On the Crest of a Wave?
A critical review of Green Shipping Initiatives
Image: MNTB
David Johnson and Simon Walmsley February 2005
Conclusion Not good enough: world economies continue to condone unsustainable shipping based on short-term thinking, vested interests and unwillingness to embrace full cost accounting; Largely reactive: 30 years of legislation and enforcement (stick), whilst achieving significant impact reduction, has resulted in a sub-optimal situation; Limited proactive efforts: laudable but currently uncoordinated, over-complicated and insufficiently incentivedriven, resulting in limited take up; Need to make the business case: politicians and environmentalists have failed to persuade industry (carrot);
Content Green shipping audit: snapshot study identifying a broad range of initiatives (technology, economic, educational) revealing limited co-ordination and take up + room for improvement 2003 group – issues: collectively agreed as future challenges to be addressed by the shipping industry Sustainability agenda suggestions: co-ordinated accreditation against agreed benchmarks, supported by intelligence driven PSC, corporate social responsibility, and a special deal for sensitive areas
Sustainability is about establishing the right balance based on clear assessment of environmental risks
“we must be the change we wish to see in the world� Gandhi
Image: IMO
Vision Shipping should achieve: ‘Viable operation with minimal negative impact and responsible environmental operation’ WWF is keen to promote: Shipping industry / NGO partnerships to reduce adverse impacts of shipping operation and promote good practice
Green shipping initiatives 1. 2. 3.
4.
Desk study (Clean Seas 99, Green Ship Technology 2004), focus group, expert interviews Voluntary measures based on precautionary principle Recognize positive influence of IMO protocols and codes + advances in ship design and equipment (e.g. shipboard incineration) Drivers (similar to all commercial activities) PR / market differentiation (leading edge) Compliance / cost savings Environmental protection
3 types of initiative – technical, economic, educational
Technical Investment Initiatives (government -led, research -driven) (government-led, research-driven) Name of Initiative
Year
Country
Initiator
Green Ships Program
1991
Norway
Norwegian shipping and research organisations
EcoShips
1995
Sweden
Sweden and Volvo Penta
TRESHIP
2002
Norway
Norwegian Ship Owners Association
Super Eco Ships
2005
Japan
Evergreen Panamax Ships
2007
Taiwan
Evergreen Group
Economic Incentive Initiatives (national, business-linked, port-related) Initiative
Year
Country
Initiator
Green Shipping Award
1994
The Netherlands
Rotterdam Municipal Port
Qualship 21
2001
USA
USA Coastguard
Blue Angel
2002
Germany
German FEA
Shipping Emissions
2000
Norway/ Sweden Maritime Administrations
Class notation
2001, 2001, 2002/2004
Sweden, UK, Italy, Germany
DNV, Lloyds Register, RINA
Green Passport
2003
The Netherlands
IMO / MEPC
Education / Awareness Initiatives (NGO/Pressure Group -Led) Group-Led) Name of Initiative
Year
Country
Initiator
North Sea Foundation
2000
The Netherlands
Dutch Environmental NGO
WWF 2003 Group
2003
UK and international partners
WWF and Shipping Industry
Keep it Blue
2003
France
France and other European NGOs
Analysis Overall ¾ Exclusively first world ¾ Moral high ground ¾ Small % world fleet, new ships,vessel types, geographical areas
¾ ¾ ¾ ¾
PR? ¾ Public attitudes remain ignorant/negative to shipping ¾ Fueled by each high profile tragedy or incident ¾ Good news does not make headlines, thus no retort by shipping industry
Economic advantages? Reduced port fees? Reduced insurance premiums? Reduced risks and claims? Improved stock values?
Reduced environmental impact? ¾ Overall reduction? How much? ¾ Different pollutants and different locations ¾ Is it simply verification?
2003 group issues 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Reduction of pollution from operational discharges Promotion of adequate port waste reception Radical reduction in the use of antifouling systems containing biocides Enhancement of shipping industry environmental awareness Identification and implementation of specific operational controls Significant reduction in flue gas and greenhouse gas emissions Where are we with these? Can they be benchmarked? Where next?
Evaluation ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾
Need to benchmark against both compliance and industry standards Must make business case for exceeding compliance standards Promotion and publicity of best practice Dialogue required between owners, operators, suppliers, customers, regulators, policy makers and R&D Link to education and training In other words, with commitment, opportunities to deliver sustainability can be devised and implemented
Images: NOAA
Reduction of pollution from operational discharges Target: Key issue:
Current position:
Zero emissions Tank washing bilge water and management / treatment of ballast water Good practice at sea encouraged; More aggressive enforcement; Investment in land-based reception facilities. Maximum oil content limits Remediation systems (oily bilge water) Fail safe systems Compliance with BW exchange rules Ratification of BW Convention R&D new equipment
Promotion of adequate port waste reception facilities Target: Key issue: Current position:
Universal waste reception facilities Delivery of waste and sludge to shore within harbour fee charges Need for greater dialogue between port industry and clients; Provision and promotion of port facilities Onboard compaction and segregation; co-operation with port operators; legislation driven Sludge problems re: quantity and charges
Images: IMO, Greenpeace
Radical reduction in the use of antifouling systems containing biocides Target: Key issue: Current position:
Expedite timed phase out Promotion of biocide free alternatives; Ratification of AFS Convention Implementation by leading companies; Liaison with and future R&D by the paint industry; political pressure on Flag States Voluntary / self-imposed bans on tin based antifouling; testing of silicone based alternatives Scientific uncertainty re: latest products Knock on effects if fouling not controlled
Image: IMO
Enhancement of shipping industry environmental awareness Target: Key issue: Current position:
Greater awareness Targeted educational initiatives Corporate environmental reporting; Limited funding for industry-wide outreach and/or mentoring ; role for maritime training establishments Conference seminar participation Sponsorship Need to address custom and practice (e.g. garbage)
Image: CWSS
Identification and implementation of specific operational controls [in selected areas] Target: Key issue: Current position:
Heightened vigilance Focus on sensitive habitats in localised areas Incentives needed for those maintaining highest standards – e.g. exclusive access, tax breaks, positive publicity, award recognition More thinking needed to determine effective protection in identified areas; monitoring by coastal states; opportunities associated with AIS
Images: IMO
Significant reduction in flue gas and greenhouse gas emissions Target: Key issue:
Current position:
Harmful emissions of SOx, NOx, PM, CO2, Freons/Halons Cleaner fuels, technical emission abatement options, improved fuel efficiency, alternatives to bunker oil Technology transfer; dialogue with suppliers; shoreside power provision Green bunkering / low sulphur fuels Fuel injection - NOx emission certificates Replacement fuels R&D Gas containment Refridgerant substitutes e.g. brine and chilled water networks
Sustainability agenda suggestions ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾
Central tenets of sustainability Holistic, mutidisciplinary, inclusive Intergenerational equity Intra-societal equity Futurity Examples of ‘joined up’ thinking Green Award Mega Platform Technology to target poor performance Stakeholder dialogue Sensitive areas
Think global act local Complexity Enabling strategy Supportive policy Legal and Institutional forums Programmes Projects
Education and Knowledge Increased equity Individual
Organisational
(Inter) National / Societal
‘Expanded’ Green Award
Incentive driven – operational cost savings; ethical chartering; lower insurance premiums, health and safety benefits; fewer inspections; faster turnaround in port; positive image; and environmental protection
Shipsys2000 Ship Safety Regulation Information System Chris Barnes AMSA
PSC Detention Rate by Ship Age 1997 to 2003 14%
12%
8%
6%
4%
2%
Ship Age when Inspected
>2 5
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0% 0
Detention Rate
10%
Data Exchange
XML is preferred data format
IOCIS
Lloyd’s RegisterFairplay
APCIS
Shipsys2000 Australian Ports
Engine room vent fire damper inoperable
20
AusSAR & Australian Register 14
Strategic approach Performance indicators using logistic regression Identified factors having predictive value Future integration with pilotage applications Addition of digital images Deficiencies falling but detention rate has risen
Quantifiable benefits Risk Factor Profile of Ships YE 30 Sept 2004 1000 900 800
Number of Ships
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Risk Factor
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
>20
New Epoc: Stakeholder dialogue iaw Bremen Maritime City Network (MCN) und
New EPOC
NEW EPOC (ReNEWing Economic prosperity for POrt Cities)
New EPOC – Partner (Bilbao, Bremen, Cherbourg, Gijon, Kaliningrad, Patras, Southampton, Taranto, Triest) weitere Kooperationspartner im MCN (Genua, Antwerpen, Danzig, Lissabon)
Relative port activity Max. score: 32
Bulk 4
i.e. 63,7% of a circle with r = 4
Trieste
2
Pass.
0
Brem en Gen.
P a ss.
Bulk 4 3 2 1 0
41,8%
19,9% Cont .
Cont.
Bulk
4
Patras
Southampton 2 P as s .
0
Ge n.
Pass.
Bulk 4
Bilbao
2 0
Ge n.
Gen. Pass.
Bulk 4 3 2 1 0
Gen.
9,9%
48,7%
Cont.
24,9%
Cont.
Cont.
Bulk 4
Taranto P ass.
2
Gijon
0
Gen.
Cont .
19,9%
Pass.
Bulk 4 3 2 1 0
Cont.
Cherbourg
Bulk 4 2
Gen.
11,9%
P ass.
0
Cont .
Gen.
9,9%
Social Inclusion Indicators: • Unemployment • Insufficient educated persons • Crime rate • Young people‘s crime rate Additional information: • City profiles • Subprojects (employment promotion/labour market integration linked to maritime subjects; social integration of special target groups/migrants, young people,disabled persons)
Unemployment (10 – 24%) Migration as a burden or opportunity
Antarctica: IAATO self-regulation potential
Conclusion Not good enough: world economies continue to condone unsustainable shipping based on short-term thinking, vested interests and unwillingness to embrace full cost accounting; Largely reactive: 30 years of legislation and enforcement (stick), whilst achieving significant impact reduction, has resulted in a sub-optimal situation; Limited proactive efforts: laudable but currently uncoordinated, over-complicated and insufficiently incentivedriven, resulting in limited take up; Need to make the business case: politicians and environmentalists have failed to persuade industry (carrot); Integrated solutions are essential: shipping is lagging behind other sectors, delivering sustainability demands collaborative effort, partnerships and ‘joined-up’ thinking.
When do we need to raise the goalposts?
The future is in our hands
Image: MCA
Image: Neil Bennett
ARB Regulation for Auxiliary Diesel Engines on Ocean-Going Vessels
San Diego Clean Ship Conference February 7-9, 2007 California Environmental Protection Agency
Air Resources Board
Background
2
Need for Emission Reductions from Ocean-Going Vessels ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Large and growing source of PM, NOx, and SOx emissions Emissions concentrated near population centers Significant localized and regional impacts Major contributor to PM mortality and cancer risk Major contributor to ambient levels of PM and ozone 3
Ocean-Going Vessels are a Large Source of Statewide Diesel PM Emissions* Ship Main Engines 24% 70%
6%
Ship Auxiliary Engines
Other Sources
* Sources: 2003 ARB Emissions Inventory and 2005 Ship ISOR
4
Significant Contribution to Community Health Risks ♌
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Exposure Assessment Study found ship auxiliary emissions were most significant contributor to high near source risk levels Cancer Risk Level (chances/million)
Square Miles Impacted
Population Affected
Risk > 200
3
46,000
Risk > 100
20
220,000
Risk > 10
250
2,000,000
5
Ship Auxiliary Engine Regulation
6
Regulatory Development Process ♦ ♦ ♦
♦
Began process with the formation of the Maritime Working Group Five public workshops and work group meetings Input from ship operators, ports, engine manufacturers, government agencies, environmental & community groups Approved at Board Hearing in December 2005 7
Regulation Applies to Auxiliary Engines on Ocean-going Vessels Motor-Ship
Main Engine for Propulsion (not covered) Auxiliary Engines for Electricity (covered)
Diesel-Electric
Engines Provide Electricity for both Propulsion & Shipboard Uses (covered)
8
Exemptions ♦
Safety Exemption – Marine advisory and forms available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/marine (see December 29, 2006 item)
♦
Innocent passage (no California stops) ♦ Military and government vessels ♦ Natural gas engines ♦ Two-stroke, slow speed engines 9
Regulation Applies within 24 Nautical Miles of the California Coastline •
Retains the majority of health benefits
•
Reduces the cost
•
Utilizes international boundary 10
Emission Limit Based on Use of Cleaner Distillate Marine Fuels ♦
January 1, 2007 Emission Limit – Use marine gas oil (up to 1.5% sulfur) – Use marine diesel oil with a 0.5% sulfur limit – Use equally effective emission control strategies (under ACE provision)
♦
January 1, 2010 Emission Limit – Use marine gas oil with a 0.1% sulfur limit – Use equally effective emission control strategies – Fuel supply review in 2008 11
Recordkeeping Requirements ♦ Records
must be kept noting:
– Entrance and exit from Regulated California Waters (RCW) – Fuels used in RCW and fuel switching – Fuel Purchases ♦
Marine advisory with voluntary recordkeeping forms available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/marine (see December 29, 2006 item) 12
Alternative Control of Emissions (ACE Provision) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
May comply using alternative emission control strategies Fleet average emission reductions allowed Special provision encourages the use of shore-side power Guidance document available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/marine (see December 18, 2006 item)
13
Noncompliance Fee Provision ♦
Pay a noncompliance fee under certain circumstances: – – – – –
Unexpected redirection to a California port Inability to purchase complying distillate fuel Fuel found to be noncompliant enroute to CA Extension needed for vessel modifications Vessel modifications needed on infrequent visitor
♦
Must notify ARB prior to entrance to Regulated California Waters ♦ Marine advisory and forms available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/marine (see December 29, 2006 item)
14
Enforcement of the Proposed Regulation ♦ ARB
staff are responsible for enforcement ♦ Boarding vessels to inspect records and sample fuels ♦ Notices of violation and penalties for noncompliance 15
Benefits
16
Air Quality Benefits ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Large reductions in diesel PM, NOx, & SOx Reductions in ozone and “secondarily formed” PM (PM formed in the atmosphere) Reduced cancer risk to populations near California ports Avoid 520 premature noncancer deaths by 2020 due to diesel PM reductions Significant additional health benefits from NOx and SOx reductions 17
Estimated Percent Emission Reductions* Pollutant
2007
2010
Diesel PM
75%
83%
NOx
6%
6%
SOx
80%
96%
* Emission reductions estimated from the use of 0.5% sulfur MGO in 2007, and 0.1% sulfur MGO in 2010, relative to the use of heavy fuel oil at 2.5% sulfur 18
Estimated Emissions of Diesel PM with and without the Regulation in the 24 nm Zone
Diesel PM (tons/day)
10 9 8
Without Regulation With Regulation
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Year Estimated Emission Reductions (TPD)
19
Regulation Status and Future Plans
20
Status of the Regulation ♦ Approved
by the Office of Administrative Law and filed with the Secretary of State on Dec. 6, 2006 ♦ Requirements effective on January 1, 2007 ♦ Implementation activity ongoing ♦ Enforcement activities began the first week of January 21
Future Plans to Reduce Ship Emissions ♦
Strategies to be pursued – Cleaner fuels in main engines – Shore-side power – Dedicate cleaner new build and retrofitted vessels to CA service – Operational Controls (i.e. speed reduction zones)
♦
Proposed ARB Emission Reduction Plan for Ports & Goods Movement – http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/gmerp.htm 22
ARB Contacts for Auxiliary Engine Regulation Staff
Title
Daniel Chief, Emissions Donohoue Assessment Branch Paul Staff Air Milkey Pollution Specialist Floyd Legal Counsel Vergara
Email & phone
ddonohou@arb.ca.gov (916) 322-6023 pmilkey@arb.ca.gov (916) 327-2957 fvergara@arb.ca.gov (916) 445-9566 23
Measurements of NOx and Particulate Matter from the Large Propulsion Engines on Ocean-going Vessels Clean Ships: Advanced Technology for Clean Air San Diego, CA, Coronado Island Resort Marriott February 7-9, 2007 Faculty/Grad Students/Staff: David Cocker III, Kathy Cocker, Kent Johnson, Wayne Miller, Abhilash Nigam, Don Pacocha, Aniket A. Sawant, Sandip Shah, Bill Welch UG Students: Daniel Bennett, Nathan Brahm, Karel Jansen, Hanhphuc Nguyen, Temitope Ogunyoku, Shimkiri Syiem, Marisol Torres, Anthony Turgman http://www.cert.ucr.edu
Acknowledgements • • • • • • • • • • •
APL Maritime, Ltd. A.P. Moller–Maersk Group California Air Resources Board (CARB) MAN B&W Diesel A/S, Copenhagen Pacific Harbor Lines Several POLA/POLB terminals who provided yard tractors South Coast Air Quality Management District Tetra Tech, Inc. The City of Long Beach Harbor Department (Port of LB) The City of Los Angeles Harbor Department (Port of LA) United States Maritime Administration (MARAD)
Discussion Topics • Goal: Clean Ships • Approach: – Near Term (Tactical): 9Measure gases & PM at the source 9 Regulated emissions 9 Deeper analysis
• Demonstrate control technologies
– Long Term (Strategic) Æ team approach • Understand heath impacts • Measure/predict secondary PM • Design ‘greener’ vessels & ports
Vessel Emissions: Framing the Issues
Particle Formation Paths for Diesel Exhaust are Complex
Schneider, J, E. S.&T.2005, 39,6153-6161
Combustion Generated Gases and PM2.5 Encompass Many Key Air Issues
Measuring Emissions • Engine operation – Near term: follow ISO 8178-4 cycle for comparison – Longer term: follow actual in-use conditions
• Gases monitored by ISO/EPA methods – – – –
NOx CO,CO2 HCs SOx
Chemiluminescence detector Non dispersive infrared GC/FID Calculate from fuel
• Measure particulate matter (PM) – Use ISO 8178-1 partial dilution method or ???
• Emission factor determined from power setting & calculated mass flow
Emissions from Auxiliary Engines • Measurements made per ISO 8178- D2 cycle • Practical situations require working with the ship crew. Mode number
Engine Speed1
Observed Torque2 (rpm)
Minimum time in mode, min.
Weighting factors
1
Rated
100
5.0
0.05
2
Rated
75
5.0
0.25
3
Rated
50
5.0
0.30
4
Rated
25
5.0
0.30
5
Rated
10
5.0
0.10
Notes: 1. Engine speed: ± 2 percent of point. 2.Torque: Throttle fully open for 100 percent point. Other points: ±2%
Load & Fuel Rate Data Log during Test
Measuring Gases & PM with Partial Flow Dilution System with Single Venturi
To particulate sampling system
Preliminary: Measuring PM with & without a Transfer Tube grams/kW-hr.
1.6
1.45
1.4
MDO w/tt
MDO wo/tt
1.2
HFO w/tt
HFO wo/tt
1.0
0.88
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
0.19
0.27
NOx Emission Factor vs. Load & Fuel Oil MAN B&W L32/40
Measuring Gases & PM with Partial Flow Dilution System with Single Venturi
To particulate sampling system
PM Mass on Teflon Filters: vs. Main Engine Load
Deeper Analysis of PM
Properties of Fuels: HFO vs. MDO Fuel --> Specific Gravity @ 60 / 60ยบF Sulfur Content Vanadium Sodium Aluminium Silicon Iron Nickel Calcium Magnesium Lead Zinc Phosphorus
Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) 11.6 3.3 wt% 56 mg/kg 39 mg/kg < 1 mg/kg < 1 mg/kg 6 mg/kg 19 mg/kg 3 mg/kg < 1 mg/kg < 1 mg/kg < 1 mg/kg < 1 mg/kg
Marine Distillate Oil(MDO) 0.8294 0.16 wt% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
PM Mass Apportionment: HFO & MDO
Teflon Filter Analysis by XRF (50% Load) Mg Al Si P S Cl K Ca Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Rb Sr Y Mo
HFO w/S & w/o S Æ S
Ni
V
Zn
MDO w/o Sulfur Æ
P Ca
Ref: SCAQMD
Mg Al Si P S Cl K Ca Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Rb Sr Y Mo
Mg Al Si P S Cl K Ca Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Rb Sr Y Mo
PM Speciation: Nickel &Vanadium CE-CERT LB/LA Ship Emission Study V/Ni Ratio 45.00
40.00
R2 = 0.9869 35.00
Ni (ug/filter)
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00 0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00 V (ug/filter)
Ref: SCAQMD
120.00
140.00
160.00
180.00
200.00
Particle Sizing Methods • Dekati Mass Monitor (DMM-230) – Real time particle sampler • Micro Orifice Uniform Deposit Impactors (MOUDI) – 10 stage impactor
Testing of Real Time PM Monitors
Particle counter
DMM 230
PM: Size Classification by MOUDI
Micro Orifice Uniform Deposit Impactors
Examples of MOUDI Stages
-0 .1 8
-0 .3 2
um
um
um
um
um
um
um
um
um
-0 .1 0. 0 10 um -0 .0 56 um af te rf ilt er
0. 18
.0
.8
.2
.6
0
-0 .5 6
-1
-1
-3
-5
-1
18
1.8
0. 32
0. 56
1. 0
1. 8
3. 2
5. 6
10
18
>
PM (mg) on each Stage
Preliminary: MOUDI Mass Distribution 2
PM Mass(in mg)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Stages(Top -> Bottom)
Stages(Top->Bottom) 0. 10
-0 .1 0
-0 .1 8
-0 .3 2
-0 .5 6
-1 .0
-1 .8
-3 .2
-5 .6
-1 0
18
um
um
um
um
um
um
um
um
um
um
um
45
40
af te rf ilt er
-0 .0 56
0. 18
0. 32
0. 56
1. 0
1. 8
3. 2
5. 6
10
18
>
Percentage Sulfate on each Stage
Preliminary: % Sulfate on Each Stage 50
Hydrated Sulphate
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Summary • Findings to date: – Developed gaseous and PM monitoring equipment suitable for ocean-going vessels. – Gaseous emission factors are repeatable and match manufacturer values. – Independent measurements of PM show total and sum of compositional masses are equal.
• Future work: – Make more measurements. – Focus on real time NOx and PM emissions – Provide more data on PM and gaseous speciation
Thank You & Questions?
New York State Initiatives in Technology Development, Demonstration and Deployment for Emissions Reduction and Energy Efficiency in the Marine Sector Clean Ships Conference February 7- 9, 2007 San Diego, CA
Frank S. Ralbovsky Senior Project Manager Transportation and Power Systems Research New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
Contents 1. Brief Overview of NYSERDA 2. New York City Private Ferry Emissions Reduction Program • Background and Scope • Fleet and Vessel Targets • Technology Demonstrations and Results • Deployment 3. Supplemental Information – For Reference • NYSERDA Structure, Funding, Programs • Transportation Research, Development, Deployment Initiatives
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) •
A Public Benefit Corporation established by the NYS State Legislature
•
Mission: To identify solutions to the State’s energy challenges in ways that benefit the State’s economy and environment
•
Activities cut across all sectors
•
Activities include - Research, Development, Demonstration - Deployment of emerging technologies and applications
NYC Private Ferry Emissions Reduction Program A Major, Multi-Stakeholder Program Encompassing both our R&D and Deployment Group Functions Objectives: • Reduce airborne diesel emissions from the private transit ferry fleet in NYC Harbor • Focus on Particulate Matter (PM2.5) and NOx • Aim at near term results – not new technology development • Effect widespread deployment throughout the fleets Genesis: • NYCDOT CMAQ funded proposal ($1.8 mil) • Outreach to NYSERDA for program management support • Subsequent FTA grant to expand ($4.8 mil add-on) – Lower Manhattan Recovery Office environmental funds
Project Team and Stakeholders Project Funding: • Federal Transit Administration • Federal Highway Administration (CMAQ)
Project Management: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)
New York City Dept. of Transportation (NYCDOT) Project Advisory Group (PAG):
Contractor Project Team: • • • •
Seaworthy Systems, Inc. (Prime Contractor) Environment Canada ESI International, Inc. NESCAUM
• • • • • • • • • • •
NYSERDA NYCDOT 4 Private Ferry Operators USEPA FTA Port Authority-NY/NJ Environmental Defense MARAD NYSDEC NYSDOT NJDEP
Structure of Overall Project Activities 1. Engineering Analysis and Demonstration Effort Fleet characterization Emissions control technology analysis Ranking and downselection of options Demonstration of technologies
2. Incentivized Deployment to Fleets 3. Green Marketing Program
Targeted Fleets – Initial Makeup NY Waterway and BillyBey Ferry Co: • 35 vessels • 32 with Caterpillar 3406E, 3412E or 3412C engines • 3 larger catamarans with Deutz or MTU engines NY WaterTaxi: • 6 small catamarans with Detroit Diesel DD60 engines SeaStreak: • 3 large catamaran vessels with Cummins 8KTA50M2 engines
Technology Analysis and Downselection Technologies Analyzed Fuels Ultra-low Sulfur Diesel Fuel (ULSD) Oxygenated Diesel Fuel Biodiesel Fuel Emulsified Diesel Fuel Fischer Tropsch Fuel Fuel-borne Catalysts (FBC) On-Engine Modifications Fuel Injection Equipment Diesel Ceramic Coatings Exhaust Gas Recirculation Water Injection (CWI) Closed Crankcase Ventilation (CCV)
Exhaust Aftertreatment Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) Lean NOX Catalysts Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Exhaust Gas Scrubbers Exhaust Aftertreatment Device Combinations Tier 2 Replacement Engines Operating Profile Changes
Technology Analysis and Downselection Evaluation/Scoring Elements Experience and Performance • Marine Experience • NOx Reduction Efficiency • PM2.5 Reduction Efficiency Annualized Costs • Capital • Operational Design, Installation and Operational Requirements Safety and Field Support Requirements Fatal Flaw(s)
Technologies Selected as Best Candidates
NYWaterway CAT 3412E vessels: DOC plus FBC
BillyBey Ferry Co. CAT 3406E vessels: DOC plus CWI
NYWaterway and BillyBey CAT 3412C vessels: Tier 2 Engine repowering
NY WaterTaxi DPF or DOC
SeaStreak SCR plus DOC All Vessels ULSD Fuel (30 ppm)
Demonstration Activity Summary NYWaterway – CAT 3412E • DOC demonstrated successfully NYWaterway – CAT 3412C • Not deemed cost effective to demo an engine repower BillyBey Ferry Co. – CAT 3406E • DOC demonstrated successfully • Operator chose not to demo CWI due to perceived risk NYWaterTaxi – DD60 • DOC demonstrated successfully • DPF not chosen - insufficient room SeaStreak • Neither SCR nor DOC were demonstrated • Parent company divesting vessels; operations for sale
Additional Demonstration Activity
• In-service demonstration of ULSD (#1ULSD) on all representative vessels • Observed fuel economy loss (above BTU content differences) • Led to a subsequent, additional round of controlled lab tests of #1ULSD, #2ULSD, #2LSD on a CAT 3176 marine engine
Summary Emissions Reduction Results
Challenges Encountered; Lessons Learned • •
• • •
•
Changing fleet make-up and operational priorities created logistical challenges… e.g., vessel availabilities Mature, on-road emissions control technologies do not just “drop seamlessly into” a marine propulsion environment - but they can be made to work Installation space in engine rooms and lazarettes is very tight, and potential temperature buildup issues must be addressed Backpressures were higher, but within limits of engine manufacturer specifications In-use testing is challenging and requires many replications, use of mass-based (coriolis) flow meters, torque measurement, and controlled vessel operation wherever possible Obtaining reliable data is particularly challenging in the transient portion of a vessels’ duty cycle – maneuvering that involves acceleration, deceleration
Some of the Challenges Limited Access to engine room or lazarette
Limited installation space
Engine Backpressure
Several in IWC above normal, but several IWC below engine mfr limits
Alsoâ&#x20AC;Ś Noise: if silencer removed for installation, 1.5 dB increase seen
DOC Hot gas leakage in closed environment
Required welded ends and more positively sealed access panels
Temperature: ventilation systems must be working and may need augmentation
NYC Private Ferry Program Accomplishments •
Successful completion of demonstration program; DOCs ran well, after initial shake-down period
•
Successfully demonstrated technologies applicable to a majority of the private ferry vessels currently in the harbor
•
Comprehensive in-use DOC emissions test data and in-use ULSD tests
•
Controlled, in-lab, marine engine tests comparing #1ULSD, #2ULSD and #2LSD
•
Deployment underway – program funding for DOCs and selected repowers via a cost-competitive selection process
Next Phase - Deployment is Underway ¾ Deployment Solicitation was Issued ¾ Excellent Responses Received, Addressing a Majority of Vessels in the Fleets ¾ Awards and Contract Negotiations Start this Month ¾ Implementation Thereafter ¾ Green Marketing “Fresh Air Ferry” Campaign
Transportation R&D Contact Information
Final Report Available
New York State Energy Research & Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 (518) 862-1090 Website: http://www.nyserda.org
Transportation R&D Program Staff Richard Drake, Program Manager 518-862-1090, ext. 3258 rld@nyserda.org Frank S. Ralbovsky, Sr. Project Manager 518-862-1090, ext 3260 fsr@nyserda.org Joe Wagner, Sr. Project Manager 518-862-1090, ext. 3228 jrw@nyserda.org Joe Tario, Sr. Project Manager 518-862-1090, ext. 3215 jdt@nyserda.org
Final Demonstration Report Available for Download at: http://www.nyserda.org
Thank You !
Supplemental Information 1.
Detailed Description of NYSERDA Activities • Structure, Funding, Process
2.
Transportation Research, Development, Deployment Initiatives •
Marine
•
Electrified Rail
•
Infrastructure
•
Diesel Idle Reduction
•
Alternative Fueled Vehicles
•
Advanced Vehicle Components
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) A Public Benefit Corporation established in 1975 by the NYS State Legislature Our Mission: To identify solutions to the State’s energy challenges in ways that benefit the State’s economy and environment Responsibilities: Research and Development System Benefits Charge Administrator West Valley Demonstration Project Energy Planning & Analysis
R&D Programmatic Process
Program Opportunity Notices (PONs) – Competitive Solicitations – Award Cost-shared Contracts Desired Benefits – Wide Technical Focus – Energy Emphasizing – Environment – Product Development – Economic Development – Commercialization Contract Terms – Teaming – Co-Funding – Recoupment (Royalties)
Highlights of NYSERDA’s Overall R&D Program • Virtually all projects are selected competitively, as opposed to unsolicited proposals • We leverage at least 1:1 of co-funding • 95% of projects are co-funded by potential manufacturers and additional stakeholders • Currently have about 550 Ongoing R&D projects • Representing $400 million total R&D investment
Millions of Dollars
200
Overall NYSERDA Funding ~ $200 million
150 100 50 0 1995 Statutory R&D
1998
2001
Systems Benefit Charge
2006 Federal Grants
$34.8
Annual R&D Funding ~ $50 million
$3.3 $2.5
$3.3
$1.9
$3.1
Buildings Industry Energy Resources Transportation Environment SBC R&D
Additional Funding Resources USDOE (e.g., Clean Cities) USDOT (e.g., CMAQ, FTA grantee) USEPA (e.g., Anti-Idling) NYSDOT (e.g., Joint Funding; Research Consortium) NYS Special Programs (e.g., Environmental Bond Act, Special Legislative Appropriations) Public Utility Collaborations Transit/Municipal Agencies Now managing 60 vehicle deployment projects; • Mostly On-Road • Budget over $120 million (incl. 3:1 leveraging)
Transportation Research ~ Typically $4 Mil/Yr Last Year ~ $20 Mil
Transportation Research, Development, Deployment Initiatives •
Marine
•
Electrified Rail
•
Infrastructure
•
Diesel Idle Reduction
•
Alternative Fueled Vehicles
•
Advanced Vehicle Components
Examples of Marine Projects Green Ferry Alternatives
Strong Arm Ferry Docker
Address all aspects of more efficient ferry – propulsion, hull, fuel, emissions aftertreatment
Eliminate the use of propulsive power to hold vessel against pier during loading/unloading
VGER – Advanced “Flettner Rotor”
Hybrid Marine Propulsion
Study advanced concepts for a variable geometry energized rotor to augment marine propulsion Advanced Amphibious Transport
Explore new concepts in hybrid electric propulsion for passenger transit
Design, construct, demonstrate a “purpose-built” amphibious vehicle for freight and passenger transit to mitigate highway traffic congestion
Examples of Electrified Rail Projects New Yorkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s electrified commuter rail and subway system is a 1,100 MWe load connected to the Con Edison distribution system, that consumes over 2 billion KWhrs annually Hundreds of MWe of on-peak load reduction to the NYC load pocketâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transmission and distribution systems could be achieved with development, qualification and deployment of advanced technologies within the electrified rail system.
Remote Controllable Rail Switch and Third Rail Heaters
Efficient AC Propulsion Gearbox for New Generation R160 Subway Cars
High Conductivity Aluminum Third Rail and Enhanced Regenerative Brake Energy Utilization For Electrified Rail
Examples of Infrastructure Projects
Bridge Monitoring
Electronic Screening
Improved Paving Methods
Pavement and Soil Density Gauge
LNG Codes / Standards
Intelligent Road Lighting
Examples of Diesel Idle Reduction Projects
Truck Stop Electrification
Fleet Depot Preheat System
Shore Power Truck Stop Electrification
Electric-Drive Transport Refrigeration
Examples of Alternative Fueled Vehicles - R&D to Deployment 1997 – Ongoing: 535 Buses / $25 mil Clean Fueled Bus Program
2003 – Ongoing: 25 NYSDOT trucks converted to dual fuel (diesel/CNG) HEV
CNG
BAF Systems
BAE Systems HybriDriveTM R&D Program 1995-1999
1999 – Ongoing Hybrid Bus Production (825 firm orders to date)
Examples of Advanced Vehicle Components
Continuously Variable Hydraulic Transmission
Highly Integrated Motorized Pump
Trailer Drag Reduction
Ceramic Auto Brakes
Non Thermal Plasma Enhanced Diesel Particulate Trap