction technology: state-of-the-art, cimac paper: 85. Apollonia Miola, Biagio Ciuffo, Emiliano Giovine, Marleen Marra; Regulating air emissions from ships: the state of the art on methodologies, technologies and policy options; page 57; European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. November 2010. (39)Entec (2005): Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments Task 2b – NOX Abatement (40)Note: Small, Medium and Large refer to the engine size.
SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
Engine size (MCR, Kw) 3580 11420 28750
Investment (€/year) 14944 29791 60438
Operation and maintenance (€/year) 33190 108560 271000
39
3.2.2 HUMID AIR MOTOR
Humid Air Motor (HAM) is an abatement technology that uses
evaporated seawater, which is injected into the combustion air to lower
the temperature peaks during the combustion process and thus reduce
NOx emissions. The NOx reduction potential is estimated to be up to
approx. 70-80%.(41
) (Eyring et al., 2005b)42
.
3.3 TREATMENT OF THE EXHAUST GAS
Some technologies rely on post-combustion treatment of the engine
exhaust gas to reduce NOx, in some cases reducing emissions up to 85-
99%.
3.3.1 SCRUBBER
A scrubber is a technology that effectively abates emissions by the use of
alkaline compounds to neutralise SO2 and remove acid gases from
engine exhaust emissions. The method uses seawater (or freshwater
mixed with caustic soda (NaOH)) as a “scrubbing” agent. The sludge is
then led to a tank where the water is filtered and circulated back into the
(41)On the precautionary principle, Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention forbids dis- charging waste into estuaries and enclosed ports. Air pollution from ships. A briefing document by: The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), The European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), Seas At Risk (SAR), The Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain. (EEB, 2004). (42)Eyring, V., Kohler, H., Lauer, A., Lemper, B. (2005b). Emissions from international shipping: 2. Impact of future technologies on scenarios until 2050. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110.
40
sea (EEB, 2004). Scrubbers can reduce SOx by 99% and NOx (43
) and
PM by 85% without increasing CO2 emissions.
Figure 4 Capital cost and operational cost of scrubber
Source: Danish Ministry of Environmental (Project No. 1421, 2012)
3.3.2 SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR)
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) is an abatement technology that
uses a catalyst to convert NOx into nitrogen and water by injecting
ammonia (NH3) or urea (CO(NH2)2) into the hot exhaust gas to react
with nitrogen oxides, resulting in the production of harmless nitrogen
(N2) and water. Reduction of NOx emissions may reach 90-95%.
However, to reach a 90% NOx reduction, approx. 15g of urea is
needed per kWh energy from the engine. Most common SCR
applications reduce NOx emissions slightly below the maximum
capacity (i.e. 85-90%) in order to limit ammonia emissions.
(43)A. Miola et al, 2010.
41
The technology requires significant space for the catalysts and the
storage of ammonia/ urea.
The following chart shows the costs(44
) of retrofitting SCR
technology.
Figure 5: Annual cost of SCR NOX reduction system
Source: Danish Ministry of Environmental (Project No. 1421, 2012)
3.3.3 EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION (EGR)
Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) works by recirculating filtered and
cooled exhaust gas into the charge air to decrease the peak cylinder
temperature during combustion. The EGR technology reduces NOx by
35% (Entec, 2005b). EGR can also be combined with water injection
(WiFE), resulting in an approx. 70-80% reduction in NOx emissions.
However, PM emissions increase because of the reduced amount of
oxygen and longer burning time. And since exhaust gases contain
(44) MAN Diesel & Turbo (MAN, 2011) and (Entec, 2005).
42
gaseous sulphur species, a corrosion problem from sulphuric acid
formation is generated (EPA, 1999), which is why the technology is not
suited for marine diesel engines using heavy fuel oils.
Installing EGR technology in a Tier II engine results in an increased fuel
consumption of approx. 2%(45
). EGR can be used on new vessels to
comply with the IMO Tier III regulation from 2016 (at least for two-
stroke engines).
Figure 6: Cost of retrofitting EGR technology (MAN Diesel & Turbo (2009)).
Source: Danish Ministry of Environmental (Project No. 1421, 2012)
(45)Fitting EGR technology to a fuel-optimised Tier I engine gives an estimated fuel consumption that is 1% lower than a Tier II engine without EGR
43
Figure 7: Total annual cost of EGR NOx reduction
Source: Danish Ministry of Environmental (Project No. 1421, 2012)
Figure 7: Shows the difference in annual cost of EGR in relation to Tier
level of engine, mainly due to higher fuel consumption.
3.3.4 LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG)
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is natural gas that has been converted
(temporarily) to liquid form for easy storage and transport. From an
emissions perspective, LNG is a very good alternative to heavy fuels.
Maintenance costs are low but investment costs are high.
Advantages:
Emissions of NOx are low: 1.42 grams(46
) per kWh.
(46)Department of shipping and marine technology Division of propulsion and maritime environment CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY ISSN 1652-9189. Report No. 08:107 Göteborg, Sweden, 2008 Reduction of NOx and SOx in an emission market - a
44
Emissions of SOx are low: 0.00154(47
) grams per kWh sulphur,
which means LNG complies with the SECA restrictions.
Emissions of CO2 are relatively low: 75% reduction(48
).
The world supply of LNG is expected to increase between 2015-
2020(49
).
LNG is approx. 8% cheaper per GJ compared to gas oil (Danish
Energy Agency (50
)).
Price structures for LNG are generally locked under long-time
contracts(51
) yet tied to the oil price.
Maintenance costs are significantly lower compared with a diesel
engine.
Disadvantages:
Establishing LNG bunkering facilities, including LNG terminals
and a network of LNG supply ships, is costly. Currently, only a
few nations (e.g. Norway) offer a LNG network
Retrofitting is costly. The additional ship investment cost is DKK
40-100 million for retrofitting of a 2-20 MW LNG marine engine
snapshot of prospects and benefits for ships in the northern European SECA area; page 23; (47)See previous footnote. (48)See Table 4. (49)Reporting By Edward McAllister in New York and Oleg Vukmanovic in London. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/us-lng-market-price-hike-idUSBRE90H07T20130118. (50) Danish Energy Agency, 2011: Prerequisites for socio-economic analyses in the field of energy, April 2011 shows that natural gas is 40% cheaper compared to gas oil. When including a cost of €4.78/GJ for production and distribution of LNG the price difference is reduced to 8%. (51)The spot market has proven volatile in 2012/2013 due to high demand following natural disasters and power shortages. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/18/us-lng-market-price-hike-idUSBRE90H07T20130118
45
(Environmental Protection Agency in Denmark(52
). Volume for
fuel storage is around 3-4 times higher than for storage of oil. The
relationship between engine size (MCR) and investment expendi-
ture is shown in Figure 7
The price of new ships with LNG propulsion typically has an add-
ed investment cost of 10-20% due53
to the LNG storage tanks, the
fuel piping system and additional safety measures. The additional
investment cost for a small 3,300kW LNG fuelled general cargo
ship is approx. US$ 3.6 million (DNV, 2011)
Figure 8. LNG retrofitting, total investment cost
Source: Danish Ministry of Environmental (Project No. 1421, 2012)
(52) With some technologies a methane slip is caused due to exhaust valves being open when the gas enters into the combustion chamber. (53)Shipbuilding cost may increase by 20-25% (DNV)23.
46
Table 7. Comparison of emissions from heavy fuel oil and LNG
Source: Danish Ministry of Environmental (Project No. 1421, 2012)
Table 7: Comparison of emissions from heavy fuel oil and LNG with a
HFO and a gas 50-bore MAN Diesel & Turbo ME-GI engine adapted to
LPG and LNG.
47
4. COLD-IRONING TECHNOLOGIES
4.1 COLD-IRONING TECHNOLOGY IN CRUISE SHIPS
Emissions from ships can cause damage to the environment and health at
great distance from the source of pollution. However, emissions are es-
pecially harmful within the immediate environment, such as SOx NOx,
VOC, PM, CO, and N2O. Although SOx emissions are set to be signifi-
cantly reduced in the North Sea and Baltic Sea when the SECA is im-
plemented, emissions from ships will still pose a challenge to ports lo-
cated close to urban environments, such as in Copenhagen, not least in
the case of the hoteling of power consuming cruise vessels during turna-
round.
One option in reducing ship emissions would be for ports to supply ves-
sels at berth with shore power from the national grid as an alternative to
generating electricity using on-board Auxiliary Engines (AE). Although
AEs can be combined with abatement technology to reduce harmful
emissions, there is no requirement to do so. Some shipping companies
and cruise operators may choose to use abatement technology, such as
scrubbers, to reduce SOx emissions when the SECA comes into force, a
technology that will also reduce other emissions including NOx. Howev-
er, harmful emissions from ships in port environments will still pose an
environmental problem.
Shore power (or cold-ironing) is a fully developed technology mainly
used by the US navy and when dry-docking vessels. In Europe, the
technology is used for ferry services in cities such as Gothenburg,
48
Rotterdam and Zeebrugge. The technology has only been implemented
for commercial use for cruise ships very few places in the world,
including California and Alaska. Shore power is known by a variety of
names, e.g. ‘cold ironing’ ‘shore-side power’, ‘high-voltage shore
connections (HVSC)’, ‘onshore power supply’ ‘shore-to-ship power’ and
‘alternative maritime power’. The term ‘cold-ironing’ derives from the
act of dry-docking a vessel, which involves shutting down all on-board
combustion, resulting in the vessel going ‘cold’.
Advantages:
Shore-side electricity supply can effectively reduce hazardous
emissions (e.g. SOx NOx, VOC, PM, CO, N2O, CH4) in the local
environment significantly.
Since power supplied from the national grid (i.e. from power
stations) is subject to stricter emissions control(54
)(55
) (including
(54)On 21 December 2007 the Commission adopted a Proposal for a Directive on industrial emissions. The Proposal recasts seven existing Directives related to industrial emissions into a single clear and coherent legislative instrument. The recast includes in particular the IPPC Directive. The IPPC Directive has been in place for over 10 years and the Commission has undertaken a 2 year review with all stakeholders to examine how it, and the related legislation on industrial emissions, can be improved to offer the highest level of protection for the environment and human health while simplifying the existing legislation and cutting unnecessary administrative costs. The results of this review have provided clear evidence of the need for action to be taken at a Community level. The IPPC Directive has recently been codified (Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control). The codified act includes all the previous amendments to the Directive 96/61/EC and introduces some linguistic changes and adaptations (e.g. updating the number of legislation referred to in the text). The substance of Directive 96/61/EC has not been changed and the adopted new legal act is without prejudice to the new Proposal for a Directive on Industrial Emissions. (55)The overall aim of the LCP Directive is to reduce emissions of acidifying pollutants, particles, and ozone precursors. Control of emissions from large combustion plants - those whose rated thermal input is equal to or greater than 50 MW - plays an important
49
CO2) than power supplied from AEs, the overall level of exhaust
emissions form ships using shore power is reduced considerably.
Noise levels and vibration from AEs are eliminated. In close prox-
imity to the AEs, noise levels of 90-120 dB can be
reached(56
)(Cooper 2004).
There are benefits to the health of cruise ship personnel and
dockworkers.
Although vessels will always need AEs for emergency power
supply, also at sea, the operative running costs and capital
investment for these engines will be lower if the use of AEs is
limited.
Cruise ship labour costs tied to producing electricity using AEs
while at berth will be reduced.
role in the Union's efforts to combat acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone as part of the overall strategy to reduce air pollution. The LCP Directive entered into force on 27 November 2001. It replaced the old Directive on large combustion plants (Directive 88/609/EEC as amended by Directive 94/66/EC). The LCP Directive contains the following provisions: Plants licensed after 26 November 2002 have to comply with the (stricter) emission limit values for SO2, NOx and dust fixed in part B of the Annexes III to VII.; Plants licensed on or after 1 July 1987 and before 27 November 2002 have to comply with the (less strict) emission limit values fixed in part A of the Annexes III to VII. ; Significant emission reductions from "existing plants" (licensed before 1 July 1987) are required to be achieved by 1 January 2008: a) by individual compliance with the same emission limit values as established for the plants referred to in point 2 above or b) through a national emission reduction plan (NERP) that achieves overall reductions calculated on the basis of those emission limit values. The Commission considers that it is possible to adopt a "combined approach" (combination of points a) and b)) for these "existing plants". A NERP must address all three pollutants covered by the Directive for all the plants covered by the plan. (56)ENTEC (2005a).
50
Disadvantages/limitations
Electricity powered by AEs is generally cheaper than land-based
electricity supply.
Electricity powered by AEs is exempt(57
)from national energy and
electricity tax within the EU. However, in 2011 the EU granted
exceptions to Germany(58
) and Sweden(59
) to allow these countries
to supply shore power at a reduced rate (i.e. without paying local
environmental energy taxes) as an incentive to shipping
companies to use shore power.
Considerable capital investment must be made in land-based
power supply utilities.
The international ISO standard for High Voltage Shore
Connections (HVSC) was adopted in 2012 (see chapter 5.2).
Existing technology on cruise ships with cold-ironing capability
often do not comply with the new standards.
Few cruise vessels are equipped with cold-ironing technology and
90% of those that are equipped with such technology use 60Hz
(57)Article 14(1)(c) of the Council Directive (2003/96/EC) (58)COM/2011/0302 final - NLE 2011/0133 / COUNCIL DECISION authorising Germany to apply a reduced rate of electricity tax to electricity directly provided to vessels at berth in a port in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC (59)COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 20 June 2011 authorising Sweden to apply a reduced rate of electricity tax to electricity directly provided to vessels at berth in a port (‘shore-side electricity’) in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC (2011/384/EU).
51
frequency (as opposed to the 50Hz European standard).
Converting 50Hz to 60Hz is costly(60
).
Shore power can only be supplied while vessels are at berth and
not while manoeuvring or during navigation. Port environments
would therefore still be subject to a certain level of emission.
4.2 ISO STANDARD: HIGH VOLTAGE SHORE CONNECTION
(HVSC) SYSTEMS
The international standard (IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-1:2012(E)(61
) for High
Voltage Shore Connection (HVSC) systems applies to cold-ironing
technology on board vessels and the power utilities supplying the shore
power. This ISO standard has been adopted as Danish
standard(62
)DS/ISO/IEC/IEEE 80005-1.
The standard applies to the design, installation and testing of HVSC
systems and addresses:
High-voltage shore distribution systems
Shore-to-ship connection and interface equipment
Transformers/reactors
(60) Report on Shore Power for Cruise Ships, By & Havn and CMP 2012 . (61)IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005-1:2012(E) describes high voltage shore connection (HVSC) systems, on board the ship and on shore, to supply the ship with electrical power from shore. This standard is applicable to the design, installation and testing of HVSC systems and addresses: HV shore distribution systems; shore-to-ship connection and interface equipment; transformers/reactors; semiconductor/rotating convertors; ship distribution systems; and control, monitoring, interlocking and power management systems. It does not apply to the electrical power supply during docking periods, e.g. dry-docking and other out of service maintenance and repair. (62)Utility connections in port – Part 1: High Voltage Shore Connection (HVSC) Systems – General requirements. Danish Standards, Edition 1.0 2012-07.
52
Semiconductor/rotating converters
Distribution systems
Control, monitoring, interlocking and power management systems
The standard does not apply to shore power supplied during dry-docking
and out-of-service maintenance and repair.
4.3 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1. A local sub-station transforms 20-100kV electricity supplied by
the national grid to 6-20kV.
2. Cables deliver the 6-20kV power to the port terminal.
3. Most vessels will require 60Hz power supply, which required
conversion from the 50Hz grid standard to 60Hz.
4. Electricity is distributed to the terminal via high-voltage cables63
.
5. For easy handling, cables are connected to the vessels using an
electro-mechanically powered cable reel system mounted on a reel
tower. A davit would be used to raise the cables to the vessel.
6. The cables are connected to an on-board socket.
(63)High-voltage cables can transport far more electricity than 400V cables of the same dimension. They are also more flexible and easier to use. The capital and maintenance cost is also lower. (Jiven 2004).
53
7. The electricity is then transformed from high voltage to 400V to
be used for on-board power supply. The preferable location for the
transformer is by the main switchboard in the engine room.
Figure 9 Overview of shore-side electricity connection
Source: Reproduced from ENTEC(2005a)
4.4 WORK BARGES AND LNG POWER BARGES
Increasingly, new port facilities are prepared for shore power, such as
those recently constructed in Rotterdam and Copenhagen. However,
some port environments, such as container ports, require gantry cranes,
which limits the options of installing cable reel towers on the pier. See
figure 10. LNG barges with power-generating capacity (6.6kV/11kV,
60Hz) are currently being tested in Hamburg (2012-13). The prototype is
developed by Carl Robert Eckelmann AG.
Advantages to barges in relation to conventional shore power:
Barges are flexible. In the case of power barges they can also sup-
ply electricity to ships in less accessible parts of ports or where
gantry cranes limit options for cable reel towers. In the case of the
Copenhagen cruise port, power barges could also supply shore
54
power to cruise ships calling on the city’s old cruise ship pier in
the inner harbour.
Power barges are monitored by remote control and the required
manpower would more or less be the same as with traditional
shore power.
Power barges supply LNG generated electricity with low emis-
sions (see Figure 10)
Disadvantages to barges in relation to conventional shore power:
At a unit price of €15 million(64
), the capital investment in power
barges may be higher than establishing traditional shore power fa-
cilities in new harbours.
The maximum capacity of projected LNG power barges is 7-
8MW(65
), which is below peak demand for large cruise ships.
Commercial operators may be seeking to introduce vessels with a
peak demand of 16MWh(66
).
Emissions reduction using power barges will in all scenarios be
higher than with conventional shore power supply.
Emissions reduction in the local environment will be higher than
conventional shore power
LNG powered barges will require LNG bunkering facilities67
in
relative close vicinity to the port and few such facilities are cur-
rently available in Europe.
(64)Deutsche Shiffahrts-Zeitung, THB Sonderbeilage, 31 August 2012. (65)Waterborne cold ironing for container vessels, DNV Academy 8 May 2012 (66)Copenhagen Malmö Port (CMP) 2012. (67)The seven Baltic ports that have agreed to promote the development of LNG bunkering infrastructure are: Aarhus, Helsingborg, Helsinki, Malmö-Copenhagen, Tallinn, Turku, Stockholm and Riga. The project was initiated by the Baltic Ports Organization (BPO) and half of the €4.8 million scheme will be financed by the
55
In the case of Copenhagen, using mobile LNG power plants may
not be consistent with the Copenhagen Climate Plan KBH2025,
which required existing power utilities using fossil fuel to switch
to CO2 neutral fuel.
Running time for LNG power barges is approx. 96 hours, which
means supplying cruise vessels that are hoteling over several days
will require a short interruption of power supply while barges are
replaced.
Figure10. Docking arrangement with barge
Source: Reproduced from: ENTEC(2005a)
Figure 10 shows how a barge can be used instead of cable reel towers on
land. Shore-side electrical cables are connected to the cable reel on the
work barge, which is mounted on a turntable allowing it to swivel up to
60 degrees. The turntable can automatically adjust the tension to prevent
European Union TEN-T Transport Infrastructure Programme. BIMCO, Baltic LNG Bunkering to set global benchmark, 4 July 2012 https://www.bimco.org/en/News/2012/07/04_Feature_Week_27.aspx.
56
sagging during tidal changes. A hydraulic boom to the deck of the ship
allows cables to be connected to the ship.
4.5 COLD-IRONING AS RETROFIT
Retrofitting vessels with cold-ironing technology implies modifying
them to support high-voltage shore connections. Generally, cruise ves-
sels are designed with maximum space utilisation and with very limited
free space, especially close to the switchboard. Newer vessels are often
designed with reserve space for cold-ironing retrofitting. The age limit
for cold-ironing technology retrofitting for cruise ships is estimated at 12
years(68
).
Figure11. Cruise vessel engine rooms
Source: Copenhagen and Malmo Port (CMP).
(68)Copenhagen Malmo Port, 2012.
57
Figure 11 shows the engine rooms of a medium-size (B=32.2m) diesel
electric cruise vessel. A cubicle for plug-in shore cables must be mount-
ed on the ship’s side, which requires 1500mmx1600mmx2700mm
(BxDxH) of space. However, the allocated space on board the ship must
be larger than the cubicle to support servicing.
This requires a steel-to-steel space the size of three 800-frame lengths
(2400mm) and a width towards the centre of about 4000mm. A high-
voltage shore connection requires one additional incoming cubicle of an
estimated size of 800mmx1600mmx2200mm (BxDxH).
This additional type-tested cubicle must be connected to the main bus
bars of the switchboard with a compatible link secured against short cir-
cuit both mechanically and electrically.
58
4.6 CURRENT COLD-IRONING MARKET SHARE
The cruise industry is a global business and the vessels that call on
Copenhagen during the summer months operate in the Mediterranean,
the US East Coast and Caribbean during winter.
Figure 12. Distribution of cruise passengers worldwide in 2012.
Source: Copenhagen Malmo Port (CMP), 2011
Figure 12 shows the distribution of cruise vessels during summertime
(i.e. northern hemisphere). The Mediterranean is the principal area for
cruise holidays, followed by the Caribbean, the Baltic Sea and Alaska.
The Caribbean is busiest during winter months.
Currently, only harbours in North America (particularly California and
Alaska) offer cruise ship shore power. Cruise ships operating along the
12%
5%
5%
15%
5%
20%
35%
1% 2%
Passengers July 2012
Alaska
Asia
Australia and Pacific
Baltic
Bermuda and America EastCoast
Caribbean
Mediterranean
California
59
US and Canadian west coast, including Alaska, only have limited
operation in Europe, yet they have the highest market share for cold-
ironing technology since regulation in California requires cruise
operators to use shore power or use abatement technology.
Table 8.Cruise ship during the summer season 2012 with the cold iron capability.
Source: Copenhagen Malmo Port (CMP), 2012.
Table 9. The share of vessels in different operating areas that have cold-ironing
capability.
Source: Copenhagen Malmo Port (CMP), 2012.
Table 9 shows that Alaska is the leading area with an about 50% share of
cold-ironing vessels. The share of cruise ships operating in California
during the winter season that have cold ironing capability is 75%.
Cruise liner Vessels Gross tonnage Time along side
quay (h)
Energy consumption
MW/h*
Emerald Princess 113.561,00 143,00 1.430,00
Costa Deliziosa 92.720,00 9,00 90,00
Eurodam 86.273,00 79,00 790,00
Costa Luminosa 97.720,00 143,00 1.430,00
Arcadia 83.521,00 33,50 335,00
Caribbean Princess 112.894,00 19,00 190,00
Vessels % on number of
vessels % on GT % on passenger
11 42,3 52,1 52,3
0 0 0 0
3 15 28,9 27,1
4 9,3 16,1 16,5
2 5,4 17 14,2
1 11,1 11 11,8
1 2,8 4,2 4
5 4,7 9,4 9,4
11 27,3 34 30,8
0 0 0 0Other or not active
North Sea and North Atlantic
Bermuda and Nord America
Caribbean
Mediterranean
California (winter)
Cold iroing istallation
Alaska
Asia
Australia and Pacific
Baltic
60
4.7 COLD-IRONING PENETRATION IN THE BALTIC SEA
In the Baltic Sea and Mediterranean, no shore power cold-ironing facili-
ties for cruise ships currently exist but about 10-16%(69
) of the vessels
operating in these areas have cold-ironing capability. These vessels are
all rather new and large and in principle “designed to go anywhere”.
In total, 70 different cruise ships called on Copenhagen during the sum-
mer peak season (May-August) in 2012. Of these, only 6 had cold-
ironing capacity. These 6 ships made 38 calls on Copenhagen, which
represents 12% of total cruise ship calls (308) for summer season, and
spent a total of 426.5 hours in Copenhagen. Of the cruise ships operating
in the Baltic Sea, 60% (in relation to capacity) are new and large vessels
that could be retrofitted if shore power utilities were to be established in
Baltic ports.
However, if the switch to cold-ironing in harbours only relies on the re-
newal of the fleet with newer vessels with cold-ironing capacity, it will
take up to 20 years for 80% 70
of the fleet to be ready for cold-ironing.
(69)Data from Copenhagen Malmo Port, 2011. (70)Copenhagen Malmö Port (CMP) 2012.
61
Figure 13 The age of distribution of cruise vessels calling on Copenhagen.
Source: Copenhagen Malmö Port, 2011
Figure14 Statistical probability that a cruise vessel visiting Copenhagen has visited
the harbours in mention
Source: Copenhagen Malmö Port
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Nu
mb
er
of
vess
els
Age of vessel (years)
Age of Baltic Cruise vessels (Copenhagen harbour)
0102030405060708090
100
Pro
ba
bil
ity
(%
) th
e v
ess
el v
isit
s o
the
r h
arb
ou
r
Statistical probability that a cruise vessel visiting Copenhagen has visited the harbours in mention
62
5 DANISH ELECTRICITY SUPPLY – THE NORDIC ENERGY
MIX AND THE COPENHAGEN CLIMATE PLAN 2015
Cold-ironing technology allows ships to connect to the national grid
rather than use AE-generated electricity, which reduces emissions in the
port environment. However, the environmental benefit depends on the
source of power in the national grid.
5.1 NORDIC ENERGY MIX
In Scandinavia, electricity is traded across boarders. The Danish
electricity trade varies greatly and is influenced by price developments
on the Nordic wholesale electricity market, Nord Pool Spot(71
), which
includes Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Estonia. Trading also
takes place with Germany.
Energy supplied on the Nordic wholesale market is influenced by
variable factors:
Precipitation levels at hydropower stations in Norway and Sweden
The price of fuel
The price of CO2 quotas
Table 10. Production split of the Nordic Energy Mix
Source: Based on data from the ENTSO-E Statistical Yearbook 2011.
(71)Real time trading in Nord Pool Spot: http://www.statnett.no/en/The-power-
system/Production-and-consumption/State-of-the-Nordic-Power-System-Map/.
Class of energy sources TWh Share
1. Fossil energy source and peat (Natural gas, coal, oil, peat, non-renewable
waste and recycling fuels)56,1 14,90%
2. Renewable source of energy (Hydro power, biofuel, wind power, solar
power, renewable waste and recycling fuels)240.3 63.6%
3. Nuclear power 80.3 21.3%
4. Non identifiable 0.7 0.2%
63
Table 10 shows the production split of the Nordic Energy Mix.
Naturally, NOx and SO2 emissions result not only from thermal power
generation but also from some renewables, such as biomass and waste
incineration. But the overall mix has a strong component of renewables
and nuclear power that cause limited gaseous emissions. The largest
component of renewable energy is hydropower, which accounts for
52.9%(72
) of all electricity generation in the Nordic Energy Mix.
Figure 15. Danish net export of electricity
Source: Energistatistik 2011, The Danish Energy Agency
Figure 15 shows the net export of electricity from Denmark. In 2011,
Denmark imported 4,7 PJ of electricity (4.3 PJ from Norway and 8.8PJ
from Sweden). Denmark was a net exporter of electricity to Germany of
8,3 PJ(73
). Green: total, Yellow: Germany. Red: Norway, Blue: Sweden.
(72)Nordic Production Split 2004-2011, Nord Pool Spot. (73) Nordic Production Split 2004-2011. Real time exports: http://energinet.dk/Flash/Forside/index.html.
64
5.2 DANISH ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
Despite the liberalised, open trading market for electricity, the major
component of Danish electricity supply comes from the country’s own
power stations. Power supply in Denmark has traditionally been thermal
but is now increasingly reliant on renewables. In 2012, 30% of
electricity(74
) generated in Denmark was wind power. The national
energy plan for Denmark(75
) calls for 50% of Danish electricity supply to
be wind power by 2020. In addition, all fossil fuels, also within
transport, are to be phased out by 2050. Energy production in Denmark
is nonetheless still comparatively more reliant on emissions-producing
sources than other contributors to the Nordic Energy Mix.
Figure16: The split of Danish power production in 2011
Source: Energistatistik 2011, The Danish Energy Agency
(74)Danish wind industry association. http://www.windpower.org/en/news/news.html#727 (75)Danish Energy Agreement, 22 March 2012. http://www.ens.dk/EN-US/POLICY/DANISH-CLIMATE-AND-ENERGY-POLICY/Sider/danish-climate-and-energy-
policy.aspx.
65
Figure 16 shows the split of Danish power production in 2011 according
to source of fuel. Grey: coal, Violet: oil, Yellow: natural gas, Blue: wind
power, Green: other renewables.
5.3. COPENHAGEN CLIMATE PLAN
The peak season for power production in Copenhagen is during the
winter when large amounts of heat are needed for urban district heating.
Excess electricity from heat generation is then generally exported. The
main cruise ship season (April-October with peak season in June) is
during a time of year with low Danish electricity production from
conventional power stations in general. Power production from offshore
wind power in Copenhagen peaks in October-December76 . In June,
wind energy totals 265MWh, in January it peaks at 560MWh.
Power production in Copenhagen is generally becoming greener. The
City of Copenhagen (i.e. the municipality) adopted an ambitious climate
plan in 200977, (revised in 2012 and entitled KBH2025), which aims to
make the city the world’s first “CO2 neutral city by 2025”. With pubic
investments of €360 million and private investments of €2.68-3.35
billion, the plan calls for the replacement of thermal power with
sustainable energy, including biomass, wind power, geothermal heating,
waste incineration and (to a limited extent) biogas from wastewater
treatment. To offset CO2 emissions generated by household gas
consumption (mainly for cooking) and traffic, etc., the city plans to
(76)Lynettens Vindkraft I/S . http://www.lynettenvind.dk/produktion/prod2012.htm. (77)In 2009, when the Copenhagen Climate Plan was adopted, 42% of the power and heating generated in the city was based on coal, while only 13% was based on wind power. CO2 emissions from power production alone accounted for 51% of total CO2
emissions in the city, while heating represented 26%. Transport represented 21%. Source: KBH2015
66
produce more CO2-neutral energy than it consumes. Traffic,
nonetheless, is also targeted with investments in public transport. In
relation to cruise ships, the plan includes requirements that all future
cruise port developments should be “prepared for cold-ironing”.
In 2012, the Copenhagen Climate Plan was ahead of schedule(78) and
within the next 5-7 years, the overall scenario of air emission in
Copenhagen is expected to change significantly. Not only will CO2
levels be diminished, other gaseous pollutants will also be reduced as a
consequence.
Table 11 current emission levels of NOx and SO2 from Copenhagen power stations
in relation to the Nordic Energy Mix
Sources: 2011 annual environmental reports from Dong Energy, Vattenfall and
Amagerforbrændingen/Amager Ressourcecenter.
*The power stations are to remain in service as reserve stations
Table 11 shows the coefficient between power stations in Copenhagen
and the Nordic Power Mix in relation to SO2 /kWh and NOx/kWh. Based
on this data I have assumed that the emissions factor for the Nordic
Energy Mix is a valid measure for emissions from power generation for
(78)Copenhagen Climate Plan 2025, Københavns commune teknik- og miljøforv altningen www.kk.dk/klima.
NameTotal output
(GWh)
Primary energy
source
Secondary
energy sourceg NOx/kWh g SO2/kWh Operational changes
Svanemøllen 145 Gas Light fuel 0.85 0.0003 Closes in 2014*
H.C. Ørstedsværket 883 Gas Heavy/Light fuel 0.23 0.02Closes: Block 1: 2015*,
Block 2: 2023*
Avedøreværket 2199 Gas Biomass 0.19 0.06To convert to 100%
biomass. Date pending
Amagerværket 3754 Biomass Coal 0.17 0.038To convert to biomass.
Date pending
Amagerforbrændingen 3754 Household waste - 0.32 0.69
Will be replaced with a
state-of-and-art utility in
2016
Average emissions 0.352 0.352
Nordic Energy Mix 0.32 0.07
67
the following reasons: 1) The largest contributor of SO2 emissions is the
waste incineration centre that does not produce power in any large scale.
2) the table does not include the city’s offshore wind farm and 3) The
main cruise season is during summer months where the import of cleaner
energy from other Scandinavian countries is generally high.
68
6. HEALTH COST EXTERNALITY OF AIR POLLUTION IN
DENMARK
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Air pollution is high on the international agenda. Consequently, the EU
and WHO (Word Heath Organization) provide directives and guidelines
regarding limit values to minimise the impact on human health (EU
2008(79
); WHO 2006a(80
).
Urban outdoor air pollution is globally responsible for an estimated 1.4%
of premature deaths and 0.5% of disability-adjusted life years lost
(Ezzati et al., 2002(81
)). Studies furthermore indicate that PM is
responsible(82
) for increased mortality and morbidity. Approx. 3% of
adult deaths caused by cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and
approx. 5% of lung and trachea cancers are attributable to PM pollution
(Cohen et al., 2004, Schlesinger et al., 2006(83
)). In Denmark, approx.
3,000-4,000 people die prematurely annually due to atmospheric
pollution (Palmgren et al., 2005(84
)).
(79)EU, 2008: Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, 21 May 2008. (80)WHO, 2006a: WHO air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Global update 2005: Summary of risk assessment. Technical report, World Health Organisation, 2006. (81)Ezzati, et al., 360:1347–1360, 2002. (82)In addition, air pollution is associated with diabetes (Pearson et al., 2010), premature births (Ponce et al., 2005), life expectancy (Pope et al., 2009) and infant mortality (Woodruff et al., 2008). These associations have been demonstrated in both short-term (Maynard et al., 2007) and long-term epidemiological studies (Pelucchi et al., 2009) (83)Cohen, et al., 2004. (84)Palmgren, et al., 2005.
69
Among the tools used when seeking to optimise regulation strategies(85
)
and create effective policies addressing air pollution are valuation
models. Simulations of specific scenarios can be used to assess the cost-
benefit of a hypothetical reduction in emissions, for instance. Generally,
such valuations(86
) study emission concentrations calculated using a
Chemical Transport Model (CTM) that assumes a standardised linear
source-receptor relationship(87
) between emission changes and
subsequent changes in air pollution levels. Model-based valuations are
therefore rough approximations in relation to the real effect of emission
reductions.
This study of health cost externalities of emissions from sea transport
adopts an alternative approach, which calculates the emission impacts
from every individual scenario without assuming linearity of the – in
reality – highly non-linear atmospheric chemistry. The model applied in
this study is the External Valuation of Air Pollution Model (EVA).
(85)Amann et al. (2005) and Watkiss et al. (2005) provide recent examples where they model the effects of implementing the EU Directives on atmospheric ozone and PM concentrations. They estimated that the annual external health costs of ozone and PM in the EU25 countries would amount to €276 - €790 billion annually (2000), which would be reduced by €87 - €181 billion annually if regulation was followed. (86)One example is the RAINS/GAINS system (Alcamo et al., 1990; Klassen et al., 2004), as used by Amann et al. (2005) and Watkiss et al. (2005). (87)A slightly more sophisticated approach has also been applied in RAINS, where the linearity assumption has been substituted for a piecewise linear relationship for PM, and for ozone the relationship may be parameterised using polynomials (Heyes et al., 1996).
70
6.2. THE EXTERNAL VALUATION OF AIR POLLUTION
MODEL
The External Valuation of Air Pollution Model (EVA) is based on an
impact-pathway chain (e.g. Friedrich and Bickel, 2001(88
)) and consists
of a three-dimensional Eulerian model for regional-scale air pollutant
transport and chemical transformation, the Danish Eulerian Hemispheric
Model (DEHM(89
)) and a Gaussian Plume Model for local-scale air
pollutant transport. The geographic domain covered by DEHM is the
Northern Hemisphere, describing the intercontinental contributions
including higher-resolution nesting over Europe. To estimate the effect
of a specific emission source or sector and how specific emission
sources influence air pollution levels, emission inventories for the
specific sources as well natural emission sources are implemented. Using
a new “tagging” method, all scenarios are run individually without
assuming linear behaviour of atmospheric chemistry (i.e. without using
linear extra-/interpolation from standard reductions as for instance used
in the RAINS(90
)/GAINS(91
) system (Alcamo et al., 1990(92
), Klassen et
(88)Friedrich R., and P. Bickel, 2001: Environmental External Costs of Transport. Springer, München, 2001. (89)The Danish Eulerian Hemispheric Model (DEHM) developed by the Centre for Energy, Environment and Health (CEEH), is a three-dimensional, offline, large-scale, Eulerian, atmospheric chemistry transport (CTM) (Christensen, 1997; Christensen et al., 2004; Frohn 2004; Frohn et al., 2001; 2002; 2003; Brandt et al., 2001; 2003; 2007; 2009; Geels et al., 2002; 2004; 2007; Hansen et al., 2004; 2008a; 2008b; Hansen et al., 2011; Hedegaard et al., 2008; 2011) developed to study long-range transport of air pollution in the Northern Hemisphere and Europe. The model domain covers most of the Northern Hemisphere, discretised in a 96 × 96 horizontal grid using a polar stereographic projection. (90) Regional Air Pollution Information and Simulation (RAINS) (91) Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies (GAINS). The GAINS model in its present stage quantifies the potentials and costs of reducing the six greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PCF and SF6) for 43 regions in Europe. (92)Alcamo et al.,1990.
71
al., 2004(93
)). Using a comprehensive CTM to calculate the effects under
specific emission scenarios has the key advantage of accounting for non-
linear chemical transformations and feedback mechanisms influencing
air pollutants. Non-linearity in the source-receptor relationship is
particularly evident for certain atmospheric components, such as NOx,
VOC, ozone, PM, and NH3, in addition to SO2.
In order to obtain estimates of location-specific impacts and costs, the
EVA model has been specifically developed to couple the results from
air pollution models with detailed population data(94
)for Denmark
derived from different sources, including from literature and from costs
functions adapted to Danish conditions. Other components of the EVA
model are economic valuations of individual impacts and exposure
response functions adapted from Watkiss et al. (2005)(95
), which are
based on assessments from EU and WHO health experts. These health
cost estimates are converted to Danish price structures and local
preferences based on the methodology of Watkiss et al. (2005).
6.3 DEFINITION OF THE SCENARIOS
Wide-reaching measures have been undertaken in recent years to remove
harmful secondary inorganic particles (e.g. lead, benzene, and sulphur
from petrol and diesel fuels). Such actions have had a positive,
measurable and significant impact on air pollution levels.
(93 ) Klaassen, G., et al., 2004. (94)Denmark has a central registry detailing the addresses, gender and age of every resident in Denmark (the Central Person Register, CPR). For the European scale data was obtained from EUROSTAT 2000. (95)Watkiss, et al., 2005.
72
However, remote emission sources can also have significant – and
sometimes even greater impact – on human health and the environment
than local-scale emissions. Air pollution, including emissions from sea
transport and industry, can be transported in the atmosphere over
thousands of kilometres and harmful compounds, such as NOx, SO2 and
PM, can be produced by chemical reactions underway.
The EVA model allows us to focus on differentiated scenarios (or
“tags”) to estimate the external heath cost of emissions from specific
sources or sectors (SNAP categories) in specific regions within a given
year. The following scenarios developed using the EVA model seek to
answer two questions:
What is the present and future impact on human health and related
external costs in Europe and Denmark from ship traffic in the
Northern Hemisphere?
What is the present and future impact on human health and related
external costs in Europe and Denmark from ship traffic in the Bal-
tic Sea and the North Sea?
The scenarios (96
) take into account:
The region is where the emission sources are located, i.e. either
Denmark (DK), the whole Northern Hemispheric domain (All/all),
or the Baltic Sea and the North Sea (BaS-NoS).
The sectors are defined as 10 major SNAP categories of emis-
sions-producing sectors of human (anthropogenic) industry. See
(96) J. Brandt et al., 2011: Assessment of Health-Cost Externalities of Air Pollution at the National Level using the EVA Model System, CEEH Scientific Report No 3, Centre for Energy, Environment and Health Report series, March 2011, pp. 23.
73
table 2 (DK/1-DK/10). For this study, SNAP category 15 has been
added, which covers “ship traffic in the Northern Hemisphere”.
The EVA model generally includes “ship traffic in the Northern
Hemisphere” in SNAP category 8, i.e. “other mobile sources”. In
this study, SNAP category 8 is defined as “other mobile sources”
excluding “ship traffic in the Northern Hemisphere”). The catego-
ry (All/15)97
is relevant for the calculation of the external health
cost of all ship traffic in the Northern Hemisphere.
The emission year. The base emission year is 2000, which is also
the base year of many other studies (e.g. the CAFÉ(98
) studies)
and therefore makes it is easier to compare the results in this study
to that of other studies. Scenarios have also been developed for
2007, 2011 and 2020. These particular years are chosen in order to
study the impact of regulatory actions for sulphur emission reduc-
tion in the SECA areas. The European Commission has set a
number of emission reduction targets for 2020, including those de-
fined in the EU Thematic Strategy for Clean Air in Europe(99
) and
the NEC(100
) strategy. This study assumes that these emissions
ceilings will be implemented.
(97) The simulations for 2007 and 2011 are based on emissions in the EMEP database (Mareckova et al., 2008) covering Europe for 2007. Figures for 2020 are based on NEC-II emissions. (98) Clean Air for Europe (CAFÉ). The objectives of CAFE are: to develop, collect and validate scientific information on the effects of air pollution (including validation of emission inventories, air quality assessment, projections, cost-effectiveness studies and integrated assessment modelling); to support the correct implementation and review the effectiveness of existing legislation and to develop new proposals as and when necessary; to ensure that the requisite measures are taken at the relevant level, and to develop structural links with the relevant policy areas. (99)The Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution in 2005 identified a number of key measures to be taken and has defined a set of interim objectives for the improvement of human health and the environment to be met by 2020. (100) DIRECTIVE 2001/81/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants.
74
Table12. Shows the health effects and economic valuation applicable for
Danish/European conditions currently included in the EVA model system.
Source: Centre for Energy, Environment and Health Report series – Roskilde 2011
National Emission Ceilings (NEC), which was amended in 2009 to include all 27 member states, sets upper limits for each country for the total emissions in 2010 of the four pollutants responsible for acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone pollution (SO2, Nox, VOC and ammonia). Member states are to decide on the specific measures to meet the emission ceiling (to be met by 2010). The directive furthermore required member states to develop national programmes by 2002 and revise these in 2006, if needed. Furthermore, member states are to report their emission inventories to the EEA and the European Commission for monitoring. The revision of the NEC Directive was identified as one of the key measures.
Health effects (compounds)Exposure-response coefficient
(α)
Valutation, Euros
(2006-prices)
Chronic Bronchitis (PM) 8.2E-5 cases/µgm-3
(adults) 52,962 per case
= 8.4E-4 days/µgm-3 (adults)
-3.46E-5 days/µgm-3 (adults)
-2.47E-4 days/µgm-3 (adults>65)
-8.42E-5 days/µgm-3
(adults)
Congestive heart failure (PM) 3.09E-5 cases/µgm-3
Congestive heart failure (CO) 5.64E-7 cases/µgm-3
Lung cancer (PM) 1.26E-5 cases/µgm-3
21,152 per case
Respiratory (PM) 3.46E-6 cases/µgm-3
Respiratory (SO2) 2.04E-6 cases/µgm-3
Cerebrovascular (PM) 8.42E-6 cases/µgm-3 10,047 per case
Bronchodilator use (PM) 1.29E-1 cases/µgm-3 23 per case
Cough (PM) 4.46E-1 days/µgm-3 59 per day
Lower respiratory symptoms (PM) 1.72E-1 days/µgm-3 16 per day
Bronchodilator use (PM) 2.72E-1 cases/µgm-3 23 per case
Cough (PM) 2.8E-1 days/µgm-3 59 per day
Lower respiratory symptoms (PM) 1.01E-1 days/µgm-3 16 per day
Lead (Pb) (<1 year)* 1.3 points/µgm-3 24,967 per point
Mercury (Hg) (fosters)* 0.33 points/µgm-3
24,967 per point
Acute mortality (SO2) 7.85E-6 cases/µgm-3
Acute mortality (O3) 3.27E-6*SOMO35 cases/µgm-3
Chronic mortality (PM) 1.138E-3 YOLL /µgm-3
(>30 years) 77,199 per YOLL
Infant mortality (PM) 6.68E-6 cases/µgm-3 (> 9 months) 3,167,832 per case
2,111,888 per case
Morbidity
Asthma children (7.6 % < 16 years)
Asthma adults (5.9 % > 15 years)
Loss of IQ
Mortality
7,931 per case
Restricted activity days (PM) 131 per day
16,409 per case
Hospital admission
75
PM = Particulate Matter
YOLL = Years of Lost Lives
SOMO35 (Sum of Ozone Means Over 35ppb) = the sum of means over 35ppb for the
daily maximum 8-hour values of ozone.
Table Table 13 Definition of the specific scenarios (or “tags”) in the model. Each
scenario is defined by a region and a SNAP category (first column), an emission
year (second column), a short description of the emissions of interest in the scenario
(column 3)
Source: Centre for Energy, Environment and Health Report series – Roskilde 2011
The North Sea (NoS) and Baltic Sea (BaS) are part of the Sulphur Emission Control
Areas (SECA).
Region/SNAP Emission year Emission scenario (or the "tag")
All/15
2000 Int. ship traffic for the year 2000, (S=2,7%)*, whole model
domain (EMEP=2000)
All/15
2007 Int. ship traffic for the year 2007, (S=1,5%)*, whole model
domain (EMEP=2006)
All/15
2011 Int. ship traffic for the year 2011, (S=1,0%)*, whole model
domain (EMEP=2016)
All/15
2020 Int. ship traffic for the year 2020, (S=0,1%)*, whole model
domain (EMEP=NEC-II)
Region/SNAP Emission year Emission scenario (or the "tag")
BaS-NoS/15
2000 Int. ship traffic for the year 2000, (S=2,7%)*, whole model
domain (EMEP=2000)
BaS-NoS/15
2007 Int. ship traffic for the year 2007, (S=1,5%)*, whole model
domain (EMEP=2006)
BaS-NoS/15
2011 Int. ship traffic for the year 2011, (S=1,0%)*, whole model
domain (EMEP=2016)
BaS-NoS/15
2020 Int. ship traffic for the year 2020, (S=0,1%)*, whole model
domain (EMEP=NEC-II)
76
6.4 PRESENT AND FUTURE HEALTH IMPACT IN EUROPE
AND DENMARK OF INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING
Ship traffic in the Northern Hemisphere (scenario All/15) constitutes a
major impact on human health.
Table 14. Shows the estimated mortalities in Europe
Source: Centre for Energy, Environment and Health Report series – Roskilde 2011
Table 14 shows the estimated mortalities in Europe(101
) to be 49,000 (in
2000), increasing to 53,400 (in 2020) based on chronic YOLL divided
by the factor 10.6 given in the CAFE report, Watkiss et al., 2005(102
).
Calculations of annual external costs in Europe from sea transport are
(101)According to Corbett and Fischbeck (1997), pollution from international ship traffic causes roughly 60,000 mortalities annually worldwide. (102)A similar study for the USA performed by the US-EPA estimates 21,000 premature deaths with a related external cost of $47-$110 bn in the year 2020 (US-EPS, 2009).
Health impact
Year 2000 2007 2011 2020
Chronic Bronchitis 1.89E+04 1.51E+04 1.31E+04 1.23E+04
Restricted Activity Days 1.94E+07 1.55E+07 1.34E+07 1.26E+07
Respiratory Hospital Admissions 1.16E+03 8.82E+02 7.46E+02 6.60E+02
Cerebrovascular Hospital Admissions 2.43E+03 1.94E+03 1.68E+03 1.58E+03
Congestive Heart Failure 1.25E+03 1.00E+03 8.67E+02 8.14E+02
Lung Cancer 2.90E+03 2.32E+03 2.00E+03 1.88E+03
Bronchodilator Use Children 5.65E+05 4.51E+05 3.90E+05 3.67E+05
Bronchodilator Use Adults 3.71E+06 2.96E+06 2.56E+06 2.41E+06
Cough Children 1.95E+06 1.56E+06 1.35E+06 1.27E+06
Cough Adults 3.82E+06 3.05E+06 2.64E+06 2.48E+06
Lower Respiratory Symptoms Children7.53E+05 6.01E+05 5.20E+05 4.89E+05
Lower Respiratory Symptoms Adults 1.38E+06 1.10E+06 9.51E+05 8.94E+05
Acute YOLL 5.55E+02 2.40E+02 1.43E+02 2.51E+02
Chronic YOLL 2.16E+05 1.72E+05 1.49E+05 1.40E+05
Infant mortality 2.13E+01 1.70E+01 1.47E+01 1.38E+01
Number of cases in Europe
77
estimated to increase from €58.4 billion (2000) to €64.1 billion(103
)
annually in 2020. The temporary deviation in the upward trend of
increased ship traffic and subsequent increased health costs (2007-2011)
is most probably due to the introduction in 2015 of the SECAs in the
North Sea and Baltic Sea, which sees the sulphur content in fuel reduced
from 2.7% (2000) to 0.1% (from 2015)(104
).
The annual external health costs in Denmark related to all shipping
(table 15) is expected to decrease from €805 million (2000) to €484
million(105
) in 2020. This decrease is most probably the result of the
introduction of the SECA area.
Table 15 . Total number of health cases in Denmark related to ship emissions in the
Baltic and North Sea
Source: Centre for Energy, Environment and Health Report series – Roskilde 2011
(103 ) J. Brandt et al., 2011: Assessment of Health-Cost Externalities of Air Pollution at the National Level using the EVA Model System, CEEH Scientific Report No 3, Centre for Energy, Environment and Health Report series, March 2011, pp. 98.http://www.ceeh.dk/CEEH_Reports/Report_3/CEEH_Scientific_Report3.pdf (104)Ibid refers to the work previously quoted. (105)Ibid refers to the work previously quoted.
Health impact
Year 2000 2007 2011 2020
Chronic Bronchitis 5.56E+02 4.33E+02 3.85E+02 3.35E+02
Restricted Activity Days 5.56E+05 4.42E+05 3.93E+05 3.43E+05
Respiratory Hospital Admissions 3.49E+01 2.57E+01 2.20E+01 1.77E+01
Cerebrovascular Hospital Admissions 7.01E+01 5.45E+01 4.85E+01 4.22E+01
Congestive Heart Failure 3.82E+01 2.97E+01 2.65E+01 2.31E+01
Lung Cancer 8.52E+01 6.62E+01 5.89E+01 5.13E+01
Bronchodilator Use Children 1.51E+04 1.71E+04 1.05E+04 9.10E+03
Bronchodilator Use Adults 1.09E+05 8.46E+04 7.53E+04 6.56E+04
Cough Children 5.21E+04 4.06E+04 3.61E+04 3.15E+04
Cough Adults 1.12E+05 8.71E+04 7.75E+04 6.75E+04
Lower Respiratory Symptoms Children3.34E+04 3.07E+04 2.98E+04 3.01E+04
Lower Respiratory Symptoms Adults 4.04E+04 3.14E+04 2.80E+04 2.43E+04
Acute YOLL 2.14E+01 9.91E+00 5.41E+00 3.05E+00
Chronic YOLL 5.95E+03 4.62E+03 4.11E+03 3.58E+03
Infant mortality 6.99E-01 5.44E-01 4.84E-01 4.21E-01
Number of cases in Denmark
78
Table 15 Total number of health cases in Denmark related to the impact
of emissions from ship traffic in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea
(scenario: BaS-NoS/15) for the four respective years.
The introduction of a SECA in the Baltic Sea and North Sea will have a
significant impact on emissions and external health costs in the region,
especially considering that shipping in this region is relatively large
compared to other regions of the world(106
). This especially applies to
the Danish straits that connect the North Sea with the Baltic Sea (the
Sound and the Great Belt).
The total annual health-related external cost in Europe from ship traffic
in the Baltic Sea and North Sea is estimated at €22 billion (2000), which
is set to fall to €14.1 billion annually in 2020 – a total reduction of 35%.
The impact on health is shown on tables 13 and 14. The health-related
external costs for Denmark of ship traffic in the Baltic Sea and the North
Sea is estimated at €627 million annually (2000), which is set to fall to
€357 million annually in 2020 (a total reduction of 43%). This
significant reduction in external health costs is most probably due to the
introduction of the SECA in the region. Nevertheless, the external health
impact from ship traffic in the North Sea and Baltic Sea SECA will
remain significant, not least due to NOx emissions, which are not
targeted by the introduction of the SECA.
(106)Ibid refers to the work previously quoted.
79
6.5 EXTERNALITY COSTS PER KG EMISSION
The external health costs per kg(107
)for each chemical compound for all
international ship traffic (scenario All/15) and ship traffic in the North
Sea and Baltic Sea (scenario BaS-NoS/15) are listed in table 15. The
listed kg unit prices for each compound vary according to the year of
emission and the characteristics associated with each sector/ scenario
(i.e. the relationship between the geographical distribution of emission
sources and the geographical distribution of the population affected by
the emissions).
Table 16: Cost per kg emission (in unit €/kg –C, -S, -N, or –PM2.5) for the 10 major
individual SNAP categories for Denmark (DK/1-DK/10)
Source: Centre for Energy, Environment and Health Report series – Roskilde 2011
Table 16 shows the cost per kg emission (in unit €/kg –C, -S, -N, or –
PM2.5) for the 10 major individual SNAP categories for Denmark
(DK/1-DK/10), for all emissions in Denmark (DK/all), for ship traffic in
the Northern Hemisphere (All/15), for ship traffic in the Baltic Sea and
(107)The cost per kg is used by the Centre for Energy, Environment and Health (CEEH) in energy optimization models Balmorel.
REGION/SNAP
code Emission year CO [C] SO2[S] Nox [N] PM2,5
All/15 2000 -0,006 26,7 28,5 22,1
All/15 2007 -0,005 23,6 28,0 18,9
All/15 2011 -0,005 22,5 28,2 18,2
All/15 2020 -0,009 20,9 28,6 17,0
BaS-NoS/15 2000 0,001 39,0 31,7 35,0
BaS-NoS/15 2007 0,001 37,1 34,9 35,0
BaS-NoS/15 2011 0,001 34,4 35,9 35,0
BaS-NoS/15 2020 0,000 23,1 45,0 35,3
80
the North Sea (BaSNoS/15), and for all emissions in the Northern
Hemisphere from whatever source (All/all). For the latter three
categories, the calculations were carried out for four different emission
years.
To calculate the cost per kg emission specifically related to cruise
vessels in Copenhagen, I have used a conversion factor to convert the
unit cost per kg S and N into SO2 and NOx.
The conversion factor between S and SO2 is (32+2*16)/32 = 2.
The conversion factor between N and NOx is (14+2*16)/14 =
3.2857
Table 17: Externality cost per kg emission – €/kg – scenario All/15
Source: Centre for Energy, Environment and Health Report series – Roskilde 2011
Table 17 shows Externality cost per €/kg scenario in the Northern
Hemisphere (All/15). The conversion factor between S and SO2 is
(32+2*16)/32 = 2. The conversion factor between N and NOx is
(14+2*16)/14 = 3.2857
Region/SNAP codeEmission per
year SO2 [S] NOx [N] PM2.5
All/15 2000 26,7 28,5 22,1
All/15 2007 23,6 28 18,9
All/15 2011 22,5 28,2 18,2
All/15 2020 20,9 28,6 17
Table 1 -Externality cost per kg emission - Euros/kg
Region/SNAP codeEmission per
year SO2 [SO2] NOx [NO2] PM2.5
All/15 2000 13,35 8,67 22,1
All/15 2007 11,8 8,52 18,9
All/15 2011 11,25 8,58 18,2
All/15 2020 10,45 8,70 17
Table 2 -Externality cost per kg emission - Euros/kg
81
Table 18: Externality cost per kg emission – €/kg – scenario BaS-NoS/15
Source: Centre for Energy, Environment and Health Report series – Roskilde 2011
Table 18 shows Externality cost per €/kg scenario in the Baltic Sea and
North Sea (BaS-NoS/15). The conversion factor between S and SO2 is
(32+2*16)/32 = 2. The conversion factor between N and NOx is
(14+2*16)/14 = 3.2857
Region/SNAP codeEmission per
year SO2 [S] NOx [N] PM2.5
BaS-NoS/15 2000 39 31,7 22,1
BaS-NoS/15 2007 37,1 34,9 18,9
BaS-NoS/15 2011 34,4 35,9 18,2
BaS-NoS/15 2020 23,1 45 17
Table 1 -Externality cost per kg emission - Euros/kg
Region/SNAP codeEmission per
year SO2 [SO2] NOx [NO2] PM2.5
BaS-NoS/15 2000 19,5 9,65 35
BaS-NoS/15 2007 18,55 10,62 35
BaS-NoS/15 2011 17,2 10,93 35
BaS-NoS/15 2020 11,55 13,70 35,3
Table 2 -Externality cost per kg emission - Euros/kg
82
7 PRESENTATION OF STUDY CASE: COPENHAGEN CRUISE
PORT
7.1 CRUISE INDUSTRY
The cruise industry currently accounts for 5% of global tourism.
Internationally, the number of cruise ships has increased by 30% since
2006 and over the next few years the fleet is expected to grow by 5-10%
annually.
Europe has seen some of the biggest increases, but South America and
Asia are also experiencing strong growth.
7.2 TOTAL TRAFFIC
Copenhagen has established itself as the main cruise gateway to the
Baltic Sea and Norway. The city’s leading position is reflected in the
total number of visiting vessels and passengers. Copenhagen is a major
turnaround port, i.e. receiving calls to port where passengers either begin
or terminate their cruise in the city. The number of turnarounds in
Copenhagen rose to 173 in 2012, up from 142 in 2010.
83
Figure 17.Growth of cruise traffic and cruise passengers in Copenhagen
Source: Copenhagen Malmo Port. (CMS)
Figure 17 shows the growth of cruise traffic and cruise passengers in
Copenhagen. The decline in 2010 was due to the economic crisis in
2009, which affected the cruise industry worldwide.
Growth in percentages:
Total passenger growth from 2005-2012 was 96% (i.e. 16% per
annum).
The rise in cruise vessels calling to port between 2005-2012 was
33% (i.e. 5% per annum).
The forecasted annual growth in Copenhagen for the next three
years is 5-10%, which is in tune with the international trend(108
).
(108)G.P. Wild and BREA for Copenhagen Cruise Network , 2012.
264 282 280 289 301 334
307
368 375 362
428 458
509 560
675 662
820 840
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2004 2005 2206 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Crusie ship
Passengers(1.000)
84
The cruise season in Copenhagen runs from early April to late October.
In recent years, the season has also resumed temporarily for Christmas
cruises in December. In 2012, 6 cruise ships arrived in December, up
from 2 in 2011. In 2011, volumes were highest in June, which saw 93
arrivals, followed by July with 90 and August with 87.On the most
intensive day, Copenhagen welcomed a total of 30,000 cruise passengers
from 156 different countries(109
) to Copenhagen.
7.3 SIZE OF VESSELS
Globally, cruise vessels have grown in size in recent years. The biggest
cruise vessels operate in the Caribbean and the smallest in Asia and
Oceania. Baltic cruise vessels average 60,000 gross register tons (grt)
and have an average capacity of 1,700 passengers corresponding to the
worldwide average (see Figure 18 and Figure 19). New cruise vessels for
the northern European market have a capacity for around 3,000
passengers. For the Baltic Sea, there may be a commercial interest in
vessels with a capacity of up to 4,000 passengers. And larger vessels
generally also have a growing thirst for energy, averaging around 3kWh
per passenger.
(109)Among these approx. 27% were from Germany, 17% from the US/Canada, 13% from the UK, 10% from Spain, and 10% from Italy.
85
Figure 18 shows the size distribution of cruise vessels worldwide per gross register
tonnes
Source: Copenhagen Malmo Port. (CMS)
Figure 19 shows the size distribution of cruise vessels worldwide per passengers
Source: Copenhagen Malmo Port. (CMS)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
75436
30679 41089
58618
92344
86170
50927
91845
19081
56134
Gro
ss r
eg
iste
r ro
n
Average Cruise ship size
Gross register ton
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2172
1034 1192
1726
2822 2808
1614
2800
717
1749
Pa
sse
ng
ers
Average Cruise ship size
Passengers
86
Figure 20: The projected increase in size of new cruise vessels Northern Europe.
Source: Copenhagen Malmö Port (CPM).
Figure 20 shows the projected increase in size of new cruise vessels
Northern Europe operated by Aida Cruise and TUI Cruises.
Figure 21 shows the size distribution of cruise vessels visiting Copenhagen in 2011
and 2012 (number of call).
Source: Copenhagen Malmö Port (CPM).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
500 501 to1000
1001to
1500
1501to
2000
2001to
2500
2501to
3000
3001to
3500
above3501
22
28
23
11
36
24
13 17
Nu
mb
er
of
call
s p
er
ye
ar
Number of passengers
Copenhagen 2011 and 2012
Number of calls
87
Figure 21 shows the size distribution of cruise vessels visiting
Copenhagen in 2011 and 2012 (passengers).
Figure 22 Total number of passengers in relation to specific ship sizes
Source: Copenhagen Malmö Port (CPM).
Figure 22 shows the total number of passengers in relation to specific
ship sizes (501-1,000 passengers, etc.) in cruise ships visiting
Copenhagen
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
500 501 to1000
1001to
1500
1501to
2000
2001to
2500
2501to
3000
3001to
3500
above3501
5000
21000 29000
19000
82000
66000
47000
62000
To
tal
nu
mb
er
of
pa
sse
ng
ers
in
p
art
icu
lar
ve
sse
l si
ze
Number of passengers
Copenhagen 2011 and 2012
Passenger total
88
Figure 23: The increase in power demand (kWh) in relation to passenger load.
Source: Copenhagen Malmö Port (CPM).
Figure 23 show the typical Baltic cruise vessels carries 1,700 passengers
and the biggest approx. 3,000 passengers. The average power demand
for the large vessels is 8,000kWh and peak load is 14,000kWh. The
power supply per passenger is 2.67-4.67kWh (with the average around
3kWh).
7.4 COMPETITIVE POSITION
Geographically, Copenhagen is well positioned as the cruise holiday
gateway to Norway and the Baltic Sea. However, maintaining the city’s
market share also depends on economic and other competitive factors.
y ~ 3 kW per passenger
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Po
we
r (k
W)
Passenger number
Cruise vessels
89
Key competitive parameters:
Copenhagen is the largest cruise hub in the Baltic Sea (passengers
and traffic)
Copenhagen is the main turnaround port for cruise ships in the
Baltic
Copenhagen Airport is Scandinavia’s largest hub. The airport has
been awarded by the Air Transport Research Society (ATRS) as
“Europe’s Most Efficient Airport” for the last seven years out of
nine, most recently in 2012
As an indicator of competitive standing, Copenhagen has been
hailed as “Europe’s Leading Cruise Port” by travel industry
players at the World Travel Awards in 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011,
and 2012.
Satisfaction among passengers and crewmembers with
Copenhagen as a tourist destination in 2011 was 95%, whereas
91%(110
) expressed that their experience had exceeded
expectation. The overall satisfaction score in Copenhagen is
higher than the European average on all parameters
Key parameters that could threaten competitiveness:
Capacity problems at the Port of Copenhagen (however, with the
new cruise pier this is unlikely)
(110)G.P. Wild and BREA for Copenhagen Cruise Network , 2012
90
A fall in Baltic cruise tourism due to price hikes as a result of new
environmental regulation that may impact the cost of fuel (SECA)
or that may impact the cost of port dues or other overheads
Competition from ports in other Baltic cities offering a
competitive price structure and/or better infrastructure
Competition from Baltic ports in cities that are top-of-mind among
international travellers.
A loss of status at Copenhagen Airport as the Scandinavian
region’s major hub (e.g. competition from Berlin may change
travel pattern in Scandinavia)
Figure 24 shows passenger growth per year in the five most popular destinations in
the Baltic Sea.
Source: Copenhagen Malmö Port (CMP)
91
Figure 24 shows the growth in cruise passengers between the 5 major
destinations in the Baltic Sea (1999-2009). Copenhagen welcomed
840,000 cruise passengers in 2012.
Figure 25: The correlation whereby a visiting cruise vessel is likely to have visited
another specific city in the Baltic Sea.
Source: Copenhagen Malmö Port
Figure 25 shows the correlation whereby a visiting cruise vessel in
Copenhagen is likely to have visited another specific city in the Baltic
Sea. Those with the highest percentage are likely to be among
Copenhagen’s greatest competitors as cruise hub. However, 27% of all
cruise passengers(111
) starting their Baltic Cruise in Copenhagen in 2012
came from Germany. So German harbours area also potential
competitors.
(111)Copenhagen Malmö Port Annual Report 2011
0
20
40
60
80
100 91 86 82 75
35 29 28 28 23
16 13 12 12 12 7 5 5 5
Pro
ba
bil
ity
(%
) th
e v
ess
el
vis
its
oth
er
ha
rbo
ur
Other harbours visited, counted on cruise vessels visiting Copenhagen
92
Tourist revenues from the cruise industry in Copenhagen have been
estimated at €113,5 million in 2012(112
). Adding to this, the cruise
industry generated a turnover of €79,35 million at the Port of
Copenhagen for fuel, water, repair services and other supplies. The
cruise industry accounts for a total of 2,045 jobs in the city.
7.5 LOGISTICS
To maintain its leading competitive position and to accommodate the
growth in overall traffic and size of cruise vessels, the Port of
Copenhagen development company, By & Havn, has constructed a new
1,100-meter cruise ship pier in Nordhavn (called Oceankaj). The new
pier is located at a distance from existing urban environments, although a
new urban district is planned on 1 million m2 of reclaimed land by
Nordhavn, which will eventually be home to 50,000 people when fully
developed in 2040. The new pier will replace cruise port facilities at
Orientbassinet and Kronløbsbassinet. Cruise ships will continue to call
on the city’s old cruise ship pier, Langelinie.
(112)G.P. Wild & BREA, February 2012.
93
7.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Noise reduction was the principal motivation for the relocation of cruise
port activities from Orientbassinet and Kronløbsbassinet to the new
cruise pier, Oceankaj, according to the Environmental Impact
Assessment(113
). The docklands by Orientbassinet and Kronløbsbassinet
are currently under development as a mixed-use urban district.
According to the report, the risk of air emissions reaching limit levels at
the cruise pier was negligible for the foreseeable future due to its
exposed position in the sea (the Sound) where winds generally carry
emissions eastward and due to the fact that urban development in the
area around Oceankaj will not commence before 10-15 years time. The
pier is nonetheless prepared for cold-ironing as required by the
Copenhagen Climate Plan, KBH2025.
An environmental study(114
) was carried out in 2004 at all of the city’s
cruise ship piers at the time, Orientbassinet, Kronløbsbassinet and
Langelinie. The aim was to assess the contribution to air pollution by
cruise ships at berth in Copenhagen. The main focus was NO2, SO2 and
PM10. In general, ozone levels limit the amount of NOX that can be con-
verted to NO2, which in terms of limit values is the compound of inter-
est. Atmospheric dispersion calculations were conducted using the
OML-Multi 5.03 model based on emissions data, technical data from
(113)Udvidelse af Københavns Nordhavn og ny krydstogtterminal VVM-redegørelse og miljøvurdering, the Danish Coastal Authority and the Municipality of Copenhagen, May 2009 (114)Valuering af krydstogskibes bidrag til luftforurening, The Danish Environmental Agency, 2005.
94
vessels, meteorological data, receptor height, and background emission
concentrations, etc.
The report findings:
In relation to NO2, cruise ships only contributed 10 μg/m3 to the
background value of 88 μg/m3 in relation to “the 19
th hour”, i.e.
below the limit value of 200 μg/m3(
115).
In relation to annual average, cruise ships contributed 0.8 μg/m3 to
the background NO2 pollution of 23 μg/m3, i.e. below limit value
of 40 μg/m3.
No other emission particles exceeded EU limit values.
70% of the NOx emissions were nonetheless concentrated at 2
berths.
The report also noted the comparatively low annual contribution
of NOx from cruise ships (140 tons) in relation to total emissions
from all ships in the harbour (600 tons), from international ship-
ping (67,000 tons), from all road traffic in Copenhagen (30,000
tons) and from a local power station, Amagerværket (2,500 tons).
If a similar environmental study were to be conducted today, what fac-
tors may have changed?
Factors that may have increased the share of airborne emissions from
cruise ships in relation to other sources:
(115)EU directive (99/30/EC) sets a limit for NO2 that is based on hourly concentrations. The hourly concentration of NO2 is allowed to exceed a limit of 200 μg/m3 no more than 18 times a year.
95
While cruise traffic has risen at the Port of Copenhagen, cargo
traffic has fallen. The number of calls to port (including the rising
cruise traffic) has consistently fallen(116
). See Table 18 and Figure
26.
Since the 2005 survey (using 2004 data) was carried out, the num-
ber of cruise passengers and turnarounds has doubled. See Figure
17.
The size of cruise ships has risen and emissions are also to a cer-
tain extent made at a different height, which may impact NOx lev-
els at certain berths at Langelinie.
The comparative contribution of NOx and PM from cruise vessels
and other sources in Copenhagen may also have changed, e.g. the
local power station, Amagerværket, emitted 2,500 tons of NOx in
2004 (as cited in the report), but in 2011 the NOx emission from
the power station was 141 tons(117
), i.e. equalling the NOx emis-
sions from cruise ships in 2004.
Factors that may have decreased or left unchanged the comparative im-
pact of emissions from cruise ships at berth in the Copenhagen harbour:
The new cruise pier is located in the open at some distance from
the city centre where meteorological conditions (exposure to
wind) will mean lower concentrations of emissions. The new pier
mainly handles turnarounds.
Although NOx emissions from road traffic in Copenhagen has
fallen in recent years, NO2 emissions have not fallen comparative- (116)Statistics Denmark (2011) http://www.statistikbanken.dk/statbank5a/selectvarval/define.asp?MainTable=SKIB101&PLanguage=0&Tabstrip=&PXSId=0&SessID=117889701&FF=2&tfrequency=1 (117)The 2011 Environmental Report, Dong Energy.
96
ly(118
), which may mean that the background air pollution level
may not have improved considerably.
Factors that may influence the share of airborne emissions from cruise
ships in relation to other sources in the near future:
Emissions from cruise ships in general may decrease after 2015 as
the result of the SECA.
With the introduction of the SECA, the overall background emis-
sion level may decrease after 2015.
New cruise vessels constructed after 2016 (with Tier III engines)
will emit less NOx.
The above factors indicate that although limit values in today’s scenario
are unlikely to be exceeded by emissions from cruise ships in Copenha-
gen, the contribution to overall emissions compared to other sources of
air pollution has probably risen.
Table 19.All in calls to port in Copenhagen and gross tonnage handling.
Year Total calls to port
(incl. cruise ships)
Cargo (1000 grt)
2011 2566 5584
2010 2635 5142
2009 2814 5760
2008 3295 7223
2007 3948 7279
Source: Statistics Denmark, 2011
(118)Air Quality Assessment of Clean Air Zones in Copenhagen, Aarhus University 2012.
97
Figure 26. All in calls to port in Copenhagen and gross tonnage handling
Source: Statistics Denmark, 2011
Table 19 and figure 26 show that despite the rise in cruise ship traffic the
overall traffic figures and gross tonnage handling for the Port of
Copenhagen has fallen in recent years.
Figure 27. NO2 concentration at Langelinie cruise ship pier in Copenhagen in
relation to the limit value of the “19th hour” (2004).
Source: Valuering af krydstogskibes bidrag til luftforurening, The Danish Environmental
Agency, 2005.
98
Figure 27 shows NO2 concentration at Langelinie in Copenhagen in
relation to the limit value of the “19th hour”. It shows emissions from
cruise ships in relation to urban background pollution, which is assumed
constant. The values all range between 98 and 101 μg/m3 (the limit value
is 101 μg/m3).
Figure 28 Map of Nordhavn in the Port of Copenhagen.
99
Map references
1 Oceankaj: Copenhagen’s new 1,100-meter cruise ship pier, which is prepared for
cold-ironing. Opens for the season in 2013. Terminal buildings will be completed in
2014.
2 Langelinie: Copenhagen’s classic cruise ship pier. The pier is not prepared for
cold-ironing.
3 Ferry terminal: connections to Oslo and Swinoujscie. The terminal is not prepared
for cold-ironing.
4 Orientbassinet/Kronløbsbassinet: Until 2012 used as cruise pier.
5 Aarhusgadekvarteret: (phase 1 in orange and phase II in yellow). Currently under
development as a mixed-use urban district.
6 Future urban district developed on reclaimed land
7 Frihavnen: mixed-use urban dockland development
100
8. COLD IRONING FEASIBILITY AND COST BENEFIT
8.1 COST OF ON-BOARD GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY
USING AUXILIARY ENGINES
The total costs for on-board generation of electricity depends on the
design of the power supply system and the fuel used. Adding to this are
capital investment and maintenance costs that vary depending on the
type of engine. These are in turn dependant on running hours per year
and age of the engine. Specific fuel consumption for engines using MD
is assumed to be: 217g/kWh(119
).
Figure 29: Coefficient of Rotterdam sport market for 0.1% sulphur MGO and the
Bunkerworld Index November 2012 – January 2013.
Source: www.bunkerworld.com 2013-02-02
(119)European Commission Directorate General Environment Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments; page 33; Final Report August 2005 ENTEC, UK.
101
Figure 30 Bunker fuel prices (US$/ton) in Rotterdam for a running 6-month period.
Source: www.bunkerworld.com 2013-02-02
Figure 30 shows the 5-monthly average bunker price in Rotterdam from
Oct 2012 to Feb 2013 for 1.00% sulphur and 0.1% sulphur MGO.
Assuming an energy consumption of a hoteling cruise vessel is
10MWh(120
) then 2.17 tons of fuel is needed. Using the current five-
monthly average oil price ($US946=€708.123)(121
) then the cost of
generating 10MWh is €1,536.63. One average call to port of 10 hours
amounts approximately to: €15,3 million.
The total consumption of all cruise vessels calling on Copenhagen
during the summer (308 vessels in 2012) amounts to €4.7 million.
(120)P. Ericsson, I. Fazlagic (2008) (121 )Bunker fuel price (USD/ton) in Rotterdam for a running 4 month period. Source www.bunkerworld.com Source: www.bunkerworld.com 2013-02-02 .
102
8.2 ELECTRICITY COST: MARKET RATE AND REDUCED
RATE
MARKET RATE
The electricity rate per kWh excluding VAT to be paid by cruise
operators is about DKK 1.40 kWh= 0.188 €/kWh according to CMP(122
).
Assuming an energy consumption of 10MWh then the consumption
price per hour is €1,880.00. An average 10-hour stay would amount to
€18,800.00
The total consumption of all cruise vessels calling on Copenhagen
during the summer (308 vessels in 2012) would amount to €5,790,400 if
they used shore power.
REDUCED RATE
A very interesting scenario, however, is if Denmark, like Sweden(123
)
and Germany(124
), were to be granted an exemption from Council
Directive (2003/96/EC), Article 14(1)(c) to exempt vessels from paying
environmental tax on energy consumption as an incentive for cruise
(122)Dong Energy, Denmark’s largest energy supplier, list their industry tariff as €0,167 DKK 1.25 on average. (123)SEE NOTE COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 20 June 2011 authorising Sweden to apply a reduced rate of electricity tax to electricity directly provided to vessels at berth in a port (‘shore-side electricity’) in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC (2011/384/EU) (124)COM/2011/0302 final - NLE 2011/0133 / COUNCIL DECISION authorising Germany to apply a reduced rate of electricity tax to electricity directly provided to vessels at berth in a port ("shore-side electricity") in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION authorising Germany to apply a reduced rate of electricity tax to electricity directly provided to vessels at berth in a port ("shore-side electricity") in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2003/96/EC.
103
operators to use shore power. In this case, the electricity price would be
just DKK 0,60kWh(125
)= 0,08 €/kWh. Assuming an energy consumption
of 10MWh then the consumption price per hour is €880.
The total electricity consumption of all cruise vessels calling on
Copenhagen during the summer (308 vessels in 2012) would amount to
€2,710,400.00.
Table20. Electricity cost €/kWh
Electricity cost – market rate (€/kWh)
Electricity cost – excluding environmental tax
(€/kWh)
AE-power (MGO 0,1%) (€/kWh)
0.188 0.08 0.1537
Table 20 shows the price per €/kWh of market rate and reduced rate
electricity provided by cold-ironing and the price per €/kWh of AE-
generated power. The reduced rate requires exemption from Council
Directive (2003/96/EC), Article 14(1)(c)(126
).
8.3 COLD-IRONING BUSINESS CASE
The aim of environmental taxes is to create an incentive for consumers
and companies to make sustainable choices. However, the environmental
taxes levied on shore power have the opposite effect – dissuading cruise
operators from using shore power in favour of AE-generated power.
However, based on the assumption that Denmark could achieve an
exemption from Council Directive (2003/96/EC) Article 14(1)(c) to
exempt vessels from paying environmental tax on electricity (as is the
(125)Source: CMP, 2012.
104
case with Sweden and Germany) there could be a business case for
introducing cold-ironing in Copenhagen. This scenario would offer an
economic incentive to use shore power, even with today’s bunker price
for 0.1% sulphur MGO.
Table 21. Coefficient of electricity rates
Table 21 shows the total saving per year using cold-ironing in relation to
AE-generated power, provided Denmark is given an exemption from
Council Directive (2003/96/EC) Article 14(1)(c) to exempt vessels from
paying environmental tax on electricity
With the difference in price between AE-generated electricity and shore
power, a cruise vessel with an energy demand of 10MWh staying an
average 10 hours in Copenhagen a total of 10 times during the May -
August season would save €73,700 annually, excluding the savings on
manpower and maintenance of the AE. With this annual saving, the
payback time for retrofitting a cruise vessel (an average of €0.75 million
per cruise vessel) would be 10-12 years with an annual interest rate of
4%. This does not indicate a very good return on invest for cruise
Electricity cost
€/kWh Time pier (h)
Energy need per
berth (kW)
Avarage call
per year
Total saving cost
per year, per
vessels using cold
ironing
AE-power (MGO 0,1%)
(€/kWh) 0,1537 10 10000 10 € 153.700
Electricity cost –
excluding
environmental tax
(€/kWh)
0,08 10 10000 10 € 80.000
€ 73.700Cost per year using cold iroing
105
operators. But if 2 major cruise ship ports in the Baltic Sea were to
introduce shore power, the payback time would be 5.1 years.
Table 22. Total annual saving and payback time of retrofitting a vessel with cold-
ironing capability
Table 22 shows the total annual saving in electricity supply and total
payback time of retrofitting a vessel with cold-ironing capability if the
number of major cruise destinations offering shore power were to
increase.
To establish cold-ironing in the Port of Copenhagen on purely market
terms, the capital investment in land-based shore power infrastructure
must be paid for by levying a fee on shore power users. Based on the
assumption of almost full capacity supply of electricity of all cruise
vessels visiting the Oceankaj pier in Copenhagen (30MW x 20 hours/day
x 150 days in the May-August high season), a service fee of 0.027
€/kWh would be required to co-finance the shore-side facilities of
€36,800,000 (Table 36 ) in 16 years with a 4% interest rate. Even if
Copenhagen were the only city in the Baltic Region to offer shore power
the project would still be economically feasible. The fee of approx..
€0.027kWh would mean that the electricity price paid by vessels using
shore power would total €0.107, which is still cheaper than AE-
generated power and enough to finance retrofitting although more time
would be needed for cruise operators to recover their investment. But the
Capital cost Total saving cost
per year per port
Total saving cost
per year per 2
Total saving cost per
year per 3port
Total saving cost
per year per 4 port
Total saving cost
per year per 5
Ship cost retrofit
per vessels € 750.000 € 73.700 € 147.400 € 221.100 € 294.800 € 368.500
N° of year for
pay back10,2 5,1 3,4 2,5 2,0
106
more Baltic destinations to offer shore power, the greater the savings for
cruise operators.
Table 23 Coefficient of electricity rates (including fee to port to co-finance shore-
side facility)
Table 24. Total payback time of retrofitting a vessel with cold-ironing capability (fee
for co-financing port shore-power facility included).
Table 24 shows the total annual saving in electricity supply and total
payback time of retrofitting a vessel with cold-ironing capability if the
number of major cruise destinations offering shore power were to
increase.
Advantages to pooling:
If several major Baltic Sea destinations were to offer shore power
then for each additional member of the pool the economic feasibil-
ity of offering shore power increases
Electricity cost
€/kWh Time pier (h)
Energy need per
berth (kW)
Avarage call
per year
Total saving cost
per year
AE-power (MGO 0,1%)
(€/kWh) 0,1537 10 10000 10 € 153.700
Electricity cost –
excluding
environmental tax
(€/kWh)
0,107 10 10000 10 € 107.000
€ 46.700Total saving cost per year using cold iroing
Capital cost Total saving cost
per year per port
Total saving cost
per year per 2
port
Total saving cost per
year per 3port
Total saving cost
per year per 4 port
Total saving cost
per year per 5
port
Ship cost retrofit
per vessels € 750.000 € 46.700 € 93.400 € 140.100 € 186.800 € 233.500
N° of year for
pay back16,1 8,0 5,4 4,0 3,2
107
It would be a win-win-win situation for the environment and the
competitive standing of the cruise industry in the Baltic Sea and
the ports involved
It would speed up retrofitting in general and encourage other re-
gions and cities to follow the example
It would offer greater stability in pricing in a time where opera-
tional costs for cruise operators are rising due to rise in fuel costs
This business scenario is tentative since it would require the shore power
facility to run at almost full capacity and for cruise operators to retrofit
their vessels from year one. This would not be possible without a
concerted effort to establish a pool of Baltic Sea destinations offering
shore power.
Business case requirements:
For shore power to be a feasible option for cruise operators, elec-
tricity prices need to be exempt from environmental taxes
For shore power to be a feasible option for cruise operators several
major destinations in the Baltic Sea need to join Copenhagen in
introducing shore power.
108
8.4 CALCULATION OF EMISSION FACTORS OF AUXILIARY
ENGINES
EMISSION FACTORS
Table 25: Emissions (g/kWh) from AE electricity in relation to emissions from the
Nordic Energy Mix
Production/
emissions
CO2
(g/kWh)
NOX
(g/kWh)
SO2
(g/kWh)
PM
(g/kWh)
AE using 0.1%
sulphur MGO
645 13.2 0.2 0,3
Nordic Energy
Mix(127
)
426 0.32 0.07 0,03
Source: Copenhagen and Malmö Port (CMP), 2012.
Table 25 shows emissions (g/kWh) from AE electricity in relation to
emissions from Nordic Energy Mix.
8.5 TOTAL EMISSIONS REDUCTION
The total emissions from the 70 cruise vessels (with a total of 308 calls)
visiting the Port of Copenhagen in the summer season of 2012 (May-
October) were approx. 408 tons of NOx, 4 tons of PM and 9 tons of SO2.
(127)ENTEC, (2005a).
109
Table 26: Total reduction of emissions in percentages if 100% of vessels visiting
Copenhagen (May-August) in 2012 had used shore power.
Table 26 shows the total emissions reduction (in percentages) if 100% of
vessels visiting Copenhagen (May-August) in 2012 had used shore
power (based on emission factors of the Nordic Energy Mix) rather than
AE-generated power 0.1% sulpher MGO).
Table 27 Total reduction of emissions (in percentages) if 60% of vessels visiting
Copenhagen (May-August) in 2012 used shore power.
SO2 (t) NOX (t) PM (t) CO2 (t)
Energy demand
(MWh/season)
Emissions from AEs using (0.1% sulphur
MGO) 6 418 10 2043 31674
Emission from shore power using Nord
Energy Mix 2 10 1 13493 31674
Difference 4 408 9 6937
Percentage 65% 98% 90% 34%
Energy demand
(MWh/season)SO2 (t) NOX (t) PM (t) CO2 (t)
Vessels using AE 31674 6,3 418,1 9,5 20429,5
Energy demand
(MWh/season)SO2 (t) NOX (t) PM (t) CO2 (t)
Vessels with shore power 19004 1,3 6,1 0,6 8095,8
Vessels with AE engines 12669 2,5 167,2 3,8 8171,8
TOTAL 31674 3,9 173,3 4,4 16267,6
DIFFERENCE 2 245 5 4162
PERCENTAGE 39 59 54 20
60% vessels adapted to shore power (based on Nordic Energy Mix). All others use AE-
generated power (0.1 sulphur MGO)
No shore power: all vessels use AE-generated power (0.1 sulphur MGO)
110
Figure 31. Shows the total reduction of emissions (in percentages) if 60% of vessels
visiting Copenhagen (May-August) in 2012 had used shore power (based on
emission factors of the Nordic Energy Mix) rather than AE-generated power.
8.6 EXTERNAL HEALTH COST
The external health cost of providing shore power to cruise vessels in
Copenhagen is an important factor in establishing the socio-economic
impact of hazardous emissions. The benefit to society of using shore
power is substantial: €4,805,847 annually. Naturally, if 60% of vessels
used shore power, the socio-economic impact is less.
Table 28 External annual health cost benefit with 0% and 100% of cruise vessels
using cold-ironing.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
SO2 (t) NOX (t) PM (t) CO2 (t)
39%
59% 54%
20%
Emission saving using cold iroing
Emission saving %
SO2 NOX PM CO2 Total
Emission Cost using AE
(0.1% sulphur MGO) € 73.166 € 4.569.755 € 332.574 € 408.591 € 5.384.086
Emission cost using shore power
(Nordic Energy Mix) € 25.608 € 110.782 € 33.257 € 269.860 € 439.507
Difference € 47.558 € 4.458.973 € 299.316 € 138.731
Percentage 65 98 90 34
Total external saving cost using cold iroing (Including the CO)
€ 4.805.847
€ 4.944.578
Total external saving cost using cold iroing
111
Table 28 shows the annual external health cost in percentages,
comparing the cost of emissions in €/tons from AE-generated power
(1.0% sulphur MGO) and from shore power (using the values of the
Nordic Energy Mix). The assumption is that all vessels either use shore
power or AE-generated power. The total cost of €4,805,847 excludes the
cost of CO2 emission and the total cost of €4,944,578 includes the cost
of CO2 emission.
Table 29 External health costs with 60% of vessels using shore power
Table 29 shows the external health cost in percentages, comparing the
cost of emissions in €/tons from AE-generated power (0.1% sulphur
MGO) and from shore power (using the values of the Nordic Energy
Mix). The assumptions are that all vessels either use AE-generated
power or that 60% of vessels use shore power. The total cost of €
2,966,747 includes the cost of CO2 emission and the total cost of
€ 2,883,508 excludes the cost of CO2 emission.
Vessels SO2 NOX PM CO2 Energy demand
(MWh/season)
Vessels using AE power€ 73.166,25 4569754,7 € 332.573,85 € 408.590,73 31,674
SO2 NOX PM CO2
Vessels using shore
power€ 15.365 € 66.469 € 19.954 € 161.916 19004
Vessels using AE power € 29.266 € 1.827.902 € 133.030 € 163.436 12669
TOTAL € 44.631 € 1.894.371 € 152.984 € 325.352 31,674
DIFFERENCE € 28.535 € 2.675.384 € 179.590 € 83.238
PERCENTAGE 48 96 85 1
Total external saving cost using cold iroing
Total external saving cost using cold iroing (Including the CO)
60% vessels adapted to shore power (based on Nordic Energy Mix). All others use AE-generated
power (0.1 sulphur MGO)
€ 2.883.508
€ 2.966.747
No Facility for shore power. All vessels use AE-generated power (0.1 sulphur MGO)
112
Figure 32: External health cost where 60% of cruise vessels use shore power
EXTERNAL HEALTH COST (€/kWh)
From a business perspective, cruise operators would choose to use AE-
generated power over market rate shore power since the difference in
rate is 0.0343 €/kWh in favour of AE power. But if cruise operators had
to pay the external health cost per kWh the price difference would be
0.13 €/kWh in favour of shore power at regular market rate in Denmark.
The difference in rate between AE power (including added external
health cost) and shore power at reduced rate (without environmental tax)
is 0.23 €/kWh.
Naturally, all thermal electricity supply involves external health cost.
The added external health cost of AE power in this calculation is the
€-
€200.000
€400.000
€600.000
€800.000
€1.000.000
€1.200.000
€1.400.000
€1.600.000
€1.800.000
€2.000.000
SO2 NOX PM CO2
External cost
AE engine
Shore power
113
difference between the external health cost of the Nordic Energy Mix
and AE-generated power.
Table 30. Electricity cost €/kWh
Electricity cost – market
rate (€/kWh)
Electricity cost – excluding
environmental tax
(€/kWh)
AE-power (MGO
0,1%) (€/kWh)
€ 0.188 € 0.08 € 0.1537
Table 31 Added external health cost of using AE-generated power (€/kWh) in
relation to market rate and reduced market rate shore power
AE-power
(MGO 0,1%)
(€/kWh)
Added
external
health cost
€/kWh
AE-power
including
added external
health cost
(€/kWh)
Difference between
AE power and market
rate including added
external health cost
(€/kWh)
Difference between
AE power and
reduced market
rate including
added external
health cost
(€/kWh)
€ 0.15 € 0.16 € 0.31 € 0.13 € 0.23
EXTERNAL HEALTH COST PER PASSENGER
A popular cruise holiday in the region is a cruise of the Norwegian
fiords, such as the 7-day itinerary in Figure 33. To calculate the total
external health cost per passenger related to the power generated at berth
by Auxiliary Engine at these destinations I assumed that the electricity
consumption of each passenger is 3kWh. The time spent in harbour
during the entire cruise trip is 36.5 hours (= 28% of total duration of the
cruise), averaging 4.6 hours per day. The external health cost per
114
passenger averages €0.5 per hour spent at harbour, or €2.30 per day. The
total external health cost for the entire cruise trip is €19 per passenger.
The total health cost of all 2,550 passengers (max capacity) on board the
MSC Musica is €47,480.00 per cruise holiday.
Note that like many Baltic Sea and North Sea cruises, turnaround is in
Copenhagen, which means the ship spends time hoteling in Copenhagen
in-between departures while passengers disembark and new passengers
board. This extra time is not included in the calculation.
Figure 33 The MSC Musica Norwegian fiord cruise itinerary (map)
Source: MSC Crociere – www.msccruises.com
115
FACTS ABOUT MSC MUSICA:
Year Built: 2006
Last Refurbished: NA
Gross Tonnage: 92,400 tons
Passenger Capacity: 2,550
Crew Size: 987
Table 32 The MSC Musica Norwegian fiord cruise itinerary (timetable)
Source: MSC Crociere – www.msccruises.com
Table 33The MSC Musica Norwegian fiord cruise itinerary timetable showing time
spent in harbour and navigation (hours).
Day Data Port Arrival Departure Activity Time harbour Time navigation
1 10/08/2013 Copenhagen 0 18 Docked 0 6
2 11/08/2013 Kiel 8 16 Docked 8 16
3 12/08/2013 At Sea 0 0 ... 0 24
4 13/08/2013 Hellesylt/Geiranger 9 17,30 Docked 8,5 15,5
5 14/08/2013 Bergen 9 18 Docked 9 15
6 15/08/2013 Stavanger 7 13 Docked 6 18
7 16/08/2013 Oslo 13 18 Docked 5 19
8 17/08/2013 Copenhagen 10,30 0 Docked 10,5
36,5 124
116
Table 34 Total external health cost per passenger per stay in harbour based on an
energy consumption of 3kWh per passenger
8.7 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (CBA)
The socio-economic impact of exhaust emissions from cruise ships in the
Port of Copenhagen is substantial. A scenario of 60% of vessels calling
on Copenhagen in the summer season (May-August) using shore power
rather than AE-generated power would offer an external health cost
benefit to society of €4,944,578.00 annually. The total capital cost of
establishing a shore power utility in Copenhagen providing electricity to
three berths simultaneously as described in Table 30 is €36.866.548.
From a socio-economic perspective, this capital cost would be recovered
by saved health costs in 10-15 years. See table 31.
The full capacity of the proposed shore power utility on Oceankaj may
support more than 60% of the visiting vessels in relation to total
electricity consumption. But to offer all cruise ships visiting Copenhagen
shore power would naturally mean greater costs and it would therefore
require more time for the cost-benefit to balance.
Emission coeffient - AE
engine MGO (0,1%
sulphur)
Emission factor
per 3kWh
passsenger
Emission factor per
3kWh passsenger
External
health cost
External
health cost
g/kwh g/kWh Kg/kWh Euro/kg Euro
645 1935 1,935 € 0,02 € 0,04
13,2 39,6 0,0396 € 10,93 € 0,43
0,2 0,6 0,0006 € 11,93 € 0,01
0,3 0,9 0,0009 € 35,00 € 0,03
€ 2,30
Emission
component
CO2
NOx
SO2
PM
Total external cost per passenger
117
Table 35: Externality cost per kg emission – €/kg – scenario BaS-NoS/15
Table36 – Cost estimate of cold-ironing infrastructure at Oceankaj
Table 37: Cost benefit analysis of 60% of vessels using shore power
Primary supply systems,
switches, and meter incl.
technical room
DKK 2 million 268.120
Light building for shore
power systemDKK 25 million 3.351.504
Cabling (cable chains) on the
quay including three 20 MW
cable reel towers
DKK 21 million 2.815.264
Connection fee to the utility
company for 60 MW incl.
primary plant
DKK 40 million 5.362.407
Contingencies DKK 27 million 3.619.625
Total DKK 275 million 36.866.548
System deliverance
HARBOUR INSTALLATION AND EQUIPMENT
DKK 160 million 21.449.628
Cost of shore power utility
Shore-side cost (3 berths)
SOx emissions
Tons/season
NOx emissions
Tons/season
PM emissions
Tons/season
CO2 emissions
Tons/season
€36,866,547.84 2,5 244,8 5,1 4161,9
Total reduction of emission per season - 60% of vessels using
cold ironing
118
Table 38: Cost benefit of 60% of cruise vessels using shore power in the Port of
Copenhagen (summer season 2012).
Table 36 shows the cost benefit of 60% of cruise vessels using shore
power in the Port of Copenhagen during the summer season (May-
August). The totals in green (€) include the benefits without CO2
emissions and the totals in orange (€) include the benefit of CO2
reductions.
Figure 34– Estimate total external health cost benefit of 60% of vessels using cold-
ironing.
The total external health cost of all cruise vessels using AE-generated
power visiting Copenhagen during the summer season of 2012 amounted
to €5,384,086. Over a 20-year period, the total socio-economic external
health cost of the cruise industry in Copenhagen is €107,681,711.
Emission 1st Year 5th Year 10th Year 15th Year 20th Year
SO2 € 28.535 € 142.674 € 285.348 € 428.023 € 570.697
NOx € 2.675.384 € 13.376.918 € 26.753.837 € 40.130.755 € 53.507.674
PM € 179.590 € 897.949 € 1.795.899 € 2.693.848 € 3.591.798
TOTAL € 2.883.508 € 14.417.542 € 28.835.084 € 43.252.626 € 57.670.168
CO2 € 83.238 € 416.192 € 832.385 € 1.248.577 € 1.664.770
TOTAL € 2.966.747 € 14.833.734 € 29.667.469 € 44.501.203 € 59.334.938
€0
€10.000.000
€20.000.000
€30.000.000
€40.000.000
€50.000.000
€60.000.000
1st Year 5th Year 10th Year 15th Year 20th Year
SO2
NOx
PM
CO2
119
Table 39: External health cost of 100% of cruise vessels using AE-generated power
during the summer season of 2012
Table 38 shows the external health cost of all cruise vessels using AE-
generated power during the summer season. The totals in green (€)
include the benefits without CO2 emissions and the totals in orange (€)
include the benefit of CO2 reductions.
Figure 35External health cost of 100% of cruise vessels using AE-generated power
during the summer season of 2012
Emission 1st Year 5th Year 10th Year 15th Year 20th Year
SO2 73166,25 € 365.831 € 731.662 € 1.097.494 € 1.463.325
NOx 4569754,74 € 22.848.774 € 45.697.547 € 68.546.321 € 91.395.095
PM 332573,85 € 1.662.869 € 3.325.739 € 4.988.608 € 6.651.477
TOTAL € 4.975.495 € 24.877.474 € 49.754.948 € 74.632.423 € 99.509.897
CO2 408590,73 € 2.042.954 € 4.085.907 € 6.128.861 € 8.171.815
TOTAL € 5.384.086 € 26.920.428 € 53.840.856 € 80.761.284 € 107.681.711
€ 0
€ 10.000.000
€ 20.000.000
€ 30.000.000
€ 40.000.000
€ 50.000.000
€ 60.000.000
€ 70.000.000
€ 80.000.000
€ 90.000.000
1st Year 5th Year 10th Year 15th Year 20th Year
SO2
NOx
PM
CO2
120
9. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Airborne emissions from international shipping represent a rising
challenge, causing serious socio-economic impact and requiring
international regulation. Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention (IMO)
and a number of EU directives, principally Council Directive
1999/32/EC, set the regulatory framework for the shipping industry as
well as member states to the treaties and the European Union in tackling
the issue of ship engine exhaust emissions. These regulatory measures
set minimum values and standards, requiring industry players and
authorities to take action, although at the same time limiting the options
given to individual states to set out their own regulatory measures and
adopt new unilateral controls. In 2015, the North Sea and Baltic Sea will
become a Sulphur Emissions Control Area (SECA) under the IMO,
which will result in the reduction of SO2 emissions from shipping. In
2016, the region is also expected to become a Nitrogen Oxide Emissions
Control Area (NECA) under the IMO, which will target NOx emissions
in the region, although the effect will be decidedly incremental since the
NECA regulatory measures deal with engine design. It would therefore
require a near total renewal of the commercial fleet in the region to
achieve the full potential benefit of NOx emissions reduction. With the
introduction of the SECA, shipping companies have been given the
option of reducing SO2 emissions, either by using marine fuels with a
maximum content of 0.1% sulphur, or by using abatement technologies.
As demonstrated in this thesis, many abatement technologies not only
reduce SO2 emissions with up to 80-90%, as an added benefit they also
reduce other harmful airborne emissions, including NOX and PM. The
overall level of reduction in NOx and PM emissions in the Baltic Sea and
121
North Sea in the coming years will therefore depend on the choice of
technologies and investment strategies that shipping companies make
within the framework of SECA and NECA requirements. In the coming
years, the main political focus in the region will no doubt shift to further
measures in maritime NOx and PM emission control.
Within the current framework of international law, individual states have
limited options to take unilateral measures to curb NOx emissions from
shipping. This thesis has studied some of the best-practice examples,
including the mandatory Norwegian NOx tax introduced in 2003, which
also applies to shipping, but is nonetheless limited by a number of
exceptions due to legal constraints within international law, which render
this taxation instrument limited both in scope and impact. The
differentiated harbour dues introduced in Sweden in 2002 have also
proved too limited an incentive for shipping companies to invest in
abatement technology to reduce emissions.
The core of this thesis has been focused on a study case that represents
an example of the range of challenges, legally and economically, that
individual states experience when seeking to adopt unilateral initiatives
to curb harmful exhaust emissions from shipping. The study case has
been the Port of Copenhagen, Denmark, where over the past decade the
considerable rise in cruise ship holidaymaking in the North Sea and
Baltic Sea has made the Danish capital the region’s leading cruise ship
hub (passenger growth was 96% from 2004-2012). An environmental
impact assessment of the cruise ship industry in Copenhagen was
conducted in 2005, which found the overall exhaust emissions levels
from cruise ships to be well below EU limit values. Since this
assessment was conducted, wide-reaching measures have been
undertaken by the city of Copenhagen, by the Danish state and by the
122
EU in general to curb air pollution from land-based sources, a process
that is ongoing. In 2009, the city of Copenhagen adopted an ambitious
climate plan, KBH2025, and in 2012 the Danish government adopted an
Energy Agreement that calls for the phasing out of fossil fuels and a shift
within all energy producing and energy consuming sectors to renewable
energy by 2050. There is, therefore, a considerable level of political
readiness in Denmark to reduce airborne emissions. And although
exhaust emissions from cruise ship hoteling in the Port of Copenhagen
may seem a minor issue in context with overall emissions from
terrestrial, shipping and air traffic in general, the relative contribution of
exhaust emissions from the growing cruise ship industry in relation to
other sources is most probably on the rise. To accommodate the growing
cruise ship traffic and to reduce the local environmental impact in urban
areas close to the harbour, the Copenhagen harbour development
company, By & Havn, has constructed a new cruise ship pier at some
distance from urban environments; a project that is prepared for the
introduction of cold-ironing, a technology that aims to offer a
considerable reduction in airborne exhaust emissions by allowing ships
at berth to use shore power rather than power generated by Auxiliary
Engine (AE).
To assess the external health cost of each individual compound of ship
exhaust emission in the Port of Copenhagen, I modified individual
standards in the applied External Valuation of Air Pollution Model
(EVA), an advanced model developed by the University of Aarhus. The
key advantage to this model, which tracks the impact pathway of
regional-scale air pollutant and chemical transportation, is that it can
account for the non-linear chemical transformations and feedback
mechanisms influencing air pollutants from a particular regional source
123
(in this case international shipping) within a given geographical region
(in this case the Baltic Sea and the North Sea) and within a given
timeframe (in this case May-August 2012). The model is based on local-
scale information from the Centre for Energy, Environment and Health,
CEEH. I furthermore modified the standard scenario of the EVA model
to focus on the specific harbour environment rather than the sea
environment (i.e. SNAP category BaS-NoS/15). In addition, I obtained
location-specific shipping data from 2012 from the Copenhagen Malmö
Port (CMP) and port authority on the basis of which I calculated the
average energy consumption of each vessel, etc.
Based on the compiled data I have calculated the total external health
cost of emissions from cruise ships at berth in Copenhagen within this
the summer season (May-August 2012) to be €5,384,086.
Although cold-ironing is a fully developed technology it has a very low
penetration in the North Sea and Baltic Sea where few vessels have cold-
ironing capability and no ports offer shore power to cruise ships.
Globally, cold-ironing is only used commercially for cruise ships where
regulatory mechanisms specifically require companies to use this
technology. The capital cost of the projected shore power infrastructure
for the city’s new cruise ship pier, Oceankaj, amounts to €36.866.548.
My calculations show that the annual benefit in emissions reduction
based on a scenario of 60% of visiting cruise ships using shore power
rather than AE-generated power (i.e. approx. the total capacity of the
proposed shore power utility) is €2,675,384 in reduced NOx emissions,
€28,535 in reduced SO2 emissions and €175,590 in reduced PM
emissions (within the given 5-month timeframe). The cost-benefit of
introducing cold ironing at the pier would therefore in a socio-economic
124
perspective be considerable. The external health costs would balance the
capital cost in harbour-side infrastructure in 10-15 years.
To give an illustrative example of the socio-economic impact of
emissions from cruise ships at berth I calculated the external health cost
per passenger of AE power during a visit to one port in a specific holiday
itinerary (the average stay is 4.6 hours) to be €2.30. The total external
health cost of AE power generated at port for a cruise ship of 2,550
passengers making 7 calls of port on a North Sea cruise amounts to
€47,480.00 (Note this does not include the external health cost of
navigation, manoeuvring or the added time for hoteling during
turnaround in Copenhagen).
Cruise operators make business choices on the basis of cost and this also
applies to electricity supply. The cost of AE power is 18% cheaper than
shore power at regular electricity rate. However, if you add the external
health cost, the cost of AE power is more than 100% higher than shore
power at regular electricity rates.
In this thesis I have identified two prerequisites under which introducing
cold-ironing technology could tentatively become economically feasible
for both CMP and the region’s cruise operators. The first prerequisite
relates to international law. For the project to be economically feasible,
Denmark needs to obtain an exemption from Community Directive
(2003/96/EC), Article 14(1)(c) to exempt vessels from paying local
Danish environmental tax on electricity supplied from the national grid.
Such exemptions have already been granted to Germany and Sweden.
Generally, environmental taxes are created to encourage consumers and
companies to make sustainable choices but in the case of shore power,
Danish environmental taxes on electricity do the opposite by failing to
offer shipping companies an incentive to use environmentally friendly
125
shore power. If Denmark were to be exempt from the directive, the
subsequent lower electricity rate would give cruise companies an
economic incentive to invest in retrofitting their vessels for cold-ironing.
The second prerequisite pertains to the necessary critical mass. For cold-
ironing to become economically feasible for both cruise operators and
ports, a business model should be developed that encourages leading
Baltic Sea cruise destinations to join Copenhagen to create a pool of port
operators in the region introducing cold-ironing as a benchmark
incentive-based technology to reduce NOx and other harmful emissions
in harbour environments. As already mentioned, in the Baltic region only
Sweden and Germany are exempt from Community Directive
(2003/96/EC), Article 14(1)(c). But if this directive were to be amended
to offer incentives for shipping companies to use shore power in a wider
European context then a new regulatory framework would be established
with which to encourage sustainable growth in the cruise industry in
general to the benefit of the environment, public health and the wider
economy.
126
10. FUTURE RESEARCH
My future research on the issue of cold-ironing will be focused on the
further development of cost-benefit analyses in the Port of Copenhagen
and other Baltic destinations that could potentially be involved in the
development of a business plan for cold-ironing pooling. Furthermore, I
my research will focus on multi-criteria analysis of the cost-benefit of
LNG as an alternative maritime fuel.
127
REFERENCES
Alcamo, J., R. Shaw, and L. Hordijk, editors, (1990), The RAINS Model
of Acidification. Science and Strategies in Europe. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Amann, M., I. Bertok, R. Cabala, J. Cofala, C. Heyes, F. Gyarfas, Z.
Klimont, W. Schöpp, and F. Wagner, (2005), A final set of scenarios for
the Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) programme, June 2005, International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) CAFE Scenario
Analysis
Apollonia Miola, Biagio Ciuffo, Emiliano Giovine, Marleen Marra
(2010) Regulating air emissions from ships: the state of the art on
methodologies, technologies and policy options; page 58; European
Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and
Sustainability. November 2010, Luxembourg
Bosch, P., Coenen, P., Fridell, E., Åström, S., Palmer, T.,Holland, M.
(2009). Cost Benefi t Analysis to Support the Impact Assessment
accompanying the revision of Directive 1999/32/EC on the Sulphur
Content of certain Liquid Fuels. Final AEA Report, 2009.
Buhaug, Ø., Corbett, J.J., Endresen, Ø., Eyring, V., Faber, J., Hanayama,
S., Lee, D.S., Lee, D., Lindstad, H., Markowska, A.Z., Mjelde, A.,
Nelissen, D., Nilsen, J., Pålsson, C., Winebrake, J.J., Wu, W., Yoshida,
K.IMO (2009), Second IMO GHG Study 2009, International Maritime
Organization (IMO) London, UK, April 2009.
128
Christensen, J. H., (1997), The Danish Eulerian Hemispheric Model – a
three-dimensional air pollution model used for the Arctic, Atm. Env., 31,
4169–4191.
Christensen, J. H., J. Brandt, L. M. Frohn and H. Skov, (2004),
Modelling of mercury in the Arctic with the Danish Eulerian
Hemispheric Model. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Vol. 4, pp
2251-2257
Cohen, A. J., H. R. Anderson, B. Ostro, K. D. Pandey, M.
Krzyzanowski, N. Künzli, K. Gutschmidt, C. A. Pope, I. Romieu, J. M.
Samet, and K. R. Smith, Urban air pollution. In M. Ezzati, A. D. Lopez,
A. Rodgers, and C. J. L. Murray, editors, 2004: Comparative
Quantification of Health Risks Globaland Regional Burden of Disease
Attributable to Selected Major Risk Factors, volume 2, section 17, pages
1353–1433. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2004. URL
http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/cra/en/.
COM(2010) 86 final, Brussels, 9.3.2010, Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
International climate policy post-Copenhagen: Acting now to
reinvigorate global action on climate change.
129
COM(2010) 265 final, Brussels, 26.5.2010, Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission
reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage.
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of theBaltic
sea Area (1992). In force 17 January 2000, Helsinki.
Cooper, D.A. (2003). Exhaust emissions from ships at berth.
Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 37(27), pp. 3817-3830.
Copenhagen Malmö Port (2011), Annual Report, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Council Directive 94/66/EC of 15 December 1994 amending Directive
88/609/EEC on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the
air from large combustion plants.
Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values
for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate
matter and lead in ambient air.
Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in
the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive
93/12/EEC.
130
Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the
Community framework for the taxation of energy products and
electricity.
Danish Energy Agency (2011), Prerequisites for socio-economic
analyses in the field of energy, April 2011, (Forudsætninger for
samfundsøkonomiske analyser på energiområdet) April 2011, Denmark.
Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16
December 1997.
Directive of The European Parliament and of the Council, amending
Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels.
Brussels, 15.7.2011; EC(2011) 919.
Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric
pollutants.
Directive 2004/26/EC of The European Parliament And Of The
COUNCIL of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC.
Directive 2005/33/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 6
July 2005 amending Directive 1999/32/EC.
DNV Academy report (2012), Waterborne cold ironing for container
vessels, Eckelmann AG, Hamburg, Germany.
131
DNV(2011):
http://www.dnv.com/industry/maritime/publicationsanddownloads/publi
cations/dnvcontainershipupdate/2011/12011/lngoffersbesteconomicperfo
rmance.asp.
DS/ISO/IEC/IEEE 80005-1 (2012), Utility connections in port – Part 1:
High Voltage Shore Connection (HVSC) Systems – General
requirements, Danish Standards, Edition 1.0 2012-07.
ECO Ship Annual Report (2010), Chalmers University of Technology,
Goteborg, Sweden.
Entec UK Ltd (2005). Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment,
Abatement and Market-based Instruments. General Report.
Entec UK Ltd (2005a). Report, Service Contract on Ship Emissions:
Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments. Task 2a - Shore-
Side Electricity” for the European Commission, DG Environment.
Entec UK Ltd (2005b). Report Service Contract on Ship Emissions:
Assignment, Abatement and Marketbased Instruments, Task 2b – NOx
Abatement for the European Commission, DG Environment.
Entec, UK Ltd (2005c). Report, Service Contract on Ship Emissions:
Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments, Task 2c - SO2
Abatement” for the European Commission, DG Environment.
132
Eyring, V., Koehler, H.W., van Aardenne, J., Lauer, A. (2005). Emission
from International Shipping: 1. The last 50 years. Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 110(D17305).
Eyring, V., Kohler, H., Lauer, A., Lemper, B. (2005b). Emissions from
international shipping: 2. Impact of future technologies on scenarios
until 2050. Journal of Geophysical Research, 110.
Ezzati, M., A. D. Lopez, A. Rodgers, S. V. Hoorn, C. J. L. Murray, and
the Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborating Group, (2002) Selected
major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet,
360:1347–1360, 2002.
F. Binder, L. Keller (2012), Green Port Green Shipping, HB Deutsche
Schiffahrts-Zeitung. Nr. 170, DVV Media Group GmbH | Seehafen
Verlag, Hamburg. http://www.thb.info/uploads/tx_it24specials/thb09-
2012.pdf
H .Saxe, T. Larsen (2004), Air pollution from ships in three Danish
ports, The Environmental Assessment Institute, Linne´sgade 18, 1361
Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Haoran Pan, (2001) The economics of Kyoto flexible mechanisms: a
survey, Energy, Transport and Environment Working Papers Series,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën,
Energy, Transport and Environment, Leuven, Belgium.
133
Helge Rørdam Olesen, Morten Winther, Thomas Ellermann, Jesper
Christensen and Marlene Plejdrup (2009), Ship emissions and air
pollution in Denmark -Present situation and future scenarios,
Environmental Project No. 1307 2009 Miljøprojekt, National
Environmental Research Institute Aarhus University Environmental,
Denmark. http://www.cafecba.org/assets/baseline_analysis_2000-2020_05-
05.pdf.
IIASA (2007). Analysis of Policy Measures to Reduce Ship Emissions in
the Context of the Revision of the National Emissions Ceilings Directive.
Final.
IMO Marine Environment Committee, 58th Session MEPC 58/4/20
(2008), “Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships, Legal Aspects of the
Organization’s Work on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Context of the
Kyoto Protocol, 1 August 2008, London, UK.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL), International Maritime Organization (IMO), 2 November
1973.
ISO/IEC/IEEE 80005-1 (2012) Utility connections in port -- Part 1: High
Voltage Shore Connection (HVSC) Systems -- General requirements.
134
J. Brandt et al., (2011): Assessment of Health-Cost Externalities of Air
Pollution at the National Level using the EVA Model System, CEEH
Scientific Report No 3, Centre for Energy, Environment and Health
Report series, March 2011, pp. 98.
http://www.ceeh.dk/CEEH_Reports/Report_3/CEEH_Scientific_Report3.pdf
Jørgen Jordal-Jørgensen, (2012) Reducing Air Pollution from Ship,
Danish Environmental Protection Agency; Environmental Project no.
1421, 2012, Denmark.
K. Gutschmidt, C. A. Pope, I. Romieu, J. M. Samet, and K. R. Smith,
Urban air pollution. In M. Ezzati, A. D. Lopez, A. Rodgers, and C. J. L.
Murray, editors, (2004), Comparative Quantification of Health Risks
Globaland Regional Burden of Disease Attributableto Selected Major
Risk Factors, volume 2, section 17, pages 1353–1433. World Health
Organization, Geneva, 2004. URL
Karl Jivén (2004), Shore-Side Electricity for Ships in Ports - Case
studies with estimates of internal and external costs, prepared for the
North Sea Commissio, REPORT 2004-08-23, MariTerm AB,
Gothenburg, Sweden.
Klaassen, G., M. Amann, C. Berglund, J. Cofala, L. Höglund-Isaksson,
C. Heyes, R. Mechler, A. Tohka, W. Schöpp, and W. Winiwarter,
(2004), The extension of the RAINS model to greenhouse gases.
Technical Report IR-04-015, International Institute for Applied Systems.
Analysis, Luxemburg..
135
Lövblad, G., Fridell, E. (2006). Experiences from use of some techniques
to reduce emissions from ships (http://www.profu.se).
Luftkvalitetsvurdering Af Ren-Luftzone I København, Videnskabelig
rapport fra DCE – Nationalt Center for Miljø og Energi nr. 25 2012,
Aarhus University, Denmark.
M. Maibach, C. Schreyer, D. Sutter (INFRAS),H.P. van Essen, B.H.
Boon, R. Smokers, A. Schroten (CE Delft), C. Doll (Fraunhofer
Gesellschaft – ISI), B. Pawlowska, M. Bak (University of Gdansk)
(2008), Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector
Internalisation Measures and Policies for All external Cost of Transport
(IMPACT), European Commission DG TREN.
MAN Diesel & Turbo (MAN Diesel & Turbo (2009)) Exhaust Gas
Emission Control Today and Tomorrow, Application on MAN B&W
Two-stroke Marine Diesel Engines.
MAN Diesel and Turbo (2010), Two-stroke engine emission reduction
technology: state-of-the-art, cimac paper: 85.
MAN Diesel & Turbo Frederikshavn (MAN 2011b).
Mareckova, K., R. Wankmueller, M. Anderl, B. Muik, S. Poupa, and M.
Wieser, (2008), Inventory review 2008: Emission data reported under
the LRTAP convention and NEC directive. Status of gridded data.
Technical report, EMEP Centre on Emission Inventories and
Projections, 2008.
136
Maynard, D., B. A. Coull, A. Gryparis, and J. Schwartz, (2007),
Mortality risk associated with shortterm exposure to traffic particles and
sulfates. Environmental health perspectives, 115:751– 755, 2007.
OECD (2011): OECD/EEA database on instruments used for
environmental policy and natural resources management. website:
http://www2.oecd.org/ecoinst/queries/.
P. Ericsson, I. Fazlagic (2008), Shore-side power supply – A feasibility
study and technical solution for an on-shore electrical infrastructure to
supply vessels with electric power while in port, Department of Energy
and Environment. Division of electric power engineering. Chalmers
University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden.
Palmgren, F., M. Glasius, P. Wåhlin, M. Ketzel, R. Berkowicz, S. S.
Jensen, M. Winther, J. B. Illerup, M. S. Andersen, O. Hertel, P.
Vinzents, P. Møller, M. Sørensen, L. E. Knudsen, B. Schibye, Z. J.
Andersen, M. Hermansen, T. Scheike, M. Stage, H. Bisgaard, S. Loft, K.
A. Jensen, V. Kofoed-Sørensen, P. A. Clausen, and C. Lohse, 2005: Air
pollution with particles in Denmark (in Danish “Luftforurening med
partikler i Danmark”). Miljøprojekt 1021 (2005), Ministry of the
Environment, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005.
Paul-Harvey Weiner (2012) Cold-Ironing as a Cost-Effective Tool for
Improving Sustainability in the Shipping Industry, Master’s Project
Spring 2012, Nicholas School of the Environment.
137
Pearson, J. F., C. Bachireddy, S. Shyamprasad, A. B. Goldfine, and J. S.
Brownstein, (2010): Association between fine particulate matter and
diabetes prevalence in the u.s. Diabetes Care, vol. 33 (10) pp. 2196-201.
Ponce, N. A., K. J. Hoggatt, M. Wilhelm, and B. Ritz, (2005): Preterm
birth: The interaction of traffic related air pollution with economic
hardship in Los Angeles neighborhoods. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 162:140–148, 2005.
Pope, C. A., M. Ezzati, and D. W. Dockery, (2009), Fine-particulate air
pollution and life expectancy in the United States. The New England
Journal of Medicine, 360:376–386, 2009.
Rahai, H.R., Hefazi, H. (2006), Emission Control Technologies for
Ocean Going Vessels. Center for Energy and Environmental Research
and Services (CEERS), California State University, US.
Ravn, H. et al., (2001). Balmorel: A Model for Analyses of the Electricity
and CHP Markets in the Baltic Sea Region. www.Balmorel.com.
Report Nr. 6. http://www.iiasa.ac.at/rains/CAFE_files/CAFE-D3.pdf).
Udvidelse af Københavns Nordhavn og ny krydstogtterminal VVM-
redegørelse og miljøvurdering, the Danish Coastal Authority and the
Municipality of Copenhagen, May 2009.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),
December 10, 1982.
138
V. Andreoni, A. Miola, A. Perujo (2008), Cost Effectiveness Analysis of
the Emission Abatement in the Shipping Sector Emissions, European
Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and
Sustainability, Luxembourg.
Valuering af krydstogskibes bidrag til luftforurening, The Danish
Environmental Agency, Miljøprojekt nr. 978, 2005.
Watkiss, Paul, Steve Pye and Mike Holland, (2005): CAFE CBA:
Baseline Analysis 2000 to 2020. Service Contract for Carrying out Cost-
Benefit Analysis of Air Quality Related Issues, in particular in the clean
Air for Europe (CAFE) ProgrammeApril 2005.
WHO (2006a): WHO air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone,
nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Global update 2005: Summary of
risk assessment. Technical report, World Health Organisation, 2006.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_SDE_PHE_OEH_06.02_eng.pdf.
Woodruff, T. J., L. A. Darrow, and J. D. Parker, (2008), Air pollution
and post neonatal infant mortality in the United States, 1999–2002.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 116:110–115, 2008.
www.ceip.at/fileadmin/inhalte/emep/pdf/Inventory_Review_2008.pdf.
139
Zoi Nikopoulou (2008), Reduction of NOx and SOx in an emission
market -a snapshot of prospects and benefits for ships in the northern
European SECA area, Department of shipping and marine technology
Division of propulsion and maritime environment CHALMERS
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, ISSN 1652-9189. Report No.
08:107 ,Goteborg, Sweden.
140
Appendix 1 Cruise ship vessels –summer season 2012 (May – August)
Cruise liner VesselsNumber
of visit
Gross
tonnage Loa (m) Pass do pme kW
Match
type
Voltage
(Kw)
Frequen
cy (Hz)
Time
along
side
quay (h)
Energy
consumption
MW/h*
Passngens
Total
passengers
of all call
Emerald Princess 11 112894 289 3100 69205 DE 11 143 1001 3782 41602
Caribbean Princess 1 112894 19 133 3592 3592
Costa Fortuna 14 102587 3470 81 568 3470 48580
Grand Princess 3 107517 3300 47 329 3300 9900
Celebrity Eclipse 5 121878 304 2852 67200 DE 11 80 560 3129 15645
Azura 2 113651 289 3092 571108 DE 11 19 133 3096 6192
MSC Poesia 17 92409 294 2550 58000 DE 10 166 1159 3013 51221
MSC Magnifica 12 95128 3013 115 805 3013 36156
Costa Deliziosa 1 92720 294 2260 65000 DE 11 9 63 2826 2826
Costa Luminosa 13 97720 294 220 64000 DE 11 143 1001 2826 36738
Mein Schiff 2 4 76998 264 1922 28250 DN 7 60 40 281 2681 10724
Jewel of the Seas 8 90090 293 2110 50000 GDE 11 60 150 1048 2501 20008
Brilliance of the Seas 5 90090 53 371 2501 12505
Norwegian Sun 14 78309 259 1976 49212 DE 10 60 143 1004 2450 34300
Celebrity Constellation 6 90228 294 2044 50000 GDE 11 60 54 378 2450 14700
Vision of the Seas 6 78340 279 1998 50400 DE 7 50 350 2435 14610
Arcadia 4 83521 285 2064 51840 DE 11 34 235 2388 9552
AidaBlu 11 69203 252 2050 36000 DE 11 73 511 2192 24112
Aidasol 11 69203 251 2050 36000 DE 11 102 714 2174 23914
MSC Lirica 4 59058 35 242 2069 8276
Empress 8 48563 2020 104 725 2020 16160
Queen Victoria 2 90049 294 2014 63360 DE 11 19 133 2014 4028
Eurodam 8 86273 285 2108 64000 DE 11 79 553 2014 16112
Queen Elizabeth 2 90901 23 158 2014 4028
Aurora 3 76152 270 1878 58800 DE 7 60 28 193 1950 5850
Oriana 3 69153 260 1088 39750 DM 7 60 28 194 1928 5784
Costa neoRomantica 12 57150 109 760 1782 21384
MSC Opera 2 59058 9 63 1756 3512
Grand Mistral 12 47275 216 1196 31688 DE 7 140 978 1700 20400
Ryndam 2 55819 219 1260 34560 DE 7 20 139 1613 3226
Rotterdam 2 61849 234 1404 57600 DE 7 20 140 1404 2808
Artania 2 44588 231 1192 29160 DM 7 60 16 112 1260 2520
Marina 4 66000 252 1252 42000 DE 7 60 54 378 1260 5040
Aidacara 11 38351 193 1180 21720 DM 1 60 100 700 1230 13530
Balmoral 2 34242 188 1052 21300 DM 0 60 20 140 1230 2460
Thomson Spirit 1 33930 15 105 1224 1224
Crystal Symphony 4 50200 238 960 38880 DE 7 39 270 1010 4040
Braemar 1 19089 164 816 132 DM 0 60 10 70 929 929
Marco Polo 2 22086 176 850 15445 DM 16 112 922 1844
Costa Voyager 1 24430 10 70 836 836
Prinsendam 2 37845 204 756 21120 DM 0 60 19 133 835 1670
Ocean Princess 2 77489 824 26 182 824 1648
Ocean Countess 1 17856 164 846 15444 DM 0 60 9 63 800 800
Seven Seas Voyager 4 41500 207 706 23760 DE 7 60 53 371 730 2920
Adonia 1 30277 9 63 710 710
Discovery 2 20216 169 472 13240 DM 0 60 22 151 698 1396
Azamara Journey 2 30227 21 147 694 1388
Nautica 4 30300 181 702 19440 DE 7 60 47 330 684 2736
Columbus 2 3 30277 35 245 684 2052
Astor 1 20606 177 570 15400 DM 11 77 650 650
Black Watch 2 28668 206 828 14000 DM 0 60 24 168 589 1178
Boudicca 1 28372 206 874 14000 DM 0 60 9 63 536 536
Delphin 2 16124 21 147 470 940
Seabourn Sojourn 7 32000 198 450 23040 DE 7 60 70 491 450 3150
Quest for Adventure 2 18627 19 133 446 892
Europa 2 28437 199 408 21590 DE 7 60 22 154 408 816
Athena 2 16144 160 500 19826 DM 0 60 16 112 390 780
Silver Whisper 5 28258 186 388 15600 DM 64 445 388 1940
Kristina Katarina 1 12907 380 0 380 380
Minerva 1 12500 6 43 350 350
Fram 1 11647 114 272 7920 DE 1 9 63 328 328
Wind Surf 2 14745 312 11 78 312 624
Silver Cloud 3 16927 116 38 266 296 888
Le Boreal 3 10944 142 268 6400 DE 1 27 189 264 792
Seabourn Pride 3 9975 133 208 7280 DM 0 60 30 210 208 624
Star Flyer 6 2280 180 78 546 180 1080
Le Diamant 1 8282 8 53 165 165
National
Geographic Explorer1 6471 112 162 4708 DM 0 50 11 80 154 154
Clipper Odyssey 1 5218 103 120 5192 DM 0 60 7 46 128 128
Clipper Adventurer 2 5218 101 128 3496 DM 0 50 22 154 122 244
Island Sky 2 4200 91 228 3560 DM 0 60 14 95 114 228
SHIPS VISITING COPENAGHEN 2012 - Summer season (May- August)
141
Appendix 2- Cruise ship vessels 2012.
ARRIVAL ETA DEPARTURE ETD SHIP
06-04-2012 09:00 06-04-2012 18:00 Aidacara
13-04-2012 09:00 13-04-2012 18:00 Aidacara
20-04-2012 09:00 20-04-2012 18:00 Aidacara
22-04-2012 09:30 22-04-2012 19:00 Aidasol
26-04-2012 11:00 26-04-2012 18:00 Aidasol
27-04-2012 08:00 27-04-2012 18:00 MSC Lirica
27-04-2012 09:00 27-04-2012 18:00 Aidacara
30-04-2012 11:00 30-04-2012 18:00 Aidasol
01-05-2012 09:00 01-05-2012 18:00 Aidacara
04-05-2012 07:00 04-05-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
04-05-2012 09:00 04-05-2012 17:00 Aidacara
05-05-2012 10:30 05-05-2012 19:00 MSC Lirica
06-05-2012 07:55 06-05-2012 18:00 Mein Schiff 2
06-05-2012 08:00 06-05-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
06-05-2012 08:00 06-05-2012 18:00 Aurora
06-05-2012 12:00 06-05-2012 21:00 Fram
10-05-2012 11:00 10-05-2012 20:00 Aidasol
11-05-2012 09:00 11-05-2012 18:00 Aidacara
11-05-2012 09:00 11-05-2012 13:30 MSC Opera
12-05-2012 05:00 12-05-2012 18:00 Emerald Princess
12-05-2012 07:30 12-05-2012 22:00 Empress
12-05-2012 08:00 12-05-2012 17:00 Queen Victoria
13-05-2012 07:00 13-05-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
13-05-2012 07:30 13-05-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
14-05-2012 08:00 14-05-2012 18:00 Le Boreal
14-05-2012 09:00 14-05-2012 17:00 Aidacara
14-05-2012 09:00 14-05-2012 21:30 Discovery
16-05-2012 08:00 16-05-2012 17:00 Costa Deliziosa
17-05-2012 08:00 17-05-2012 18:00 Grand Mistral
18-05-2012 10:00 18-05-2012 18:00 Aidacara
19-05-2012 08:00 19-05-2012 18:00 Mein Schiff 2
19-05-2012 09:30 19-05-2012 18:30 MSC Lirica
20-05-2012 08:00 20-05-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
21-05-2012 09:00 21-05-2012 17:00 Aidacara
21-05-2012 09:00 21-05-2012 13:30 MSC Opera
22-05-2012 07:00 22-05-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
22-05-2012 09:00 22-05-2012 18:00 Azura
23-05-2012 05:00 23-05-2012 18:00 Emerald Princess
23-05-2012 08:00 23-05-2012 17:00 Eurodam
24-05-2012 08:00 24-05-2012 17:00 Quest for Adventure
142
24-05-2012 10:00 24-05-2012 17:00 Artania
24-05-2012 11:00 24-05-2012 20:00 Aidasol
25-05-2012 08:00 25-05-2012 17:00 Jewel of the Seas
25-05-2012 11:00 25-05-2012 19:00 Aidacara
26-05-2012 08:00 26-05-2012 22:00 Empress
26-05-2012 11:00 26-05-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
27-05-2012 08:00 27-05-2012 19:00 Costa Fortuna
27-05-2012 08:00 27-05-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
29-05-2012 07:00 29-05-2012 17:00 Jewel of the Seas
30-05-2012 07:00 30-05-2012 19:00 Silver Cloud
30-05-2012 08:00 30-05-2012 17:00 Celebrity Constellation
30-05-2012 08:00 30-05-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
30-05-2012 08:00 30-05-2012 18:00 Le Boreal
30-05-2012 09:00 30-05-2012 16:30 MSC Lirica
31-05-2012 07:00 31-05-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
31-05-2012 08:00 01-06-2012 18:00 Prinsendam
31-05-2012 09:00 31-05-2012 18:00 Adonia
01-06-2012 08:00 01-06-2012 18:00 Aidacara
02-06-2012 08:00 02-06-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
02-06-2012 08:00 02-06-2012 22:00 Star Flyer
02-06-2012 08:00 02-06-2012 18:00 Balmoral
02-06-2012 09:00 02-06-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
03-06-2012 05:00 03-06-2012 18:00 Emerald Princess
03-06-2012 08:00 03-06-2012 18:00 Seabourn Sojourn
03-06-2012 08:00 03-06-2012 19:00 Costa Fortuna
03-06-2012 08:00 03-06-2012 17:00 Artania
03-06-2012 09:00 03-06-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
03-06-2012 11:00 03-06-2012 20:00 Aidasol
03-06-2012 12:40 03-06-2012 19:00 Minerva
04-06-2012 07:00 04-06-2012 00:19 Silver Whisper
04-06-2012 07:00 04-06-2012 16:30 Costa neoRomantica
04-06-2012 08:00 04-06-2012 17:00 Rotterdam
05-06-2012 08:00 05-06-2012 23:00 Aidacara
05-06-2012 09:00 06-06-2012 04:00 Grand Princess
05-06-2012 10:00 05-06-2012 23:00 Ocean Princess
06-06-2012 08:00 06-06-2012 20:00 Clipper Adventurer
06-06-2012 08:00 06-06-2012 18:00 Azura
06-06-2012 08:00 06-06-2012 23:59 Celebrity Eclipse
06-06-2012 08:00 06-06-2012 18:00 Mein Schiff 2
06-06-2012 09:30 06-06-2012 18:00 Arcadia
08-06-2012 08:00 09-06-2012 22:00 Nautica
08-06-2012 09:00 08-06-2012 18:00 Aidacara
08-06-2012 09:00 08-06-2012 15:00 Vision of the Seas
143
08-06-2012 09:00 08-06-2012 17:00 Marco Polo
09-06-2012 07:00 09-06-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
09-06-2012 08:00 09-06-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
09-06-2012 08:00 09-06-2012 22:00 Empress
09-06-2012 11:00 09-06-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
10-06-2012 07:00 10-06-2012 16:00 Jewel of the Seas
10-06-2012 08:00 10-06-2012 22:00 Star Flyer
10-06-2012 08:30 10-06-2012 19:00 Costa Fortuna
10-06-2012 09:00 10-06-2012 18:30 MSC Lirica
10-06-2012 09:00 10-06-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
11-06-2012 07:00 11-06-2012 17:00 Clipper Adventurer
11-06-2012 08:00 11-06-2012 17:00 Celebrity Constellation
11-06-2012 10:10 11-06-2012 20:00 Ryndam
12-06-2012 07:00 12-06-2012 16:00 Costa neoRomantica
12-06-2012 09:00 13-06-2012 02:00 Azamara Journey
13-06-2012 08:00 13-06-2012 17:00 Oriana
13-06-2012 11:00 13-06-2012 20:00 Aidasol
14-06-2012 05:00 14-06-2012 18:00 Emerald Princess
14-06-2012 07:00 14-06-2012 17:00 Eurodam
14-06-2012 08:00 14-06-2012 18:30 Delphin
14-06-2012 12:30 14-06-2012 20:00 Le Diamant
14-06-2012 15:30 14-06-2012 22:30 Le Boreal
15-06-2012 7:00:00 15-06-2012 17:00:00 Seabourn Sojourn
15-06-2012 08:00 15-06-2012 23:00 Thomson Spirit
15-06-2012 09:00 15-06-2012 15:00 Vision of the Seas
15-06-2012 09:00 15-06-2012 22:00 Queen Elizabeth
16-06-2012 07:00 16-06-2012 18:00 Grand Mistral
16-06-2012 08:00 16-06-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
16-06-2012 08:00 16-06-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
16-06-2012 08:00 16-06-2012 18:00 Star Flyer
17-06-2012 08:00 17-06-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
17-06-2012 08:30 17-06-2012 19:00 Costa Fortuna
17-06-2012 09:00 17-06-2012 17:00 Vision of the Seas
18-06-2012 07:00 18-06-2012 19:00 Silver Whisper
18-06-2012 07:00 18-06-2012 17:00 Costa Voyager
18-06-2012 07:00 18-06-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
18-06-2012 07:00 18-06-2012 18:00 Rotterdam
19-06-2012 08:00 19-06-2012 17:00 Crystal Symphony
19-06-2012 10:00 19-06-2012 23:59 Star Flyer
19-06-2012 11:00 19-06-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
20-06-2012 07:00 20-06-2012 16:00 Costa neoRomantica
20-06-2012 08:00 20-06-2012 23:59 Celebrity Eclipse
21-06-2012 08:00 21-06-2012 21:00 Columbus 2
144
23-06-2012 07:00 23-06-2012 18:00 Silver Cloud
23-06-2012 07:00 23-06-2012 18:00 Grand Mistral
23-06-2012 08:00 23-06-2012 20:00 Empress
23-06-2012 08:00 23-06-2012 20:00 Europa
23-06-2012 08:00 23-06-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
23-06-2012 09:00 23-06-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
23-06-2012 09:30 23-06-2012 18:30 Oriana
23-06-2012 11:00 23-06-2012 20:00 Aidasol
24-06-2012 07:00 24-06-2012 17:00 Eurodam
24-06-2012 08:30 24-06-2012 20:00 Costa Fortuna
24-06-2012 09:00 24-06-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
25-06-2012 05:00 25-06-2012 18:00 Emerald Princess
25-06-2012 07:00 25-06-2012 18:00 Seven Seas Voyager
26-06-2012 07:00 26-06-2012 17:00 Seabourn Pride
27-06-2012 07:00 27-06-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
28-06-2012 07:00 28-06-2012 16:00 Costa neoRomantica
28-06-2012 08:00 28-06-2012 20:00 Nautica
29-06-2012 07:00 29-06-2012 17:00 Seabourn Sojourn
29-06-2012 11:00 29-06-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
30-06-2012 00:00 30-06-2012 21:00 Kristina Katarina
30-06-2012 07:00 30-06-2012 19:00 Grand Mistral
30-06-2012 07:45 30-06-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
30-06-2012 08:00 30-06-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
30-06-2012 13:00 30-06-2012 19:00 Athena
01-07-2012 08:00 01-07-2012 17:00 Discovery
01-07-2012 08:00 01-07-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
01-07-2012 08:30 01-07-2012 19:00 Costa Fortuna
02-07-2012 07:00 02-07-2012 19:00 Silver Whisper
02-07-2012 08:00 02-07-2012 22:00 Marina
03-07-2012 08:00 03-07-2012 18:00 Queen Victoria
03-07-2012 11:00 03-07-2012 20:00 Aidasol
04-07-2012 06:00 04-07-2012 17:00 Eurodam
04-07-2012 07:00 04-07-2012 16:00 Jewel of the Seas
04-07-2012 07:30 04-07-2012 17:00 Black Watch
04-07-2012 08:00 04-07-2012 23:59 Celebrity Eclipse
04-07-2012 09:00 05-07-2012 04:00 Caribbean Princess
04-07-2012 20:00 07-07-2012 23:59 Azamara Journey
05-07-2012 07:00 05-07-2012 16:00 Boudicca
05-07-2012 08:00 05-07-2012 13:00 Island Sky
05-07-2012 10:00 05-07-2012 23:00 Ocean Princess
06-07-2012 05:00 06-07-2012 18:00 Emerald Princess
06-07-2012 07:00 06-07-2012 16:00 Costa neoRomantica
06-07-2012 07:00 06-07-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
145
06-07-2012 08:00 07-07-2012 17:00 Aurora
07-07-2012 07:00 07-07-2012 19:00 Grand Mistral
07-07-2012 08:00 09-07-2012 18:00 Crystal Symphony
07-07-2012 08:00 07-07-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
07-07-2012 08:00 07-07-2012 20:00 Empress
07-07-2012 09:00 07-07-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
08-07-2012 08:00 08-07-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
08-07-2012 08:00 08-07-2012 18:00 Mein Schiff 2
08-07-2012 08:00 08-07-2012 19:00 Costa Fortuna
09-07-2012 07:00 09-07-2012 18:00 Silver Whisper
09-07-2012 10:00 09-07-2012 20:00 Ryndam
09-07-2012 11:00 09-07-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
10-07-2012 07:00 10-07-2012 17:00 Seabourn Pride
10-07-2012 07:00 10-07-2012 22:00 Silver Cloud
10-07-2012 08:00 10-07-2012 17:00 Grand Princess
12-07-2012 05:30 12-07-2012 20:00 Seven Seas Voyager
13-07-2012 07:00 13-07-2012 17:00 Seabourn Sojourn
13-07-2012 11:00 13-07-2012 20:00 Aidasol
14-07-2012 06:00 14-07-2012 17:00 Eurodam
14-07-2012 07:00 14-07-2012 16:00 Costa neoRomantica
14-07-2012 07:00 14-07-2012 20:00 Grand Mistral
14-07-2012 08:00 14-07-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
14-07-2012 08:45 14-07-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
15-07-2012 07:00 15-07-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
15-07-2012 08:15 15-07-2012 18:30 Costa Fortuna
15-07-2012 09:00 15-07-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
16-07-2012 07:00 16-07-2012 16:00 Jewel of the Seas
17-07-2012 05:00 17-07-2012 18:00 Emerald Princess
17-07-2012 07:30 17-07-2012 17:00 Queen Elizabeth
17-07-2012 08:00 17-07-2012 17:00 Celebrity Constellation
19-07-2012 11:00 19-07-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
20-07-2012 09:00 20-07-2012 17:00 Arcadia
21-07-2012 05:00 21-07-2012 18:00 Grand Mistral
21-07-2012 07:45 21-07-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
21-07-2012 08:00 21-07-2012 20:00 Empress
21-07-2012 08:00 21-07-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
21-07-2012 13:00 22-07-2012 21:30 Island Sky
22-07-2012 07:00 22-07-2012 16:00 Costa neoRomantica
22-07-2012 07:00 22-07-2012 22:00 Marina
22-07-2012 08:00 22-07-2012 18:30 Costa Fortuna
22-07-2012 08:00 22-07-2012 21:00 Columbus 2
22-07-2012 08:00 22-07-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
23-07-2012 11:00 23-07-2012 20:00 Aidasol
146
24-07-2012 05:45 24-07-2012 16:30 Eurodam
24-07-2012 07:00 24-07-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
27-07-2012 05:30 27-07-2012 12:00 Clipper Odyssey
27-07-2012 07:00 27-07-2012 17:00 Seabourn Sojourn
28-07-2012 04:30 28-07-2012 19:00 Grand Mistral
28-07-2012 05:00 28-07-2012 18:00 Emerald Princess
28-07-2012 07:00 28-07-2012 16:00 Jewel of the Seas
28-07-2012 07:00 28-07-2012 17:00 Brilliance of the Seas
28-07-2012 08:00 28-07-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
28-07-2012 08:00 28-07-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
29-07-2012 05:30 29-07-2012 20:00 Seven Seas Voyager
29-07-2012 08:00 29-07-2012 19:00 Costa Fortuna
29-07-2012 08:00 29-07-2012 17:00 Celebrity Constellation
29-07-2012 08:00 29-07-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
29-07-2012 11:00 29-07-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
29-07-2012 14:00 30-07-2012 20:00 Wind Surf
30-07-2012 07:00 30-07-2012 18:00 Astor
30-07-2012 07:00 30-07-2012 16:00 Costa neoRomantica
31-07-2012 08:00 31-07-2012 18:00 Balmoral
01-08-2012 08:00 01-08-2012 23:59 Celebrity Eclipse
02-08-2012 07:00 02-08-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
02-08-2012 08:00 03-08-2012 18:00 Crystal Symphony
02-08-2012 10:00 02-08-2012 20:00 Aidasol
04-08-2012 05:45 04-08-2012 17:00 Brilliance of the Seas
04-08-2012 07:00 04-08-2012 20:00 Empress
04-08-2012 07:45 04-08-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
04-08-2012 08:00 04-08-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
04-08-2012 08:30 04-08-2012 18:00 Grand Mistral
05-08-2012 07:30 05-08-2012 18:00 Costa Fortuna
05-08-2012 08:00 05-08-2012 17:00 Prinsendam
05-08-2012 08:00 05-08-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
06-08-2012 07:00 06-08-2012 17:00 Seabourn Sojourn
06-08-2012 09:00 06-08-2012 19:00 Athena
07-08-2012 07:00 07-08-2012 16:00 Costa neoRomantica
07-08-2012 07:15 07-08-2012 17:00 Oriana
07-08-2012 09:30 07-08-2012 18:00 Aurora
07-08-2012 10:00 07-08-2012 22:00 Star Flyer
08-08-2012 05:00 08-08-2012 18:00 Emerald Princess
08-08-2012 07:45 08-08-2012 17:00 Eurodam
08-08-2012 09:30 08-08-2012 17:30 Marco Polo
08-08-2012 11:00 08-08-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
09-08-2012 07:00 09-08-2012 16:00 Jewel of the Seas
09-08-2012 07:00 09-08-2012 17:00 Vision of the Seas
147
10-08-2012 08:00 10-08-2012 17:00 Celebrity Constellation
10-08-2012 08:00 10-08-2012 17:00 Nautica
11-08-2012 06:00 11-08-2012 17:00 Brilliance of the Seas
11-08-2012 07:00 11-08-2012 20:00 Grand Mistral
11-08-2012 07:00 11-08-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
11-08-2012 08:00 11-08-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
11-08-2012 08:00 11-08-2012 22:00 Marina
11-08-2012 09:00 11-08-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
12-08-2012 08:30 12-08-2012 19:00 Costa Fortuna
12-08-2012 09:00 12-08-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
12-08-2012 10:00 12-08-2012 20:00 Aidasol
14-08-2012 07:00 14-08-2012 18:00 Quest for Adventure
14-08-2012 08:00 14-08-2012 22:00 Star Flyer
15-08-2012 07:00 15-08-2012 20:00 Seven Seas Voyager
15-08-2012 07:00 15-08-2012 16:00 Costa neoRomantica
15-08-2012 08:00 15-08-2012 17:00 Columbus 2
17-08-2012 09:00 17-08-2012 18:00 Ocean Countess
17-08-2012 13:00 17-08-2012 23:00 Braemar
18-08-2012 07:00 18-08-2012 17:00 Brilliance of the Seas
18-08-2012 08:00 18-08-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
18-08-2012 08:00 18-08-2012 20:00 Empress
18-08-2012 08:15 18-08-2012 18:00 Grand Mistral
18-08-2012 09:00 18-08-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
18-08-2012 10:20 18-08-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
19-08-2012 05:00 19-08-2012 18:00 Emerald Princess
19-08-2012 08:30 19-08-2012 19:00 Costa Fortuna
19-08-2012 09:00 19-08-2012 17:00 Eurodam
19-08-2012 09:00 19-08-2012 17:00 Arcadia
20-08-2012 06:35 20-08-2012 18:00 Norwegian Sun
20-08-2012 06:50 20-08-2012 17:00 Seabourn Sojourn
21-08-2012 07:00 21-08-2012 16:00 Jewel of the Seas
21-08-2012 07:00 21-08-2012 17:00 Vision of the Seas
22-08-2012 08:00 22-08-2012 17:00 Celebrity Constellation
22-08-2012 10:00 22-08-2012 20:00 Aidasol
23-08-2012 07:00 23-08-2012 16:00 Costa neoRomantica
23-08-2012 07:55 24-08-2012 13:00 Wind Surf
23-08-2012 08:25 23-08-2012 18:00 Crystal Symphony
24-08-2012 09:00 24-08-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
25-08-2012 06:15 25-08-2012 17:00 Brilliance of the Seas
25-08-2012 07:00 25-08-2012 18:00 Grand Mistral
25-08-2012 08:00 25-08-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
25-08-2012 08:00 25-08-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
26-08-2012 07:00 26-08-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
148
26-08-2012 07:00 26-08-2012 17:00 Vision of the Seas
26-08-2012 08:00 26-08-2012 18:30 Delphin
26-08-2012 08:30 26-08-2012 19:00 Costa Fortuna
27-08-2012 07:00 27-08-2012 17:00 Seabourn Pride
27-08-2012 08:00 27-08-2012 18:00 Europa
27-08-2012 08:00 27-08-2012 17:00 Arcadia
28-08-2012 07:50 28-08-2012 20:00 Nautica
28-08-2012 09:00 29-08-2012 04:00 Grand Princess
28-08-2012 10:30 28-08-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
29-08-2012 05:00 29-08-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
29-08-2012 08:00 30-08-2012 00:05 Celebrity Eclipse
30-08-2012 05:00 30-08-2012 18:00 Emerald Princess
30-08-2012 06:20 30-08-2012 18:00 Silver Whisper
30-08-2012 06:35 30-08-2012 18:00 National Geographic Explorer
30-08-2012 07:30 30-08-2012 22:00 Black Watch
30-08-2012 10:00 30-08-2012 18:00 Aidacara
31-08-2012 07:00 31-08-2012 18:00 Marina
31-08-2012 07:00 31-08-2012 16:00 Costa neoRomantica
01-09-2012 07:00 01-09-2012 17:00 Brilliance of the Seas
01-09-2012 08:00 01-09-2012 19:00 Costa Luminosa
01-09-2012 08:00 01-09-2012 20:00 Empress
01-09-2012 09:00 01-09-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
01-09-2012 09:00 01-09-2012 20:00 Deutschland
01-09-2012 10:00 01-09-2012 20:00 Aidasol
02-09-2012 07:30 02-09-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
02-09-2012 08:00 02-09-2012 17:00 Vision of the Seas
02-09-2012 08:00 02-09-2012 16:00 Seven Seas Voyager
02-09-2012 08:10 02-09-2012 19:00 Costa Fortuna
02-09-2012 12:15 02-09-2012 18:00 Astor
03-09-2012 10:00 03-09-2012 18:00 Aidacara
03-09-2012 10:00 03-09-2012 18:00 Celebrity Constellation
04-09-2012 08:00 04-09-2012 17:30 Oriana
04-09-2012 20:00 05-09-2012 18:00 Ocean Countess
05-09-2012 07:00 05-09-2012 18:00 Seabourn Sojourn
05-09-2012 08:00 05-09-2012 17:30 Hamburg
05-09-2012 09:30 05-09-2012 19:00 Aidasol
05-09-2012 13:30 05-09-2012 21:30 Discovery
06-09-2012 08:00 06-09-2012 18:00 Mein Schiff 2
06-09-2012 08:30 06-09-2012 17:00 Rotterdam
07-09-2012 07:00 07-09-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
07-09-2012 07:10 07-09-2012 17:00 Vision of the Seas
07-09-2012 07:35 07-09-2012 18:00 Aidasol
07-09-2012 08:00 07-09-2012 17:00 Nautica
149
07-09-2012 10:00 07-09-2012 18:00 Aidacara
07-09-2012 11:00 07-09-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
08-09-2012 07:00 08-09-2012 16:30 Brilliance of the Seas
08-09-2012 08:00 08-09-2012 18:00 Costa Luminosa
08-09-2012 08:00 08-09-2012 18:20 MSC Magnifica
09-09-2012 07:30 09-09-2012 18:00 MSC Poesia
10-09-2012 05:00 10-09-2012 18:00 Emerald Princess
13-09-2012 07:30 13-09-2012 13:30 Astor
14-09-2012 07:00 14-09-2012 17:00 Vision of the Seas
14-09-2012 09:00 14-09-2012 18:00 Aidacara
15-09-2012 06:30 15-09-2012 20:00 Empress
15-09-2012 06:45 15-09-2012 18:00 MSC Magnifica
15-09-2012 08:00 15-09-2012 19:30 Astor
16-09-2012 07:00 16-09-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
17-09-2012 10:35 17-09-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
21-09-2012 07:00 21-09-2012 18:30 National Geographic Explorer
21-09-2012 09:00 21-09-2012 18:00 Aidacara
21-09-2012 11:00 21-09-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
22-09-2012 07:30 22-09-2012 18:00 Black Watch
25-09-2012 08:00 25-09-2012 20:00 Nautica
25-09-2012 11:00 25-09-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
25-09-2012 12:30 25-09-2012 18:00 Marco Polo
28-09-2012 09:00 28-09-2012 18:00 Aidacara
29-09-2012 11:00 29-09-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
30-09-2012 07:00 30-09-2012 17:00 Norwegian Sun
01-10-2012 08:00 01-10-2012 18:00 AidaBlu
03-10-2012 07:00 03-10-2012 14:00 Braemar
05-10-2012 09:00 05-10-2012 18:00 Aidacara
08-10-2012 09:00 08-10-2012 17:00 Aidacara
10-10-2012 09:00 10-10-2012 16:00 Aidacara
15-11-2012 08:30 16-11-2012 15:00 Sorolla
25-11-2012 08:30 25-11-2012 18:00 Black Watch
08-12-2012 17:00 09-12-2012 17:00 Oriana
16-12-2012 10:00 16-12-2012 22:30 Queen Victoria
16-12-2012 12:30 16-12-2012 22:00 Amadea
17-12-2012 09:00 17-12-2012 18:00 Balmoral
26-12-2012 08:20 26-12-2012 23:59 Oceana
150
Appendix 3: The Norwegian NOX Fund
From 1.1.2011 the NOX Fund may grant according to the following
support rates: