Issuu on Google+

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. ƒ ƒ ƒ

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) ƒ A Public Benefit Corporation established in 1975 by the NYS State Legislature ƒ Our Mission: To identify solutions to the State’s energy challenges in ways that benefit the State’s economy and environment ƒ Responsibilities: ƒ Research and Development ƒ System Benefits Charge Administrator ƒ West Valley Demonstration Project ƒ 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 ƒ USDOE (e.g., Clean Cities) ƒ USDOT (e.g., CMAQ, FTA grantee) ƒ USEPA (e.g., Anti-Idling) ƒ NYSDOT (e.g., Joint Funding; Research Consortium) ƒ NYS Special Programs (e.g., Environmental Bond Act, Special Legislative Appropriations) ƒ Public Utility Collaborations ƒ 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


Maritime Cleaner Technologies