A vision for clean shipping and clean air in marine environments

Transcription

1 A vision for clean shipping and clean air in marine environments Malte Siegert Head of Environmental Policy, NABU Nature And Biodiversity Conservation Union Blue Sky over the Sea, UBA Berlin, November 18th 2016

2 NABU Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union 2

3 3 NABU Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union Founded in members and donors volunteers 16 federal offices >200 employees (plus federal offices) Member of Birdlife International

4 Why act? 4

5 5 NABU maritim: Why act? 90% of people in European cities exposed to extremely harmful air pollution levels EU: 400,000 premature deaths p. a. due to poor air quality premature deaths in EU only due to ship emissions Threats: NOx, SOx, PM, BC

6 6 NABU maritim: Why act? Health cardio-vascular desease, asthma, bronchitis, cancer Environment acid rain, declining forests, acidification of soil, damage to plant vegetation, eutrophication of fresh water bodies, soils and coastal areas, decreasing biodiversity Climate soot lowers reflection capacity of snow and ice BC is responsible for 40% of arctic warming

7 7 NABU Projects and Campaigns

8 8 Projects and Campaigns This stinks! Clean up cruise ships! (since 2011) EU LIFE+ project Clean Air in Ports ( ) NABU Cargo Ships (since 2013) Government-Vessel (since 2015) HFO Free Arctic (sine 2015)

9 NABU Publication: Clean Air in Ports 9

10 New Project: HFO Free Arctic Artic: >50 % of ships use/carry HFO toxic and viscous, unmanageable spill Accelerate warming Antarctica: IMO adopted HFO ban in

11 11 Clean Arctic Alliance Global campaign committed to protecting the Arctic from the hazards and risks posed by the use of heavy fuel oil Main targets: Ban the use of HFO in Arctic waters Emission reduction Avoidance of oil spil (accidents, leaks)

12 Status Quo 12

13 Outcome MEPC 70 NABU Assessment 1. Pro: Global 0.5% sulphur cap Open: Compliance, HFO fuel blends (no ban) and/or scrubbers?) 2. Pro: designation of North Sea and Baltic Sea as NECA Con: applies only for new ships built from 2021on (weak) 3. Pro: HFO ban for the Arctic discussed Open: might (not will) be on next MEPC s agenda 4. EEDI: no improvement for fuel safe, CO2, air pollutants 5. Climate: Decision about action postponed to 2018 (2023) 6. In contrast to aviation shipping excluded from obligation (Paris)

14 13 Status Quo Ships are most dirty and less regulated emission sources Outside ECA/SECA HFO (max. 3.5%) 0.5% from 2020 Inside ECA/SECA: Clean Fuel with max 0,1% sulphur (MDO, MGO, LNG) HFO plus Scrubber

15 One-fits-all Solution? 14

16 15 Available Solutions Coherent

17 17 Technical Solutions

18 22 LNG Pro SECA-Compliance (SOx) NECA-Compliance (NOx) Very low PM/BC SOx -99%, NOx -80% up to -25% CO 2 Contra Fossil fuel (from fracking?) From renewable sources! Methane slip (supply chain and combustion)

19 24 MDO + Water Fuel-water-emulsion to reduce soot and NOx independently from SOx rates in fuel Source: Exomission

20 23 Methanol Source: Stena Germanica, Kiel-Göteborg/ Methanol

21 21 HFO and Scrubber Quelle: CE Delft

22 22 Scrubber: Ecological Risks and Challenges Reduction SOx and PM. (NOx max. -10%) Fuel consuption increase between 1.5 and 3.5% No coherent EU-regulation Doubtful: Compliance with Water- or Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Good condition in 2020) Consequences: possible acidification / accumulation of dangerous substances (heavy metals, PAHs), especially in sensitive coastal areas. Prolongs the use of toxic HFO

23 23 Economic Challenges Costly installation (200 to 400 /kw/h.) Benefits dependent on: - operational user profile - depreciation period - application days in SECA/ECA - oil price Individual economic analysis crucial

24 24 Exhaust-Gas Recirculation (EGR) CO 2 of exhaust reduces NO2 If HFO: additional scrubber Exhaust-Gas Recirculation (EGR) 30-40% return For two-stroke-engines

25 25 Catalyst NOx-reduction For four-stroke-engines Can be switched dependent on operation areas (Tier II oder Tier III)

26 Vision 26

27 Go beyond compliance today!

28 Take Aktion! Advance Status Quo Phase out HFO Clean exhaust and clean fuel Regulation, control and enforcement Identify future zero emission propulsion for ships Battery-electric Fuel-cell Combustion of bio-fuels (plus filter) Combustion of e-gas (of course from renewables) Wind

29 28 Short and medium term: MDO + SCR/DPF or LNG MDO + SCR and DPF there is ->90% air pollutants, still 100% CO 2 LNG -99% SOx, - 80% NOx, up to -25% CO 2 Source: BMBF Source: AIDAprima / AIDA

30 29 Electric Quelle: Ampere / Sognefjord Norwegen / Siemens: Lithium-Ionen- Akkus, gesamt: kwh

31 30 Wind / Hybrid Quelle: B9 Source: Fraunhofer/Vindskip Source: B9 Shipping/Dyna-Rigg Source: Ecoliner / Dykstra Naval Architects

32 31 Wind / Hybrid Source: E-Ship 1 / Enercon Source: Skysails

33 32 NABU demands: Conclusion HFO ban Government ships must be front Include PM and BC in all IMO/EU agreements SECA/ NECA in all EU waters (gap Include shipping in EU-emission trade More contribution of all links from logistic chain More money for scientific research and alternative solutions Uptake LNG, OPS, green tech in ports COMPLIANCE, ENFORCEMENT, FINES

34 33 Thanks for your attention! Malte Siegert Head of Environmental Policy NABU Hamburg Tel. +49 / 40 / Siegert@NABU- Hamburg.de

35 Outcome MEPC 70 NABU Assessment Good: -Global 0.5% sulphur cap > but: ways to comply!? Increase of HFO fuel blends (no HFO ban) and/or scrubbers? > bad solutions! Compliance and enforcement is key! (control, transparency + level of fines) - designation of North Sea and Baltic Sea as NECA > but: applies only for new ships which will be built from 2021 on (poor instrument) - HFO ban for the Arctic discussed > will it make it to next MEPC s agenda? - no improvement of EEDI which would have safed fuel, CO2 and air pollutants By the way: Decision on any climate action effectively postponed to 2018 which means we will not see any action before Shipping to be the only sector not to address climate impact (even aviation meanwhile got its own poor target)