Environmental impact of low
emission shipping: measurements
and modelling strategies
Passenger Ship Sustainability
Southampton | Nov 14-15, 2017
Sari Repka

Source: Rolls Royce
Photo: Anna Reunamo
Photo: Jörg Beecken
Sulphur Emission Control Area impact categories: The big picture of EnviSum
Environmental impacts Benefits of clean nature and biodiversity as
valued by citizens and society
Costs: potential inefficiency
Health impacts Benefits of reduced mortality and illness for
citizens and society
Costs: potential inefficiency
Business impacts: ecological
goods
Benefits of enhanced commercial ecological
resources (e.g. fish, crops, forest) for
businesses and society
Business impacts: compliance Costs of compliance for the maritime industry,
its customers, and society
Business impacts: innovation Benefits for cleantech industries and on
innovation inducement in cleaner shipping
Administrative impacts Costs of administration, including direct and
indirect administration costs
Macro-economic impacts The macroeconomic perspective: e.g. national
competitiveness
Lähteenmäki-Uutela A., Repka S., Haukioja, T., Pohjola T. 2017. How to recognize and
measure the economic impacts of an environmental regulation: case SECA. Journal of Cleaner
154:553-565.

Air pollution avoided due to SECA (2015)
SO2
SO4
SIA PM2.5

Tri-city 2014
NO2 [g/m3]
Tri-city 2014
SO2 [g/m3]
Tri-city 2014
PM10 [g/m3]
Tri-city 2014
PM2.5 [g/m3]
Local model
calculation
results
Tri-City pollutant
total concentrations

Tri-city 2014
Ships – berthing NO2
[g/m3]
Tri-city 2014
Ships – manouevring NO2
[g/m3]
Tri-city 2014
Ships – berthing SO2
[g/m3]
Tri-city 2014
Ships – manouevring SO2
[g/m3]
Local model
calculation
results
Tri-City pollutant
concentrations
resulted from port
operation

• SECA restrictions did not result in a dramatic increase in scrubber
installations
• Low fuel prices and high investments cost of EGCS on ships has
pushed owners to low sulphur fuel oil option
• Global SOx emissions reductions in 2020 may contribute to the
increased interest and cost-effectiveness of EGCS
• Black carbon not decreased with scrubbers
• The results of the surveys conducted on ships equipped with
EGCS indicate a number of technical aspects requiring
modification and improvement
Efficiency of scrubbers and particle emissions

Measurements on LNG-powered vessels ongoing
• Two LNG carriers with main propulsion: Dual-Fuel Diesel-Electric
(DFDE)
and Fuel LNG/HFO/MDO have been investigated
• Further attempts are made to organize survey on ships propelled with
LNG
• Difficulty in getting access to additional ships, methane slip detected

Example of ship measurements
CO2
SO2_5s, SO2, CH4
NOx

• The sniffer method is fully operational, for fixed sites and airborne
measurements
• English Channel: 13 % of the ships were doing fuel switching too early
starting at 4W when leaving the SECA
• Around Denmark and southern Baltic and North sea there is in general good
compliance rate, 96 % at great Belt bridge, 94 % from airborne.
• Some specific ship owners/lines are often encountered with high emissions
(flag less important)
• Several ferry lines have been operating with malfunctioning scrubbers.
• Some cruiser lines makes long term tests with permission from non SECA
flagtest
• Enforcement still insufficient
Results on compliance with SECA regulation

First empirical Results:
Economic Impacts of SECA in BSR
• Again: No high SECA impact in BSR due to low bunker prices
• Survey revealed highest impact on “innovation” & “branding”
• #scrubber installations in BSR stagnating (ca. 85)
• Danish participants were 6 times more positive about overall impact of SECA
compared to Estonians
• Ports feared a negative change of modal split and of cargo flows while the ship-
owners were relaxed
• Also: No clear direction for future fuel
• Eastern BSR-EU countries are more positive towards LNG
• BSR ships and ferry lines use LS fuel/MGO, scrubber or LNG
• LS fuel/MGO: majority of the ships in BSR
• LNG ferries: Tallink Silja and Viking Line
• Scrubber: Color Line, Scandlines, Stena
• LNG driven ships use parallel MGO for auxiliary engines
• Supply of LS fuels is expected to grow but MGO cheaper than ULSFO
• BSR is on the forefront of clean shipping campaigns, but
• Ports delayed in building infrastructure and offering alternative fuels
• NECA regulations in BSR from 2021
• No parallel use of scrubber and Selective Catalytic Reduction SCR
• Problem: scrubber residual treatments

Under construction:
EnviSuM Investment Calculator
Web Application Prototype
• Risk management and times series
analysis for spread of different fuel types
• Portfolio management analysis
• Asset allocation management
• Creating a dashboard based on available
and future possible solutions

FURTHER INFORMATION
Project Manager, PhD Sari Repka
Project Manager
University of Turku, Finland
Tel. +358-40-8019206
E-mail: sari.repka@utu.fi
@EnviSuMproject
https://blogit.utu.fi/envisum/
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9yByQdixQ&t=11s

PROJECT PARTNERSHIP