ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF INLAND NAVIGATION. Juha SCHWEIGHOFER, Petra SEIWERTH

European Inland Waterway Navigation Conference 27-29 June, 2007, Visegrád, Hungary ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF INLAND NAVIGATION Juha SCHWEIGHOFER, Petra SEIWERTH via donau Österreichische Wasserstraßen-Gesellschaft mbh Donau-City-Straße 1, A-1220 Vienna, Austria Received: April 30, 2007. ABSTRACT Focussed on emissions to the air, the environmental performance of inland navigation and means for its improvement are discussed. The investigation was carried out in the Work Package 6, Environmental Impact of Inland Navigation, of the European-Union project CREATING Concepts to Reduce Environmental impact and Attain optimal Transport performance by Inland NaviGation, funded within the Sixth Framework Programme. The legislation with respect to exhaust emissions in waterborne and road transport is outlined briefly. For a Large Roll On-Roll Off (RoRo) vessel and a coupled formation of a motor cargo vessel and a barge operating on a defined stretch on the Danube, the exhaust emissions without and with the application of different emission-reduction technologies are evaluated. A comparison between the emissions of the vessels investigated and a truck on the road is carried out for the different emission-reduction technologies and emission regulations considered. Further, a brief discussion is performed on the costs associated with the introduction of the emission-reduction technologies presented. Using a combination of technologies like the Selective Catalytic Reduction, low sulphur fuel and a particulate filter, the inland vessel remains superior to the truck in its environmental performance with respect to PM and NO X emissions; even in the case of an application of the Euro V legislation to trucks. Keywords: CREATING, inland navigation, road transport, emissions to the air, emission reduction technologies 1 INTRODUCTION Inland navigation is known as environmentally friendly transport mode. Regarding emissions to the air, especially with respect to emissions of the greenhouse gas CO 2 (Carbon-Dioxide) the performance of inland vessels is outstanding. On average, the CO 2 emissions of an inland vessel are only 1/3 of the ones of a truck per ton-kilometre (tkm). However, the introduction of emission limits for road transport since the early 1990s has led to a significant reduction of the pollutant emissions of NO X (Nitrogen-Oxides) and PM (Particulate Matter) on road. In inland navigation such strict emission limits are still missing. Consequently, the superiority in the environmental performance of inland vessels compared with trucks has become smaller in this regard, and with the introduction of EURO IV and EURO V limits for road transport in 2006 and 2009, respectively, these new trucks may emit even less NO X and PM per tkm than inland vessels. Considering the scenario mentioned above, the aim of Work Package 6, Environmental Impact of Inland Navigation, of the CREATING Project [18] was to find solutions, how the environmental superiority of inland vessels can be restored regarding these emissions. This paper gives a short introduction into the emission limits for inland waterway and road transport and a survey about the results of CREATING on possible achievements with the application of different improvement techniques to inland vessel engines. This survey is shown on examples of a Roll-On Roll-Off (RoRo) vessel and a motor cargo vessel pushing a barge for the Danube, including a brief discussion on the costs

associated with the introduction of the emission-reduction technologies presented. The paper is completed by key conclusions and recommendations to policy makers, ship owners, equipment suppliers and oil companies as well as fuel suppliers derived from the research performed within Work Package 6 of the CREATING project. 2.1 Inland navigation 2 EMISSION LEGISLATION In Table 2-1, a simplified overview of existing and future emission regulations relevant to inland navigation is given. The entry into force dates denote dates when the regulations are considered to be fully in force. The summary is based on [1], [2], [3]. The CCNR Phase III and EU Stage IV limits are still under discussion. Therefore, the entry into force date is to be taken as indicative. Table 2-1 Simplified overview of present and future emission regulations for inland navigation Regulatory framework NOx PM Entry into g/kwh force date CCNR Phase I 9.2 0.54 2002 CCNR Phase II EU Stage IIIA 6 0.2 2008/2007 CCNR Phase III EU Stage IV <2 0.02 ~2012 2.2 Road transport In Table 2-2, an overview of existing and future EU emission standards for heavy duty vehicles to be used in road transport is given. The table is completed by proposals of the German Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA) for EURO V and EURO VI, being still under discussion. The entry into force dates denote dates when the regulations are considered to be fully in force. The overview is based on [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Table 2-2 EU emission standards for heavy duty vehicles and German Federal Environmental Agency (UBA) proposals for 2008 and 2010 Heavy duty vehicles NO x HC CO PM Entry into g/kwh force dates EURO 0 14.4 2.4 11.4 1990 EURO I 8 1.1 4.5 0.36 1993 EURO II 7 1.1 4. 0.15 1996 EURO III 5 0.66 2.1 0.1 2001 EURO IV 3.5 0.46 1.5 0.02 2006 EURO V 2 0.46 1.5 0.02 2009 EURO V UBA Proposal 1 0.46 1.5 0.002 2008 EURO VI UBA Proposal 0.5 0.46 1.5 0.002 2010 In Fig. 2-1, a comparison of existing and future emission limits is presented for inland waterway and road transport summarizing the contents of Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Additionally, the US emission standard, denoted by US-EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), entering into force in 2010 is given, [9], [10]. It can be clearly seen that the existing emission standards for road transport, EURO III and EURO IV for Europe are by far stricter than the ones for inland waterway transport as there are: the emission standards by the CCNR (Central Commission for the Navigation on the Rhine) corresponding to Phases I and II and the one by the European

Commission corresponding to EU-Stage IIIA. The CCNR Phase III and EU Stage IV standards to be applied to inland navigation and being still under discussion will be equally strict as the EURO V standard for road transport. However, the EURO V standard will be introduced much earlier, and considering the US-EPA standard and the proposal by the UBA for EURO VI, both standards to be introduced in 2010, the emission standards for road transport are expected to remain much stricter than the ones for inland navigation. Emission Standards 0,6 CCNR I (2002, vessels) 0,5 PM emissions [g/kwh] 0,4 0,3 0,2 CCNR II / EU-Stage IIIA (2008/2007, vessels) EURO I (1993, trucks) EURO III (2001, trucks) 0,1 EURO V (2009, trucks) ~ CCNR III / EU Stage IV (~ US-EPA (2010, trucks) 2012, vessels) EURO IV (2006, trucks) 0 EURO 0 VI UBA (proposal, 1 2010, trucks) 2 3 4 5 NOx emissions [g/kwh] 6 7 8 9 10 Fig. 2-1 Emission standards for inland waterway and road transport These emission standards are related to the energy consumption of the means of transport. As the energy consumption per tkm of inland vessels is on average about three times lower than the one of trucks, the emission standards may remain to a certain degree less severe with respect to equal environmental impact. However, once the EURO V standard has been introduced to road transport in 2009, only the introduction of CCNR Phase III and EU Stage IV standards or stricter ones to inland navigation will result in a better environmental performance of inland navigation with respect to emitted pollutants per tkm compared with road transport, Fig. 2-2. The introduction of EURO IV (UBA Proposal) will result in a slightly better performance of trucks, which, however, will be of minor significance. In Fig. 2-2, the NO X and PM emissions related to tkm of a Rhine vessel complying with CCNR Phases I, II, and III are compared with the ones of a truck complying with EURO I up to V and EURO IV proposed by the Federal Environmental Agency of Germany (UBA). The emissions of the vessel and the truck in g/kwh correspond to Tables 2-1 and 2-2. For the truck, it is assumed that the fuel consumption accounts for 200 g/kwh and 320 g/km leading to an energy demand per km of 1.6 kwh/km. The payload is assumed to be 17 t giving an energy demand per tkm of 0.094 kwh/tkm. For the Rhine vessel a mean power factor of 0.4 kw/t is assumed, leading to an energy demand of about 0.04 kwh/tkm for a vessel speed of 10 km/h, [11], [12]. Multiplication of the emission factors in g/kwh with the energy demand in kwh/tkm gives the emissions in g/tkm.

0,035 T1 0,03 0,025 Euro I truck (T1) PM emissions (g/tkm) 0,02 0,015 V1 T2 Euro II truck (T2) Euro III truck (T3) Euro IV truck (T4) Euro V truck (T5) Euro VI UBA prop. truck (T6) CCNR I vessel (V1) CCNR II vessel (V2) 0,01 V2 T3 CCNR III vessel (V3) 0,005 T5 T4 V3 0 T6 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 NOx emissions (g/tkm) Fig. 2-2 Emission comparison of trucks and inland vessels (CCNR Phases I, II, III). Emissions in g/kwh equal limit values of standards and phases considered. A major concern is, moreover, the longer lifetime of an inland vessel engine compared with a truck engine. Truck engines are replaced on average every 5 years. This means that five years after the introduction of a new emission limit, the average truck fleet complies with this limit. Vessel engines may remain in service for 30 years or even longer, and, therefore, it will take also much longer in order to achieve a compliance with new emission standards compared with trucks. 3 ESTIMATION OF EMISSION REDUCTION POTENTIALS Taking into consideration the developments in the emission legislation described above, compliance with EU transport policy and environmental friendliness as a competitive factor of increasing significance, it was an objective of the CREATING project to find possible solutions to improve the environmental performance of inland vessels. The results of this project are used as basis for the evaluation of possible effects of the combination of several improvement techniques on the emission characteristics of a vessel engine. The outcome of this evaluation is presented in the following. The evaluation is made for two cases: 1. A RoRo vessel designed for the Danube sailing between Passau (D) and Vidin (BG). The travelling distance in one direction accounts for 1442 km. The design concept was developed within the CREATING project. The main dimensions are: Length over all, LOA = 120 m Breadth moulded, B = 20.6 m Draught, vessel fully loaded, T = 1.65 m Number of trucks replaced = 93 since the vessel is able to transport 49 semi trailers and 88 vans. It is assumed that one truck transports two vans.

2. A coupled formation of a motor cargo vessel and a barge sailing on the same route. The motor cargo vessel is a DDSG-Steinklasse vessel with the following main dimensions: Length over all, LOA = 95 m Breadth moulded, B = 11.4 m Draught, vessel about 60 % loaded, T = 1.9 m (fully loaded T = 2.7 m) Number of trucks replaced = 62. This value is obtained by dividing the payload of the partially loaded vessel accounting for 1060 t by the average payload of trucks being assumed as 17 t. The barge is a Europe II B barge with the following main dimensions: Length over all, LOA = 76.5 m Breadth moulded, B = 11.0 m Draught, vessel about 60 % loaded, T = 1.9 m (fully loaded T = 2.7 m) Number of trucks replaced = 62. This value is obtained in the same way as the respective one for the DDSG Steinklasse motor cargo vessel. The coupled formation is considered as it represents a real case being representative for a part of the Danube fleet. The examination is performed for a partially loaded configuration as it never travels 100 % loaded in both directions. The assumption of about 60 % average loading is based on experience. Both vessels are equipped with two engines, each having a power output (maximum continuous rating) of 746 kw. 3.1 Estimations for the basic case The emission factors for the emissions of the engines of both vessels are estimated as 9 g/kwh NO X emissions and 0.2 g/kwh PM emissions following the average emission factors for vessels in service complying with the CCNR I emission regulations. The CO 2 emissions are directly related to the fuel consumption by CO 2 emissions = FC ρ 3.2, where FC is the fuel consumption in m 3, and ρ is the density of the fuel equal to 840 kg/m 3. The power requirement for travelling on the Danube is adapted to the cruising conditions on the Danube with an engine power of 1000 kw on most stretches upstream and downstream and a variable velocity. Taking into account the streaming velocity of the river, the pure travelling times (without stops in locks and ports) for a round trip are estimated as approximately 215 h for the RoRo vessel and 196 h for the motor cargo vessel pushing a barge. The travelling times are averages of the travelling times for a water depth of 5 m in all sections of the Danube, and the ones for water depths of 3 m in free flowing sections and 5 m everywhere else. The longer travelling time for the RoRo vessel is mainly caused by the larger beam of this vessel causing a larger water resistance. 3.2 Improvement scenarios The following improvement techniques are used for the evaluation: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) for the catalytic reduction of NO X emissions of the engine. The NO X emissions are reduced in the SCR using urea. Therefore, the NO X emissions of the engine entering the SCR may be higher, being associated with a more favourable combustion process and a higher efficiency. Due to the mainly higher efficiency less fuel consumption is required, leading to an additional reduction of PM emissions. Advising Tempomaat (ATM): An electronic control system for optimising the energy efficiency of a vessel by advising the crew on the optimal speed for the prevailing

water conditions. It reduces the fuel consumption of the engine and consequently also the emissions of PM and NO X. Biodiesel (BD): An alternative fuel mainly used for the reduction of CO 2 emissions due to its regenerative attributes. Biodiesel Blend (BDB): A mixture of 80% fossil diesel and 20% biodiesel. Low Sulphur Fuel (LSF): A fuel of higher quality compared to normal gas oil due to the reduction of the sulphur content from 2000 ppm down to 10 ppm. Particulate Mass Filter (PMF): A filter to reduce the PM emissions of the engine. Requires LSF. Natural Gas Engine (NGE): An engine which shows outstanding emission characteristics in both NO X and PM emissions compared with diesel engines. Although the fuel consumption of a gas engine is slightly higher, the CO 2 emissions are reduced due to the better C/H (Carbon to Hydrogen) ratio of gas compared with diesel. The effects of these techniques on the mass-emission characteristics of the engine are shown in Table 3-1, [13]. Table 3-1: Changes in mass emissions with respect to the application of different emission-reduction techniques compared with the basic case where no emissionreduction technique is used. FC means changes in fuel consumption. NO x PM FC CO 2 SCR -81% -35% -7.5% -7.5% ATM -10% -10% -10% -10% BD +10% -5% +15% -65% BDB +2% -1% +3% -13% LSF none -17% none none PMF none -85% +2% +2% NGE -98.5% -97.5% +4.5% -10% 3.3 Evaluation method The emissions are estimated as emitted mass per truck-km as, initially, the investigation was focused on the RoRo vessel being an outcome of CREATING. First the mass of emissions per km are estimated for both vessels, and, then, the mass of these emissions is divided by the number of trucks on road which can be replaced by each vessel giving emissions per truck km. The calculation of emissions per km is made as follows: Σ( ef * P * tt) E = (1) d with the parameters: E Emissions per km [g] ef emission factor [g/kwh] = emission factor for basic case reduction given in Table 3-1. P required power on different stretches (e.g. the RoRo vessel is sailing on different stretches at 1370, 1000, 810, 750, 625, 607 and 200 kw) tt travelling time on a stretch associated with a certain power (e.g. the RoRo vessel is sailing 11h at 1370kW, 160 h at 1000kW, ) d travelling distance Passau - Vidin - Passau The number of trucks replaced is given in the description of the cases in the beginning of Section 3. The emissions per km of a truck on road are taken from [14].

The results in truck km are transferred into emitted mass per tkm by division with 17 t, being equal to the payload of one truck used in the evaluation. 3.4 Results In Fig. 3-1, the PM and NO X emissions of the RoRo vessel and a truck are compared. The respective comparison between the motor cargo vessel pushing a barge and a truck is shown in Fig. 3-2. In both figures, it is shown that the implementation of an SCR system (V2, M2) is sufficient to reduce the NO X emissions to a level far below the one of EURO V trucks (T3). In combination with the Advising Tempomaat system (ATM) and low sulphur diesel (V6, M6), also the PM emissions can be reduced to a level near the EURO V truck for both vessels. This means that the RoRo vessel can also match the demand for emitting less pollutants than trucks, although the operation mode of this vessel is by far less favourable than the one of the motor cargo vessel pushing a barge. However, in order to keep the superiority even after the introduction of stricter emission limits than EURO V for trucks as proposed by the UBA (EURO IV) for 2010, it will be necessary to apply particulate filters to vessel engines, additionally to the mentioned emission-reduction techniques (V7, M7), whereby the effect of the ATM is minor in this case. In Fig. 3-3, the emissions in g/kwh of the engines used in the RoRo and motor cargo vessels are compared with limits according to the EURO standards for road transport and CCNR Phases for inland navigation. The engines comply with CCNR I, and the emissions account for 9 g/kwh NO X emissions and 0.2 g/kwh PM emissions, as already presented. The emission limits with respect to road transport and inland navigation apply to engines on the test stand, and they are taken from Tables 2-1 and 2-2. The emission reduction potentials of the different techniques correspond to the values presented in Table 3-1. Standards according to CCNR III or EURO V may be met only by application of SCR, diesel particulate filter and low sulphur fuel. With internal measures (EGR= Exhaust Gas Recirculation and injection systems) being described more in detail in [13], compliance with EURO II for NO X and PM, and EURO III only for PM is achieved in this particular case. The best result is obtained for HCCI (Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition) and a natural gas engine (NGE), allowing compliance with strictest emission standards like EURO IV as proposed by the UBA. These technologies, HCCI and NGE, need still significant development in order to be applied to inland navigation. The application of biodiesel makes only sense if a significant reduction of CO 2 emissions is to be achieved. Regarding the reduction of NO X and PM emissions, the sole use of biodiesel will have no significant positive effect. On the contrary, NO X emissions will even increase. Therefore, also for the application of biodiesel additional measures have to be considered in order to reduce NO X and PM emissions.

0,016 0,014 T1 0,012 EURO III truck (T1) PM emissions [g/tkm] 0,01 0,008 0,006 0,004 V3 V2 V5 V4 V6 T3 V1 T2 EURO IV truck (T2) EURO V truck (T3) basic case (V1) SCR (V2) SCR + ATM (V3) SCR + ATM + BD (V4) SCR + ATM + BDB (V5) SCR + ATM + LSF (V6) SCR + ATM + LSF + PMF (V7) NGE (V8) 0,002 V7 0 V8 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 NOx emissions [g/tkm] Fig. 3-1 Emission comparison between RoRo vessel and truck 0,016 0,014 T1 0,012 PM emissions [g/tkm] 0,01 0,008 0,006 M2 M1 EURO III truck (T1) EURO IV truck (T2) EURO V truck (T3) basic case (M1) SCR (M2) SCR + ATM (M3) SCR + ATM + BD (M4) SCR + ATM + BDB (M5) SCR + ATM + LSF (M6) SCR + ATM + LSF + PMF (M7) NGE (M8) 0,004 M3 M5 M4 M6 T3 T2 0,002 0 M8 M7 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 NOx emissions [g/tkm] Fig. 3-2 Emission comparison between motor cargo vessel pushing a barge and truck

PM emissions (g/kwh) 0,6 V1 0,5 0,4 T1 0,3 V2 BC 0,2 T2 T3 0,1 T5 = V3 T4 T6 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOx emissions (g/kwh) Euro I truck (T1) Euro II truck (T2) Euro III truck (T3) Euro IV truck (T4) Euro V truck (T5) = CCNR III (V3) Euro VI UBA prop. truck (T6) CCNR I vessel (V1) CCNR II vessel (V2) Basic case (BC) EGR + Injection systems Humidification HCCI Diesel oxidation catalyst PMF SCR BD LSF NGE SCR + PMF + LSF Fig. 3-3 Emission comparison of vessel engine (RoRo, motor cargo vessel) with emission standards for road (EURO) and inland navigation (CCNR) 4 COST CONSIDERATION For the assessment of costs the following parameters are used, [13]: Basic case, without improvement devices: The total fuel consumption is evaluated from the engine power for the different stretches on the route, in most cases 1000 kw, the duration of travelling with the respective power and the fuel consumption in l/h obtained from the engine characteristics and the propeller curve. This estimation leads to a fuel consumption of 51 m³ for the RoRo vessel and 47 m³ for the motor cargo vessel pushing a barge, which can be operated more efficiently. The fuel price is estimated as 0.451 /l which was the status in October 2005 [15]. For the estimation of costs per year it is assumed that with each vessel 25 round trips per year are made. SCR: It is assumed that SCR systems for truck engines can be used also in inland navigation. These systems are available on a large scale since the introduction of EURO IV and EURO V trucks to the market in 2005 and have a by far lower price than specifically designed systems. The costs for one catalyst can be considered as 5000. It is assumed that 4 catalysts are used. The urea consumption of the SCR catalyst is considered as 3% of the fuel consumption. The urea costs are 0.32 /l. The fuel consumption is considered as 7.5% lower compared with the basic case as it is assumed that the efficiency of the engine is increased due to a more favourable combustion associated with higher temperatures and increased NO X raw emissions of the engine. Since the NO X emissions are filtered out in the SCR catalysts this approach is considered reasonable. The reduction in fuel consumption is equal to the reduction in CO 2 emissions, see Table 3-1.

ATM: The system costs are considered as 60000. The benefit in fuel consumption is estimated as 10%, see Table 3-1. BD: Due to the lower energy content of the bio diesel the fuel consumption has to be considered as 15% higher compared to a vessel operated on gas oil, see Table 3-1. The price of bio diesel is estimated as 0.645 /l [16]. BDB: Similarly to the estimation of emissions, also the fuel consumption of the bio diesel blend is averaged from the prices of the fractions of bio diesel and gas oil. LSF: The price of sulphur free diesel is estimated as 0.487 /l (status October 2005) [17]. PMF: Similarly to the SCR, it is assumed that particulate filters for trucks can be used also for inland vessels. The number of filters is estimated as 4 with a price per filter of 7000. The fuel consumption has to be considered as increased by 2%, see Table 3-1. Installation costs are not considered, and it is assumed that the installed systems will be in service for five years. The comparisons of the system costs with the saved fuel costs with respect to the basic case are shown in Fig. 4-1 for the RoRo vessel and in Fig. 4-2 for the motor cargo vessel pushing a barge. In the saved fuel costs, the costs associated with the urea consumption of SCR are taken into account. BD and NGE are not considered in these figures since either no fuel savings are expected or the technology needs a more comprehensive examination with respect to its application to inland navigation. These figures show that, using the systems described in Section 3, an increase of the operational costs may not take place; on the contrary, due to the achievable savings in fuel consumption, the applied systems may lead even to a reduction of the operational costs. 450 400 350 300 Costs (1000 ) 250 200 System costs saved fuel costs per year saved fuel costs in five years 150 100 50 0 SCR (V2) SCR + ATM (V3) SCR + ATM + BDB (V5) SCR + ATM + LSF (V6) SCR + ATM + LSF + PMF (V7) Fig. 4-1: Comparison of system costs against saved fuel costs for RoRo vessel

450 400 350 300 Costs [1000 ] 250 200 System costs saved fuel costs per year saved fuel costs in five years 150 100 50 0 SCR (M2) SCR + ATM (M3) SCR + ATM + BDB (M5) SCR + ATM + LSF (M6) SCR + ATM + LSF + PMF (M7) Fig. 4-2: Comparison of system costs against saved fuel costs for motor cargo vessel pushing a barge 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The emission legislation applied to inland navigation is less strict than the one applied to road transport. This is expected to be the case in the immediate future, too. In order to achieve a superior environmental performance of inland navigation with respect to NO X and PM emissions, emission standards equal to CCNR III and EU Stage IV have to be introduced, at least. Application of SCR, PMF and LSF to marine engines complying with CCNR I will lead to a superior environmental performance of inland navigation with respect to NO X and PM emissions, when EURO V is considered for road transport. In the case of application of the proposed EURO VI standard to road transport, the application of SCR, PM and LSF to marine engines will lead to approximately the same environmental performance. However, the introduction of LSF is required for the application of PMF, whereby, under circumstances, proper additives might have to be added to the fuel in order to preserve its lubrication characteristics and to prevent possible engine damage. Application of truck engines to inland navigation will lead to superior environmental performance of inland navigation. Nevertheless, issues related to operational costs, technical suitability and performance under continuous high engine loads amongst others have to be considered in detail before implementing truck technology in inland vessels. Due to the much higher energy efficiency of inland navigation compared with road transport, inland navigation will remain superior with respect to CO 2 emissions, as long as similar technologies are applied. Costs associated with the application of several emission reduction technologies may be compensated by reduced fuel consumption. Within the EU project CREATING a rather comprehensive evaluation of the environmental impact of inland navigation was performed, [13], from which a part has been presented in this paper. Based on the research results of the project, a number of conclusions were drawn, forming the basis for recommendations to policy makers, ship owners, equipment suppliers and oil companies as well as fuel suppliers. The original text is cited in the following:

Key conclusions Stricter emission limits are required in order to keep future emissions caused by inland navigation below road transport emissions (both related to the transported mass and distance). They should be applied not only to new engines but also to retrofitting of older engines with after treatment devices. Only a combination of lower emission limits, low sulphur diesel oil and financial incentives for implementation of emission reduction techniques will pave the way for a major improvement in emission reductions from inland navigation. Due to the average substitution rate of marine engines of 15 years or higher, substantial penetration of clean engines in the inland navigation fleet will be very slow, unless additional policy measures will be introduced. The CREATING research and practical tests have shown that application of after treatment techniques to existing marine engines (retrofit) is possible, though depending on the engine type. Lowering the sulphur content of the fuel is a prerequisite for application of stateof-the-art emission reduction techniques for (marine) diesel engines. The presently allowed sulphur content of gas oil used as fuel in inland navigation is 0.2 % by mass (EU-Directive 1999/32/EC). According to the present schedule, this will be reduced to 0.1 % by 2010. Diesel oil for road transport, however, is usually already below 0.001% (10 ppm). According to EU Directive 2003/30/EC, EU Member States are required to guarantee that a minimum share of biofuel is sold as transportation fuel, including inland navigation. However, due to the present price level of gas oil in inland navigation (free of excise tax), the introduction of biodiesel in inland navigation is hampered considerably. The effect of biofuels on NO X and PM emissions is insignificant. Only for CO 2 emissions a significant reduction may be obtained, provided that the CO 2 balance of raw material production, its transport and the conversion to biofuel is positive. The direct health impact of emissions from marine engines in inland navigation is usually lower than from road traffic. This is simply due to the fact that waterways are mostly located further away from buildings than roads, as well as to the small contribution of inland navigation to total traffic emissions. Therefore, inland navigation usually does not play a key role when EU air quality limits in urban hot spots are exceeded. The determination of the mass of pollutants emitted by inland vessels might be improved. Presently, this is only possible on the basis of emission factors being based on a limited set of data. Onshore measurements may be considered as an alternative to onboard measurements. However, more development with respect to the accuracy of the estimation of PM emissions is required. Recommendations Recommendations to policy makers with respect to regulations, non-financial stimulation and financial stimulation: Accelerate the introduction of lower emission limits for NO X, particulate matter (PM), CO and gaseous hydrocarbons (HC) for new and existing marine diesel engines, in combination with the introduction of road transport quality fuel and financial incentives. Advised dates for implementation of retrofit legislation would be 2011 for EU Stage IIIA/CCNR II limits and 2016 for EU Stage IV/CCNR III.

Reduce the allowed sulphur content of gas oil used as fuel in inland navigation to a level that allows application of state-of-the-art emission reduction techniques for new and existing marine diesel engines. Public bodies are invited to help raising awareness regarding the environmental advantages of waterborne transport, by national and international activities to stimulate waterborne transport. Such activities should preferably be developed in cooperation with inland navigation promotional organisations and may include, but are not limited to: o stimulation of development and implementation of after treatment technology, o stimulation of introduction of high quality fuel, o stimulation of demonstration projects aiming at emission reductions, and o stimulation of research projects aiming at measuring the emission impact on health and environment, including in-service exhaust gas measurements. Stimulate the implementation of retrofitting techniques in existing inland vessels by developing financial incentives for application of such techniques. Maintain the existing tax regulations for fuel used for marine engines in inland navigation and make them applicable for sulphur free diesel oil as soon as possible. Set financial incentives to stimulate the use of electronic control systems for optimising the energy efficiency of a vessel. Recommendations to technique users (ship owners): Ship owners are called upon to consider the technical possibilities for reduction of fuel consumption and emissions from propulsion and auxiliary engines on board, as well for new engines as for existing engines, which might be equipped with after treatment techniques (retrofit). Issues to be considered may comprise, but are not limited to: o after treatment techniques to reduce exhaust emissions; in particular Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and particulate matter filters (PMF), o use of high quality fuel (sulphur free diesel oil) and o installation of speed advising equipment. Ship owners are called upon to make use of available financial incentives for improving the environmental performance of their vessels and to cope with future standards ahead of legislation. Recommendations to equipment suppliers: Adapt mass produced after treatment technology like SCR and particulate filter systems from the trucking industry for being used in combination with inland vessel engines. Together with engine manufacturers, search for solutions to optimize the engine after treatment system to a good compromise of low pollutant emissions and a low fuel consumption. Make available speed advising technology that can easily be installed at low costs in inland vessels. Recommendations to oil companies/fuel suppliers: Make low sulphur or sulphur free diesel equal to road standard available for inland navigation, if necessary with additives in order to comply with engine manufacturer s requirements. Advice ship owners on necessary additives and compliance of fuel with engine.

6 REFERENCES [1] European Parliament and the Council: Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and 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 machinery. [2] CCNR: Inspection Regulation for Rhine Vessels. 2004. [3] Schilperoord, H.A.: Environmental performance of inland shipping. Royal Haskoning report 9p1060/R0006/HSC/LKa. 2004. [4] European Environment Agency: Indicator Fact Sheet TERM 2002 34 EU Proportion of vehicle fleet meeting certain emission standards (by mode). May 2003. [5] European Union: Official Journal L 36. 1988. [6] European Union: Official Journal L 295. 1991. [7] European Union: Official Journal L 44. 2000. [8] Rodt S., Future Diesel Exhaust gas legislation for passenger cars, light duty commercial vehicles, and heavy duty vehicles Updating of limit values for diesel engines, Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt). July 2003. [9] Krishnan R. and Tarabulski T.J.: Economics of emission reduction for heavy duty trucks, DieselNet Technical Report. January 2005. [10] EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Transportation and Air Quality, High way diesel progress review Report 2, EPA420-R-04-004. March 2004. [11] German Lloyd: Erarbeitung von Verfahren zur Ermittlung der Luftschadstoffemissionen von in Betrieb befindlichen Binnenschiffsmotoren. November 2001. [12] Bialonski, W. Vanck, P. et al.: Spezifischer Energieeinsatz im Verkehr Ermittlung und Vergleich der spezifischen Energieverbräuche. Forschungsbericht FE Nr. 90 247/88, im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Verkehr. Verkehrswissenschaftliches Institut, RWTH Aachen. 1990. [13] Kampfer, A. Schweighofer, J. et al.: Environmental impact of inland navigation. EU Project CREATING. WP 6. Final Report. December 2006. To be published 2007. [14] Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt): Handbook Emission Factors for Road Transport. Version 2.1. 2005. [15] http://www.bonapart.de [16] http://www.oeamtc.at [17] http://www.bgl-ev.de/web/initiativen/kosten_diesel.htm [18] European-Union project, CREATING Concepts to Reduce Environmental Impact and Attain Optimal Transport Performance by Inland Navigation, Sixth Framework Programme, http://www.creating.nu/