How much do shipping and ports contribute to air quality problems and how can they reduce their impact?

1. Shipping,
ports and
air
quality
Dr Michael Bull – Ove Arup and Partners Ltd

2. 2
Work carried out for the UKMPG and was a research study
comprising
• An examination of the trends in pollutant concentrations around
example ports in the UK
• Where information is available, determining the contribution of
port operations to pollutant concentrations in the local area;
• Identification of mitigation measures that could be applied to
reduce pollutant emissions from activities associated with port
operations
Objectives of the Study

3. 3
• The strategy sets out “ambitions relating to reducing air
pollution in the round, making our air healthier to breathe,
protecting nature and boosting the economy. In this draft strategy,
we set a clear direction for future air quality policies and goals”
• One current suggested action is that “all major English ports
should produce Air Quality Strategies setting out their plans to
reduce emissions across the port estate including ship and shore
activities”
Defra Clean Air Strategy
• UK is not meeting EU and UK air quality
standards for nitrogen dioxide – 40 µg/m3
• Defra published a draft Clean Air Strategy in
May 2018 with the final version expected to be
published by May 2019 noting that 50% of NOx
emissions came from the transport sector, 11% of
total emissions were from domestic shipping

4. 4 Source: Draft Defra Air Quality Strategy

5. 5 Source : Air Quality Consultants : 2018

6. 6
NO2 concentrations generally follow national
trends – Large City Port

7. 7
What is the contribution of shipping?
Adjacent to port
A few hundred metres
from port

8. 8
HGVs are often not the main road traffic source

9. 9
Location
Predicted NO2
concentration
(µg/m3)
NOx Source Apportionment (µg/m3)
Mainbackg
round
Industrial
Rail
Portrail
Port
machinery
Shipping
Roads
Total
NOx
1
36.7 23.9 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 1.5 36.8 62.8
2
30.5 17.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.7 31.6 49.9
3
42.0 32.6* 0.3 <0.1 0.2 0.1 4.4 42 78.3
4
41.3 24.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.4 45.9 72.6
5
40.4 23.8 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 1.4 44.9 70.6
6
47.3 24.8 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.5 60.3 87.9
Impact of port activities

10. 10
International Action to reduce emissions - MARPOL
An emission control area for Sulphur
introduced in the north sea in 2006
Took sulphur levels from 4.5% 1.5%
Further reductions followed

11. 11
International action can have large impact
Lesson of SO2

12. 12
• Air quality around ports largely follows national trends with
stable or mild decline in NO2 concentrations
• Evidence that some local improvements have been achieved
applying mitigation measures
• International measures have achieved significant reductions in
sulphur dioxide concentrations
• Emissions from shipping have a local impact but are generally a
much smaller contributor than road traffic
• Emissions from port operations themselves make a very small
contribution to local pollutant concentrations
Some overall conclusions

13. What mitigation is available?

14. 14
• Encourage the increase in use of cleaner fuels for vessels
operated by ports as well as other vessels using the port.
Increased use of cleaner fuels for vessels
• Fuels considered:
- Liquid natural gas (LNG);
- Gas to Liquid (GTL);
- Diesel emulsions;
- Hydrogen;
- Biofuel; and
- Synthetic fuels.
• LNG is the most feasible Source: UKMPG

15. 15
• Key challenges
- Higher fuel costs per unit
- High initial capital expenditure: cost of engine retrofit can be costly, or new fleet is
required
- Additional fuel storage maybe required on vessels which reduces payload
Increased use of cleaner fuels for vessels
£ £
• Key benefits
- Reduction in emissions of NOx, PM and SOx,
depending on the choice of fuel
- Direct substitution possible for GTL fuel without
any engine modification
- Long-term operational cost of running LNG on
high-speed passenger vessels could be lower than
using traditional diesel fuel
- Engine performance improvement is also possible

16. 16
• Encourage the increase in use of hybrid vessels, such as
diesel/electric hybrid, or even fully electric, for those operated by
ports as well as other vessels using the port.
Increased use of hybrid vessels
• Battery usage usually during
lower speeds, lightly loaded
conditions (i.e. hotelling)
- Likely to occur at ports
• Reduction of emissions of
pollutants at ports
Source: TfL (https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/woolwich-ferry-upgrade)

17. 17
• Key challenges
- High capital expenditure
- Not appropriate for all vessels
- Reduction in cargo space due to presence of batteries
Increased use of hybrid vessels
* Zhu J, et al. (2018) Optimal design of a hybrid electric propulsive system for an anchor handling tug supply vessel.
** Lindstad HE, Eskeland GS and Rialland A (2017) Batteries in offshore support vessels – Pollution, climate impact and economics. Transportation Research Part D
• Key benefits
- Reduction in NOx emission (25-40% reported)*
- Hybrid (diesel/electric) propulsion systems use up
to 20% less fuel**
- Possible to retrofit older vessels
- Batteries can be used for short haul journeys or
ferries, so short trips can be emission-free
- Lower maintenance costs
£ £

18. 18
• Provision of shore-side power to vessels at berth from the
national grid such that auxiliary engines can be turned off and
significantly reduce emissions; cold-ironing.
Shore-side power
* Source: Ricardo-AEA (2014) Western Approach AQMA air quality assessment, Southampton. Table 2.4
** Comparison of emissions from auxiliary engines and from national grid. Source: Entec UK Limited. Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement
and Market-based Instrument, Task 2a – Shore-side Electricity. August 2005
• Hotelling for container ships
alone represents an annual
emission of 940 tonnes of NOx
per annum*
• Estimated reduction in
emissions (in tonnes/year/berth)
of 97% for NOx, and 89% for
PM**
Source: MartiTerm AB. Shore-Side Electricity for Ships in Ports. Report 2004-07-06

19. 19
• Key challenges
- Complex installation, major upgrade of port’s power supply system and
infrastructure may be required
- Grid strengthening outside of port area may be required
- Very high capital expenditure
- Number of compatible vessels
Shore-side power
• Key benefits
- Greatly reduces local emissions from auxiliary
engines
- Reduction in noise and vibration levels
£ £ £

20. 20
• Encourage the increase in use of cleaner fuels, such as liquified
natural gas (LNG), or hybrid and electric technology, for
machinery operated at the ports
Increased use of cleaner fuels, hybrid and electric
machinery
* Source: Combined data from emission inventories for Port of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Puget Sound, Oakland, New York-New Jersey, and Vancouver
• For Non-Road Mobile
Machinery (NRMM)
• 2% to 10% of the total NOx
emission from port*
• 4% to 15% of total PM10
emissions from port *
Source: UKMPG

21. 21
• Key challenges
- High fuel cost
- High equipment cost
- Long life-span of existing machinery (e.g. RTG cranes life-span ~ 20 years), but
changeover is happening
- Other practical and H&S considerations (e.g. run of long electric cables)
Increased use of cleaner fuels, hybrid and electric
machinery
• Key benefits
- Direct and sole control by port
- Partial or complete reduction in emissions from
port’s machinery
Cost
Impact on air quality
Timescale
Geographical extent
£ £

22. 22
• Able to displace a significant number of HGVs travelling on the
roads where sensitive receptors or AQMAs are located.
Increased use of trains to transport freight to and
from ports
* Aecom, Arup, SNC.Lavilin (2016). Future Potential for Modal Shift in the UK Rail Freight Market
• Removes the equivalent of up
to 76 HGVs from the UK road
network per train*
• Change in location of
pollutants emissions
• Especially effective for ports
where AQMA has been declared
close by, with road traffic being
the main pollution source Source: Member of UKMPG

23. 23
• Key challenges
- Not economically viable for short journeys
- Many railways already at capacity
- Uptake has depended on the level of the Mode Shift Revenue Support grant (MSRS)
from government
Increased use of trains to transport freight to and
from ports
• Key benefits
- Takes HGVs off the roads and improves local air
quality near to the ports and the road network
- Reduce congestion, which further improves local
air quality

24. 24
• EU definition*: “the movement of cargo and passengers by sea
between ports situated in geographical Europe or between those
ports and ports situated in the non-European countries having a
coastline on the enclosed seas bordering Europe”
Increased use of short sea shipping (SSS)
* European Commission. (1999). The Development of Short Sea Shipping in Europe
** The capacity of container vessels varies from a minimum size of 1,000 twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) to over 14,500 TEU. An ordinary HGV can transport one container only
(i.e. 1 TEU).
• One SSS voyage would
reduce the number of HGV trips
on the road network between
their pick-up points and
destinations by between 1000 to
14,500 trips**.
Source: The Norwegian Coastal Administration (http://www.kystverket.no/en/About-
Kystverket/aid-scheme-for-short-sea-shipping/ )

25. 25
• Key challenges
- Net emissions may not be significantly different between SSS and HGVs
- Additional logistics for shipping companies, back loads are required to be most
effective
- Potential to attract additional HGVs to and from ports
- Potential to increase overall delivery time
Increased use of short sea shipping (SSS)
• Key benefits
- Moves emissions offshore and away from sensitive
areas
- Reduces use of HGVs

26. 26
• Ports are areas which inevitably concentrate transport related
emissions (both from roads and shipping)
• The contribution to local pollutant emissions from the actual port
operations is small
• The measures that have the largest impact on reducing emissions
require international agreement and government intervention
• Other mitigation measures are available that ports can implement
as a package of measures but have a lessor impact.
Concluding Remarks

27. Michael Bull
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
020 7755 2438
michael.bull@arup.com