- Email: [email protected]
Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal
Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Pollution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envpol
Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal* R.A.O. Nunes, M.C.M. Alvim-Ferraz, F.G. Martins, S.I.V. Sousa* LEPABE e Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 15 February 2017 Received in revised form 29 August 2017 Accepted 30 August 2017 Available online xxx
In the last few years, ship emissions have attracted growing attention in the scientific community. The main reason is the constant increase of marine emissions over the last twenty years due to the intensification of port traffic. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate ship emissions (PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, N2O CH4, NMVOC, and HC) through the activity-based methodology in four of the main ports of Portugal ~es, Setúbal, Sines and Viana do Castelo) during 2013 and 2014. The analysis was performed ac(Leixo cording to ship types (bulk carrier, container, general cargo, passenger, Ro-Ro cargo, tanker and others) and operational modes (manoeuvring, hotelling and during cruising). Results indicated that tankers were the largest emitters in two of the four analysed ports. Regarding cruising emissions, container ships were the largest emitters. . CO2, NOx and SO2 estimated emissions represented more than 95% of the cruising and in-port emissions. Results were also compared with the total national emissions reported by the Portuguese Environment Agency, and if the in-port emissions estimated in the present study would have been taken into account to these totals, emissions of NOx and SO2 would increase 15% and 24% in 2013 and 16% and 28% in 2014. Summing up ships seem to be an important source of air pollution, mainly regarding NOx and SO2. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Portuguese ports Activity-based method Air pollution Shipping emissions Climate change
1. Introduction Over the last twenty years the increase of in-port traffic has made shipping one of the most polluting industries in the world. In the past, the environmental and health risks associated with shipping were underestimated but nowadays these areas are attracting the attention of the scientific community. Maritime transport is considered a highly efficient mode of cargo transportation from an energetic point of view (capacity of tons transported per kilometre travelled). According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), shipping is responsible for around 80% of global trade by volume and over 70% of global trade by value worldwide (IMO, 2016a). Although maritime transport is an effective transport option, emissions from ships contribute significantly to the total emissions in global transport (Eyring et al., 2009; Saraçoǧlu et al., 2013; Yau et al., 2012). In Portugal, according to the Report of the State of the Environment 2016 made by the Portuguese Environment Agency (APA)
*
This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Charles Wong. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: sofi[email protected] (S.I.V. Sousa).
in 2016, 21 million tonnes were exported by sea, corresponding to 53.6% of the total that was exported by the country. On the other hand, maritime transport has also been responsible for 36.3 million tonnes of imported goods, corresponding to 61.7% of all imported goods at a national level (APA, 2016a). Portugal is a country with 942 km of coastline with a high activity in the maritime sector and densely populated in coastal areas, which makes the accurate quantification of emissions from ships that navigate and berth in Portuguese ports very important. Recent studies show that at least 70% of emissions from ships in international routes occur within 400 km of the coast (Eyring et al., 2009). Ships’ emissions can be easily transferred hundreds of kilometres towards the mainland and their impacts can be evident both on local and global scales, which may represent a significant risk to human health (Corbett et al., 2007; Eyring et al., 2009). In fact, the emissions from ships may cause adverse effects on air quality during hotelling or manoeuvring and in transiting along the coast (Kilic and Deniz, 2010). Emissions during hotelling and manoeuvring represent only a small part of the total emissions from shipping, however port areas are recognizable receptors and inevitably point sources of concentrated shipping emissions (Tzannatos, 2010). The main pollutants emitted from ships are particulate matter
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112 0269-7491/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
2
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
(PM), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Particular concern is related to PM, VOC CO, NOx and SOx due to their potential public health impacts, NOx and SOx due to their contribution for rain acidification, and CO2 due to its role on greenhouse effect (Matthias et al., 2010). Recent studies attribute to ships around 2.2%, 15%, and 5e8% of the global anthropogenic CO2, NOx and SOx levels, respectively (IMO, 2016b; Song, 2014; Tzannatos, 2010). The international nature of the maritime sector makes it difficult and complex to design and implement policies to decrease emissions, however, the monitoring and control of air pollution is a recognized part of the essential measures to minimize the impacts of port activities (Sanabra et al., 2014; Tzannatos, 2010). Shipping pollution is regulated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which is the most important international convention concerning the prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships both for operational and accidental reasons. Currently, MARPOL is divided into 6 Annexes (IMO, 2016b), and according to Annex VI “Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships” (in force since May 2005), IMO develops and promulgates international regulations for atmospheric emissions from ships. Since July 2010 and after the revision of Annex VI, IMO established limits for SOx and NOx emissions, prohibited emissions of stratospheric ozone depleting substances and created emission control areas (ECAs). Currently, the global limit for sulphur content of ships' fuel is 3.50% m/m, but IMO established a limit of 0.50% m/ m to be applied from January 2020 or January 2025, depending on the availability of low sulphur fuel for ships’ use. Since January 2015 the sulphur limit for fuel used by ships in SOx Emission Control Areas (SECAs) has been 0.10% m/m (IMO, 2016b). In Europe, passenger ships that sail outside SECAs have to respect a limit of 1.5% m/m sulphur in fuels (EEA, 2013). IMO regulates the NOx emissions through a three tier scheme (Tier I, II and III). The Tier III, currently in force, applies to new ships (built after January 2016) operating in North American and U.S. Caribbean NOx emissions control areas (NECAs) (IMO, 2016b). In 2021 the North Sea and the Baltic Sea will become NECAs and Tier III will be mandatory for ships built after January 2021 operating in those areas too (IMO, 2016b). Significant progress has been made for estimating ship emissions in different regions of the world. In the last few years several port inventory studies have been conducted. Tzannatos (2010) estimated the emission of the main pollutants from cruise ships for the Port of Piraeus in Greece, between 2008 and 2009, using an in-port ship activity-based methodology. Results indicated that overall cruise ship emissions in Piraeus Port reached 2600 tonnes annually. Deniz and Kilic (2009) calculated emissions from ships at Ambarli Port in 2005, estimating annual emissions of NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, VOC and PM of, respectively, 845 ty-1, 242 ty-1, 2127 ty-1, 78 590 ty-1, 504 ty-1 and 36 ty-1. They also reported that the maximum values of SO2 and NOx concentrations modelled in a 2 km range from the port exceeded 100 mg m3 of NOx and 55 mg m3 of SO2, affecting around 60 000 people. Berechman and Tseng (2012) conducted an emissions inventory at the Port of Kaohsiung in Taiwan to estimate the associated emission costs of ships and trucks that operate in that port during 2010. Using a bottom-up methodology, authors found that tankers, containerships and bulk ships were the major contributors to ship emissions. Liu et al. (2014) also estimated emissions of SO2 at Port of Kaohsiung from 2006 to 2010, concluding that estimating methods based on cargo capacity led to higher emissions than those based on vessel activity time. Saraçoǧlu et al. (2013) studied ship emissions at Izmir Port in Turkey for 2007 using a ship activity-based methodology. The emissions of NOx, SO2, CO2, hydrocarbons (HC) and PM were, respectively, 1923 ty-1, 1405 ty-1, 82 753 ty-1, 74 ty-1 and 165 ty-1
and, according to the results, ships calling at the Izmir Port were an important air pollution source towards Izmir city and its surroundings. Song (2014) reported a ship emissions study of CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SOx, CO and HC at Shanghai Yangshan port in China, investigating both in-port ship emissions and the associated social costs during 2009. The authors used an activity-based methodology, supported by data from the automatic identification system (AIS). The emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SOx, CO and HC were, respectively, 578 444 ty-1, 10 ty-1, 33 ty-1, 1078 ty-1, 859 ty-1, 10 758 ty-1, 5623 ty-1, 1136 ty-1 and 519 ty-1. Song and Shon (2014) conducted a study during three different years (2006, 2008 and 2009) to estimate emissions from ships at Busan Port in Korea. The largest emissions were estimated during “in port” mode and for container ships. Authors also estimated future ship emissions in 2020 and 2050 and predicted a gradual increase of the emissions, except for SO2 and PM. Tichavska and Tovar (2015) used a model called STEAM (Ship Traffic Emission Assessment Model) developed by Jalkanen et al. (2009, 2012) to estimate exhaust pollutants related with cruise and ferry operations in an island context (Las Palmas Port, Spain) during 2011. The authors highlighted that cruise ships were a significant source of air pollution at Las Palmas Port. Saxe and Larsen (2004), Maragkogianni and Papaefthimiou (2015) and Sanabra et al. (2014) considered port clusters for their studies. Saxe and Larsen (2004) developed a model to calculate the dispersion of air pollutants (NOx, SO2 and PM) from ships in three Danish ports in 2001. The authors concluded that in-port emissions of NOx possibly induce health problems to the population near the Danish ports and recommended monitoring air pollutants to suggest methods to reduce air pollution from ships. Maragkogianni and Papaefthimiou (2015) estimated emissions from cruise ships in the five busiest Greek ports for 2013 and concluded that seasonality plays a major role. In summer the emissions and associated impacts were significantly amplified. Sanabra et al. (2014) assessed the local impact of ship air pollution for the Spanish ports network in 2009. Results indicated that the main emitted pollutant was NOx, representing 86% of total emissions and that PM2.5 and NOX were the pollutants that presented higher externalities. In Portugal the Commission for the Coordination and Development of the Northern Region (CCDR-N) reported a study for the North of Portugal in 2008, which included the emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx, VOCs and PM from maritime transport produced at ~es Port. However, this study only considered the emissions Leixo during manoeuvring, hotelling and loading/unloading (the latter applied to tankers) (CCDR-N, 2014) and was performed with a topdown approach. In 2016 the Portuguese Environment Agency (APA) published the “Portuguese national inventory report on greenhouse gases, 1990e2014” which included an inventory of atmospheric emissions from domestic ship traffic between Portuguese ports for the period between 1990 and 2014 (APA, 2016b). However, interpolations of values for the activity of ships were made for the periods of 1991e1994 and 1996 to 1999 and only CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions for domestic ship transport between Portuguese ports in mainland territory were considered. Thus, despite the work already performed, it is important to conduct a more detailed inventory of atmospheric emissions from ships in Portuguese ports to evaluate the real impact of this transport mode on air quality and health. As far as known, no previous paper concerning ship emissions has been published with reference to ports in Portugal. Thus, the present study aimed to estimate PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, N2O CH4, NMVOC, and HC in-port (manoeuvring and hotelling) and cruising emissions in four of the main ports of Portugal using a Bottom-up methodology based on the movement and activity of ships. To estimate emissions during cruising a buffer area was drawn, which allowed to determine the distance between ports up
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
to 400 km from the Portuguese coast. Emissions during cruising were estimated only for the ships that docked in the ports analysed and for the part of the routes inside the buffer area. As far as known, AIS data seem to be the most reliable and accurate approach to describe ships activities (Nunes et al., 2017). Unfortunately, after several attempts to get AIS data for the Portugal coastline, namely through several Portuguese official organisations (without success) and commercial databases (no funding available), it was decided to perform the study even without AIS data, because in Portugal there are no publications concerning international shipping emissions, thus, and although AIS was not used, this study is a very important contribution to the existing literature fulfilling the existing lack in this field of knowledge. 2. Material and methods 2.1. Study area and ports characteristics Portugal is located in southwestern Europe and due to its Atlantic centrality has a high geostrategic importance in the connection of maritime traffic from the Americas and Africa to Europe. Fig. S1 (in Supplementary Material e SM1) shows a shipping traffic density map for 2015 that allows understanding the geostrategic importance of Portugal in the international maritime traffic. According to the Association of Portugal Ports, national ports have essentially a commercial function (APP, 2016). Fig. 1 shows the ~es, Setúbal, Sines and Viana do location of the studied ports (Leixo Castelo) and the buffer area with 400 km from the Portuguese coast line. ~es and Viana do Castelo ports are managed by the same Leixo ~es and administration (APDL - Douro Ports Administration, Leixo ~es is the largest port infrastructure in Viana do Castelo, S.A.). Leixo the Northern Region of Portugal and one of the most important in the country. It represents 25% of Portuguese international trade and moves about 14 million tonnes of goods per year. Viana do Castelo Port is located near the mouth of Lima River, incorporating a commercial port, an industrial port, a marina and a fishing port. The commercial port can handle about 900 000 tonnes per year; the industrial port consists of two plants: the shipyards of Viana do Castelo (ENVC) and a component manufacturing industry for wind turbines (ENERCON). The port is responsible for handling fractional general cargo, dry bulk, liquid bulk and Ro-Ro cargo. APDL has annual incomes of about 10 million V. Setúbal Port is an Iberian solution in the Lisbon Region. Located at the junction of major routes of intercontinental navigation North-South and East-West, it has a direct connection to the main road and rail routes in Portugal and Spain. This port is a leader in fractional general cargo transportation, with about 43% of the national total and is also leader in the Ro-Ro traffic of the new light vehicles, with around 90% of the national total (annual incomes of about 3.5 million V). Sines Port is the largest artificial port in Portugal, and a deep water port. This port has specialized terminals that allow movement of different types of goods. It is the main port on the Atlantic coast of Portugal due to its geophysical characteristics and the main power supply input port in Portugal (natural gas, coal, oil and oil products). It is the Portuguese port with the highest annual incomes of around 12 million V (APP, 2016). 2.2. Calculation method The methodology quoted as Tier 3 in the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme/European Environment Agency (EMEP/ EEA) air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2016 was used for the estimation of air polluting emissions from ships in this study.
3
This methodology also known as “activity-based” method or “bottom-up” approach is based on the ship movement information and involves the application of emission factors to a particular ship activity. The emission factors are used to relate the emitted quantity of a certain pollutant with the energy spent by the ship’ engines (considering the specifications of operation) during a certain activity. The activities here considered were: i) manoeuvring considered the average time when the ship was inside the port in manoeuvre operations (given by port authorities); ii) hotelling considered all the time the ship was inside the port, with exception of manoeuvring operations; and iii) cruising e considered when the ship was at sea (up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast accounted from the point of entrance/exit of the port). This last operational mode only considers ships’ routes that entered/exited the four ports here analysed. For every ship call, the amount of air pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, N2O CH4, NMVOC, and HC) produced during cruising up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast, manoeuvring and hotelling were estimated using the following expressions, respectively:
ECruising ðtonÞ ¼
D ðME LFME ME EF þ AE LFAE EFÞ V (1)
EManoeuv ðtonÞ ¼ TManoeuv ðME LFME EF þ AE LFAE EF þ AB EFÞ (2) EHotell ðtonÞ ¼ THotell ðME LFME EF þ AE LFAE EFþ AB EFÞ (3) where ME is the maximum main engine power (kW), AE is the auxiliary engine power (kW), AB is the auxiliary boiler energy default, V is the ship average speed for each type of ship (km/h), D is the distance between port up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast line (km), LFME is the load factor of ME at cruising, manoeuvring and hotelling (%), respectively for Equations (1)e(3), LFAE is the load factor of AE at cruising, manoeuvring and hotelling (%), respectively for Equations (1)e(3), EF is the emission factor for different engine types/fuel combinations and operational modes (cruising, manoeuvring and hotelling) (g/kWh), respectively for Equations (1)e(3), TManoeuv is the average time spent during manoeuvring (h) and THotell is the average time spent at berth (h).
2.3. Data requirements and data sources The survey information and operational data, such as ships names, arrival and departure information of each ship (used to calculate the hoteling times) and manoeuvring times, as well as the names/identification numbers, date of construction, gross weight and gross tonnage (GT) of ships were obtained from port authorities. For Viana do Castelo port, it was not possible to obtain the arrival and departure information of ships because port authorities were not able to compile this information. Thus ships calling Viana do Castelo port were not considered in the estimation of cruising emissions. In this study seven primary categories of ships were considered: i) bulk carrier; ii) container; iii) general cargo; iv) passenger; v) Ro-Ro cargo; vi) tanker; and vii) others. The type of each ship provided by the port authorities were assigned into the above described seven primary categories according to Entec (2010) study. In the “others” category, war vessels, tugs, fishing boats, dredgers and unknown ships were considered.
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
4
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
Fig. 1. Location of the four studied ports and the buffer area with 400 km from the Portuguese coast line (Grey line).
2.3.1. Engine powers and load factors Since it was not possible to obtain the engine powers by another method, default tables were used to obtain the maximum engine powers of main (ME) and auxiliary engines (AE) and auxiliary boilers (AB), and the load factors for the engines for different operating modes. According to the information present in the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2016, the ME maximum powers can be obtained as a function of GT. Thus, ME maximum powers were obtained according to Table S1 (Supplementary Material e SM2) and used as the maximum continuous power of the propulsion engine (MCR) with reference to the World fleet of 2010. For ships where GT was not available in the data provided by Port Authorities, data from Marine Traffic website was extracted (Marine Traffic, 2016). The AE rated powers were obtained posteriorly from ME to AE ratios by ship type developed by Trozzi et al. (2010) also with reference to 2010 world fleet (Table S2 e Supplementary Material SM2). It should be noted that, the world fleet characterization was based on an analysis of the available literature on the subject and on statistical analysis of Lloyd's database for 1999 and 2010 in the frame of MEET project and in the update of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook. The AB energy defaults were obtained from the ICF (2009), Starcrest Consulting Group (2014, 2015) reports and are resumed in Table S3 (Supplementary Material SM2). It was assumed that
boilers were not used during cruising. As far as known, AB are usually used during cruising when ME loads are less than 20%, however in this study a default load factor of 80% was assumed because it was not possible to estimate ME load factors through Propeller Law. Consequently, since domestic literature regarding the activity of ship engine loads in the Portuguese Coast and Ports is deficient, the assumptions made by Entec (2002) were adopted according to Table S4 (additional details of load factors are included as Supplementary Information e SM3). 2.3.2. Cruising time and duration of in-port activities Since it is not possible obtain the actual speeds for ships under this study, average speeds by type of ship from Entec (2002) were adopted according to Table S5 (Supplementary Material SM3). In order to calculate cruising times from port to overseas-port distances up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast line, Dataloy Distance Table (DDT) online calculator (Dataloy Systems, 2016) was used for each of the distinct international origin/destination combinations. According to the study performed by Fitzgerald et al. (2011), DDT was considered one of the most accurate software to calculate international port-to-port distances, because it considers a great number of waypoints and logical relations between them.
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
As above referred, a buffer area with 400 km from the Portuguese coast line was drawn and for each ship call only the track inside this area (using the Google Earth software) was considered and the ship-travelled distance corresponded to the part of the routes inside this area (Fig. 1). To avoid duplication of the routes, half of the travelled distances was considered for the ships that travelled between the studied ports. The cruising time of each trip was calculated by the quotient between the distance travelled inside of the buffer area and the speed of each ship. Hotelling times were calculated by the difference between arrival and departure times (considering the first and the last berthing locations). Average manoeuvring times for each port were obtained from Port Authorities. It should be noted that all values mentioned above were verified through interviews with experienced members of the shipping sector and by port authorities’ responsible.
2.3.3. Engine/fuel type profiles, fuel sulphur content and emission factors Emission factors (EF) are largely dependent on engine/fuel type profiles and fuel sulphur content. For this study engine/fuel type profiles have been obtained from the LMIS dataset from Entec (2010) study which considered 14255 ships (Entec, 2010). The classification of ME was made based on GT of the respective ship types according to Table S6 (Supplementary Material SM4). For AE, it was assumed that all ships' categories had MSD or HSD engines without distinction (M/H SD) (See Supplementary Material e SM4). Ships were assumed to use three fuel types: i) Residual Oil (RO) with a sulphur content of 2.7% by mass; ii) Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) with a sulphur content of 1.0% by mass; and iii) Marine Gas Oil (MGO) with a sulphur content of 0.5% by mass. Fuel sulphur contents have been based on data provided to the International Maritime Organisation's Marine Environment Protection Committee (IMO MEPC) (2001) according to Entec (2002). The fuel types used by ships (for ME and AE) in the study area of this work were assigned according to ship type based on information from the Entec (2010) (Table S7, Supplementary Material SM4). In this study it was assumed that all auxiliary boilers (AB) used RO. Since that at the moment there are no locally derived emission factors for the Portuguese coast, EF used in this study were taken from other overseas studies (EMEP/EEA, 2016a; Entec, 2002; ICF, 2009; IVL, 2004). The EF of SO2, CO2, HC and the specific fuel consumption (SFC) for main and auxiliary engines were taken from the Entec 2002 study (Entec, 2002), while those of CO, CH4 and N2O were derived from the study performed by IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL, 2004). EF for PM10 were taken from the ICF (2009) study based on a formulae that is function of fuel type and sulphur content. PM2.5 EF were obtained from a PM10 to PM2.5 conversion factor of 0.92 (ICF, 2009). From EMEP/EEA 2016a,b study EF of NMOC and NOX were assumed. Three different EF for NOX emissions were assumed according to the construction date of the ships. According to EMEP/EEA 2016a,b report, NOX EF for 2000 (Entec, 2002) are representative of the fleet before application of IMO NOx Technical Code, while 2005 and 2010 values (according to Entec, 2007) were obtained from the year 2000 NOx EF with a reduction of 3.4% and 6.8% to account for the new engines introduced by 2005 and 2010, respectively. EF for the different pollutants were assigned according to engine type (ME, AE and AB), operational modes (cruising, manoeuvring and hotelling) and fuel type (RO, MDO and MGO) (additional details of EF is included as Supplementary Material SM5 Table S8).
5
3. Results and discussion 3.1. In-port emissions Emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, N2O CH4, NMVOC, and HC during manoeuvring and hotelling were estimated for the selected ship categories and ports during 2013 and 2014. Table 1 summarizes the total amounts of emitted air pollutants as well as, the number of ship calls at each port during 2013 and 2014. In terms of in-port emissions, the ships calling at Sines port during 2014 have produced the higher emission amounts (3.4Eþ05 ton ~es y1) followed by ships at Setúbal port (3.4Eþ05 ton y1), at Leixo port (3.4Eþ05 ton y1), and finally at Viana do Castelo port (8.9Eþ03 ton y1). It should be noted that emissions were higher ~es where they were during 2014 than during 2013, except at Leixo similar for both years. Nevertheless, when considering total GT of the ships calling each port, Sines was the one with the lowest ~es, Viana do Castelo and emissions per total GT, followed by Leixo ~es and Sines Setúbal. As seen from Table 1, number of ships at Leixo were significantly higher than at the other ports. The total number ~es port was the highest (2641 ship calls) in 2014. of ships at Leixo The port of Viana do Castelo was the only one where the total number of ships was higher in 2013 than in 2014. Regarding emissions by type of pollutant, those of CO2 were found to be dominant (more than 93% of total), followed by NOx emissions (3.0e4.2% of total), SO2 emissions (1.5e1.6%) and PM10 and PM2.5 emissions (0.2% of total) for all analysed ports during the studied period. Emissions of NMVOCs, CH4 and N2O were the lowest corresponding to <0.1% of total estimated emissions. In general, the categories that registered more calls in 2013 and ~es port 2014 were general cargo, container ships and tankers. Leixo was the only one that registered a considerable number of calls of passenger ships. At Setúbal, the number of calls of general cargo was higher than 50% of the total. Furthermore, both in 2013 and 2014 Setúbal port was the one that registered more calls of Ro-Ro cargo and bulk carriers. This was expected because Setúbal port is the main port in Portugal in the Ro-Ro traffic of new light vehicles. At Sines, container ships and tankers were responsible for the majority of calls, which seems to be related with this port being the main receptor of goods from the energy sector (natural gas, coal, oil and oil products). Viana do Castelo port registered the lowest number of ship calls. In this port general cargo ships were responsible for more than 80% of the calls in both years. These differences in terms of calls by ship type suggest that pollutant ~es and emissions may be different in each port. In fact, at Leixo Setúbal, ship calls increased 1.9% and 12.1% from 2013 to 2014 respectively, which lead to an increase of 3.0% and 13.1% in total pollutant emissions. At Sines although the number of ship calls was similar in 2013 and 2014, total emissions increased 8.8%. This increase seems to be related to the large number of containers ships that berthed in this port during 2014 (containers ship’ calls increased 4.8%). At Viana do Castelo, although port ship calls decreased 9% total emissions increase 2.8%. This increase seems to be related with the higher ME and AE rated powers that were higher for the ships that berth in Viana do Castelo during 2014 which led to higher emissions. Fig. 2 shows in-port ship emissions by ship types for 2014 at: a) ~es Port, b) Setúbal Port, c) Sines Port and d) Viana do Castelo Leixo Port. The same information for 2013 can be found in Fig. S2 (Supplementary Material SM6). Regarding emissions from different ship ~es emissions from container ships and tankers were types, at Leixo similar and corresponded to around 30% of estimated emissions.
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
6
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
Table 1 In-port Emissions of air pollutants and ship calls by port during 2013 and 2014 (in t y1). Port
Year
NOx
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
HC
NMVOC
CO
CO2
CH4
N2O
Total
Calls
~es Leixo
2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014
8.1Eþ03 8.2Eþ03 9.8Eþ03 1.1Eþ04 9.4Eþ03 1.0Eþ04 3.6Eþ02 3.5Eþ02
3.3Eþ03 3.3Eþ03 4.2Eþ03 4.9Eþ03 5.0Eþ03 5.5Eþ03 1.4Eþ02 1.4Eþ02
3.5Eþ02 3.6Eþ02 4.7Eþ02 5.5Eþ02 5.6Eþ02 6.1Eþ02 1.5Eþ01 1.6Eþ01
3.2Eþ02 3.3Eþ02 4.3Eþ02 5.1Eþ02 5.2Eþ02 5.6Eþ02 1.4Eþ01 1.4Eþ01
2.6Eþ02 2.7Eþ02 3.8Eþ02 4.4Eþ02 4.4Eþ02 4.9Eþ02 1.1Eþ01 1.2Eþ01
1.0Eþ02 1.1Eþ02 1.6Eþ02 1.8Eþ02 1.8Eþ02 2.0Eþ02 4.1 4.6
3.1Eþ02 3.1Eþ02 3.7Eþ02 4.2Eþ02 3.9Eþ02 4.3Eþ02 1.4Eþ01 1.4Eþ01
1.9Eþ05 2.0Eþ05 2.6Eþ05 2.9Eþ05 3.0Eþ05 3.2Eþ05 8.1Eþ03 8.3Eþ03
2.7 2.8 3.8 4.4 4.5 4.9 1.1E-01 1.1E-01
9.9 1.0Eþ01 1.3Eþ01 1.5Eþ01 1.5Eþ01 1.6Eþ01 4.1E-01 4.1E-01
2.1Eþ05 2.1Eþ05 2.8Eþ05 3.1Eþ05 3.1Eþ05 3.4Eþ05 8.6Eþ03 8.9Eþ03
2564 2612 1350 1514 1982 1975 199 181
Setúbal Sines Viana do Castelo
~es Port, b) Setúbal Port, c) Sines Port and d) Viana do Castelo Port. Fig. 2. In-port ship emissions according to ship types in 2014 at: a) Leixo
Although the number of calls from tankers was lower (around 18% of the total) than calls from container ships (more than 40% of the total), tankers emitted higher amounts of pollutants. At Setúbal port emissions from tankers represented more than 50% of total emissions, nevertheless this type of ship only accounted with
around 11e12% of total ship calls. General cargo ships recorded the largest number of calls (more than 50% of the total), but only ~es and Setúbal, accounted for 18% of total emissions. Both in Leixo this seems related to the higher hotelling times and AE loads, during this mode of operation for tankers. At Sines container ships
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
emitted the highest amount of pollutants in 2013 and 2014 with more than 50% of total emissions. This result seems to be related with the high engine powers of container ships. Yau et al. (2012), Ng et al. (2013), Saraçoǧlu et al. (2013) and Song and Shon (2014) concluded the same in their studies. At Viana do Castelo general cargo ships were the highest emitters responsible for more than 75% of in-port emissions. For all the analysed ports and years, emissions during manoeuvring were lower compared to emissions during hotelling, nevertheless these were important to the total amounts of in-port emissions. This information can be found in Tables S9eS16 (Supplementary Material SM7). 3.2. Cruising emissions Emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, N2O CH4, NMVOC, and HC for cruising up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast for the ships that berthed in the four ports analysed in this study during 2013 and 2014 were estimated. Table 2 summarizes the amounts of emitted air pollutants by ship type as well as, the number of ships for each category during 2013 and 2014. For cruising, container ships were the largest emitters responsible for 8.2Eþ05 ton y1 and 9.1Eþ05 ton y1 which corresponded to 59% and 65% of total emissions in 2013 and 2014, respectively. This results were related with the higher distances travelled at sea up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast for container ships, which led to higher times of permanency in open sea. As seen from Table 2, and similar to inport emissions, CO2 emissions were found to be dominant (95% of total in 2013 and 2014), followed by NOx emissions (3% of total) and SO2 emissions (2%). Emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NMVOCs, CH4 and N2O represent less than 1% of the total estimated cruising emissions. 3.3. Contribution of the calculated ship emissions to the national emissions The in-port and cruising estimated emissions of NOx, SO2, CO2 and NMVOC for 2013 and 2014 were compared with the total national emissions reported on the Portuguese National Inventory Report on Greenhouse Gases, 1990 e 2014 performed by APA submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol (APA, 2016b). This report is the official annual accounting of all anthropogenic (human-induced) emissions of greenhouse gases and other gases species such as NOx, SO2 and NMVOC in Portugal. In this report, emissions were estimated taking into account five large sectors (Energy, Industrial Processes and Product Uses, Agriculture, Land
7
Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) and Waste) and were calculated using the Guidelines from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whenever possible. CO2 ship emissions were accounted in this report in the Energy sector as domestic ship traffic between Portuguese ports. Although this assessment is very important, it underestimates the total emissions from shipping in Portugal, because it does not include emissions from international navigation. In order to assess the contribution of the ship emissions calculated in this study to the total of national emissions above referred, CO2 ship emissions calculated by APA for 2013 and 2014 were subtracted from the total of emissions. For NOx, SO2 and NMVOC emissions, the totals of emissions reported by APA were considered. Table 3 shows the contribution of total and in-port ship air pollutant emissions (NOx, SO2, CO2 and NMVOC) to the total national emissions during 2013 and 2014. As can be seen in Table 3, if the total (in-port and cruising) emissions calculated in the present study were accounted in the National Inventory Report made by APA, emissions of NOx, SO2, CO2 and NMVOC would increase 29%, 40%, 4% and <1% in 2013 and 31%, 45%, 5% and <1% in 2014. If only in-port emissions were accounted, the contribution of the estimated emissions remains significant and the emissions of NOx, SO2, CO2 and NMVOC would increase 14%, 19%, 2% and <1% in 2013 and 15%, 23%, 2% and <1% in 2014 These percentages could be even higher if emissions were calculated for all Portuguese ports and including ships that just pass along the Portuguese coast up to 400 km. Accordingly, ships seem to be an important source of SO2 and NOx emissions when compared with land-based sources. These results are consistent with those of other studies which suggested that ship emissions are a significant source of airborne pollution (mainly regarding NOx and SO2) (Fan et al., 2016; Goldsworthy and Goldsworthy, 2015; Kilic and Deniz, 2010; Saraçoǧlu et al., 2013). Moreover, according to the Air quality in Europe - 2016 report, performed by the European Environment Agency for EU-28, emissions from international shipping within European seas, may increase in 50% the NOx emissions and in 75% the SOx emissions (EMEP/EEA, 2016b). In fact, NOx emissions from ships are relatively high due to the high temperatures and pressures in which marine engines operate, in most cases without reduction technologies. SO2 emissions are high because of high average sulphur content in some marine fuels used by most ships (Eyring et al., 2009). These results highlight the necessity of improving the monitoring and control of ship emissions in Portugal.
Table 2 Cruising Emissions of air pollutants and ship calls by ship type during 2013 and 2014 (in t y1). Ship type
Year
NOx
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
HC
NMVOC
CO
CO2
CH4
N2O
Total
Calls
Bulk Carrier
2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014
1.3Eþ03 1.6Eþ03 2.4Eþ04 2.6Eþ04 4.8Eþ03 4.9Eþ03 6.4Eþ03 6.6Eþ03 3.9Eþ02 5.2Eþ02 4.2Eþ03 5.0Eþ03 1.5Eþ02 1.3Eþ02 4.1Eþ04 4.5Eþ04
6.5Eþ02 8.1Eþ02 1.3Eþ04 1.5Eþ04 2.8Eþ03 2.8Eþ03 3.4Eþ03 3.4Eþ03 4.3Eþ01 5.4Eþ01 2.2Eþ03 2.6Eþ03 1.4Eþ01 2.1Eþ01 2.2Eþ04 2.4Eþ04
8.6Eþ01 1.1Eþ02 1.7Eþ03 1.9Eþ03 3.5Eþ02 3.6Eþ02 4.4Eþ02 4.5Eþ02 8.1 1.1Eþ01 2.9Eþ02 3.4Eþ02 3.1 3.7 2.9Eþ03 3.2Eþ03
8.0Eþ01 9.9Eþ01 1.6Eþ03 1.8Eþ03 3.4Eþ02 3.5Eþ02 4.1Eþ02 4.2Eþ02 8.6 1.1Eþ01 2.7Eþ02 3.2Eþ02 3.1 3.6 2.7Eþ03 3.0Eþ03
3.5Eþ01 4.3Eþ01 6.9Eþ02 7.6Eþ02 1.4Eþ02 1.4Eþ02 1.8Eþ02 1.8Eþ02 1.2Eþ01 1.6Eþ01 1.2Eþ02 1.4Eþ02 3.9 3.6 1.2Eþ03 1.3Eþ03
1.8Eþ01 2.2Eþ01 3.5Eþ02 3.8Eþ02 6.6Eþ01 6.8Eþ01 9.1Eþ01 9.3Eþ01 5.2 7.0 5.8Eþ01 7.0Eþ01 1.8 1.7 5.9Eþ02 6.4Eþ02
3.6Eþ01 4.5Eþ01 8.2Eþ02 9.1Eþ02 2.0Eþ02 2.1Eþ02 2.0Eþ02 2.0Eþ02 2.7Eþ01 3.6Eþ01 1.4Eþ02 1.5Eþ02 8.1 6.8 1.4Eþ03 1.6Eþ03
3.8Eþ04 4.8Eþ04 7.8Eþ05 8.7Eþ05 1.6Eþ05 1.7Eþ05 2.0Eþ05 2.0Eþ05 1.6Eþ04 2.2Eþ04 1.3Eþ05 1.5Eþ05 5.1Eþ03 4.6Eþ03 1.3Eþ06 1.5Eþ06
3.6E-01 4.5E-01 6.9 7.7 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.0E-01 1.4E-01 1.2 1.4 3.6E-02 3.3E-02 1.2Eþ01 1.3Eþ01
1.9 2.3 3.8Eþ01 4.2Eþ01 7.8 8.0 9.6 9.8 7.7E-01 1.0 6.3 7.5 2.5E-01 2.2E-01 6.5Eþ01 7.1Eþ01
4.1Eþ04 5.0Eþ04 8.2Eþ05 9.1Eþ05 1.7Eþ05 1.8Eþ05 2.1Eþ05 2.1Eþ05 1.7Eþ04 2.2Eþ04 1.4Eþ05 1.6Eþ05 5.3Eþ03 4.7Eþ03 1.4Eþ06 1.5Eþ06
199 234 2094 2235 1661 1695 1552 1495 68 78 239 285 83 79 5896 6101
Container Ship General Cargo Tanker Passenger Ship Ro-Ro Cargo Others Total
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
8
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
Table 3 Shipping emissions contribution of the four studied ports to the national emissions in 2013 and 2014 (in t y1). Total shipping emissions contribution to the national emissions in 2013; 2014
In-port shipping emissions contribution to the national emissions in 2013; 2014
Pollutant Portugal emissions from APA report, in 2013
Portugal emissions from APA report, in 2014
Total ship emissions (in 2013; 2014)
In-port ship emissions (in 2013; 2014)
NOx
164 000
167 000
1.9Eþ05; 1.9Eþ05 29%; 31%
14%; 15%
SO2
53 000
47 000
6.6Eþ04; 6.1Eþ04 40%; 45%
19%; 23%
CO2
47 235 000
47 047 100
2.4Eþ05; 2.4Eþ05 8.8Eþ04; 8.5Eþ04 4.9Eþ07; 4.9Eþ07 1.8Eþ05; 1.7Eþ05
4.8Eþ07; 4.8Eþ07 4%; 5%
2%; 2%
1.7Eþ05; 1.7Eþ05 <1%; <1%
<1%; <1%
NMVOC 174 000
170 000
3.4. Comparison between calculated ship emissions and other foreign ports Shipping emissions assessed in this study were compared with other estimated for ports around the world (Table 4). All the studies used for comparison applied the activity-based method to estimate ship emissions, although the focus of the estimations differ with respect to geographical boundaries (only in-port waters, or also territorial waters), ship types, port activities/operations and pollutants that were considered. Despite these constraints, some comparisons can be useful. Table 4 shows the total amount of ship emissions on ports, number of ship calls, operational modes and ship routes considered in the different studies. ~es, Setúbal and Sines ports The in-port ship emissions at Leixo were higher than those estimated at Copenhagen Port, Elsinore Port, Køge Port, Ambarlı Port and Izmir Port, despite the lower number of ship calls at Portuguese ports (except for port of Køge). ~es. It should The emissions at Las Palmas Port were similar to Leixo be noted that the emissions reported by Saxe and Larsen (2004) for the Denmark ports were lower than emissions calculated for all
ports in the present study. This seems related to the fact that for Danish ports, CO2 and CO emissions were not included in the inventory. Emissions at Busan Port were higher than those calculated for the studied ports. Moreover, for the ship emissions inventory of Busan Port the emissions of CO, CH4, N2O and HC were not estimated. Ship emissions of all pollutants calculated in this study were considerably lower than those at Shanghai Port, which is one of the largest port in the world (Yang et al., 2007). Although in the present study cruising emissions were calculated only for ships that anchored in four Portuguese ports up to 400 km from the coast, the emissions of this mode of operation were higher than all foreign ports emissions, except for Shanghai, which shows the importance of the calculation of emissions from ships at open sea. 4. Uncertainties The accuracy of this emission inventory is dependent on the input data used and the assumptions made. In this study, the number of calls, arrival and departure information of each ship
Table 4 Total amounts of ship emissions ports (in ton yr-1), number of ship calls, operational modes and ship routes considered in different studies. Port
Inventory period
~es Port Leixo
2013, 2014 2 614, 2641
Setúbal Port
1 350, 1514
Sines Port
1 982, 1975
Viana do Castelo Port Cruising
199, 182
M, H
e
e
Up to 400 km from the coast
5729
M, H
In-port waters
Copenhagen Port, Denmark Elsinore Port, Denmark Køge Port, Denmark Shanghai Port, China Ambarlı Port, Turkey Izmir Port, Turkey
2001
Operation Ship navigation routes mode
Pollutants analysed
Ca, Mb, Hc
NOx, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, NMVOC, CO, CO2, 2.1Eþ05, CH4, N2O and HC 2.1Eþ05 2.8Eþ05, 3.1Eþ05 3.1Eþ05, 3.4Eþ05 8.6Eþ03, 8.9Eþ03 1.4Eþ06; 1.5Eþ06 NOx, SOx and TSP 698.3 1096.6
543
49.3
Study This study
Saxe and Larsen (2004)
3.1Eþ06
Yang et al. (2007)
C, M, H
129 km 102 km Shanghai Port NOx, SO2, PM, CO2 and HC study domain In-port waters
8.2Eþ04
C, M, H
A cruising distance of 128.8 km NOx, SO2, PM, CO2 and HC
8.6Eþ04
In-port waters
NOx, SO2, VOC, PM and CO2
5.7Eþ05
In-port waters
NOx, SOx, PM2.5 and CO2
2.2Eþ05
Deniz and Kilic (2009) Saraçoǧlu et al. (2013) Song and Shon (2014) Tichavska and Tovar (2015)
1 280 128
C, M, H
2005
5432
2007
2803
2011
In-port waters
Emissions (ton y1)
45 226
2003
Busan Port, Korea 2008 Las Palmas Port, Spain
Ship calls
50 402, 58 858, C, M, H 49 736 3183 C, M, H
N. a e Not applicable. a C e Cruising. b M e Manoeuvring. c H e Hotelling.
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
(used to calculate the hoteling times) and manoeuvring times, as well as the names/identification numbers, date of construction, gross weight and gross tonnage (GT) of ships were obtained from port authorities. All ship characteristics were confirmed according to Marine Traffic website which is a complete and reliable source for basic ship information. Empirical values for ship speeds, engine powers and load factors were used in this study, which may induce a certain degree of uncertainty. The uncertainties in the emissions estimations arise primarily from the following: i) the use of nonlinear regressions as a function of gross tonnage (GT) to obtain ME powers, the determination of AE powers as a fraction of ME power and the use of default AB powers; ii) the assignment of the engine/fuel type profiles based on the ship fleet used in Entec UK Limited study 2010, and iii) the use of default and constant ship speeds and engine loads, which is known to change during ship activities and for different weather conditions. In order to minimize as much as possible the uncertainties associated with the use of these default values, interviews with experienced members of the shipping sector and with port authorities were performed. The used EF also produce uncertainties, because they were based on other overseas studies. Despite this, the selection was performed to be the most representative for the Portuguese coast. Further work is needed to improve the outcomes of this study and minimize the scale of uncertainties. Improves could be achieved with the use of higher-resolution input data, especially on the actual power of ME and EF. 5. Conclusions This study allowed estimating the ship emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, N2O CH4, NMVOC, and HC based on the activity~es, based methodology in four of the main ports of Portugal (Leixo Setúbal and Sines and Viana do Castelo) during 2013 and 2014. ~es was the port that received more According to the results, Leixo ship calls in 2013 and 2014, followed by Sines, Setúbal, and Viana do Castelo. The ship types that registered more ship calls were container ships, general cargo and tankers. ~es emissions from container ships and tankers were At Leixo similar, corresponding to around 30% of estimated emissions. At Setúbal Port emissions from tankers represents more than 50% of total emissions which seems related to the higher hotelling times and AE loads for these ships. At Sines container ships emitted the highest amount of pollutants in 2013 and 2014 with more than 50% of total emissions which seems related with the high engine powers of these ships. At Viana do Castelo general cargo ships were the highest emitters responsible for more than 75% of in-port emissions. Regarding cruising emissions, container ships were the largest emitters responsible for around 59% and 65% of total emissions in 2013 and 2014, respectively. This results were related with the higher distances travelled at sea up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast for container ships, which led to higher times of permanency in open sea. CO2, NOx and SO2 were the pollutants for which the highest amounts of cruising and in-port emissions were estimated. These three pollutants represents more than 95% of the cruising and inport emissions. If the total emissions from ships calculated in the present study, would have been taken into account in the National Inventory Report on Greenhouse Gases, 1990e2014 performed by APA, emissions of NOx, SO2, CO2 and NMVOC would increase 29%, 40%, 4% and <1% in 2013 and 31%, 45%, 5% and <1% in 2014. Thus, it was possible to conclude that ships can be an important air pollution source in Portugal, especially for NOx and SO2 emissions, even not considering all Portuguese ports in the study. Nevertheless, maritime transport is highly efficient in an energetic point of
9
view, thus considering an increase on this type of transportation in the following years, and consequently the increase in the associated emissions, mitigation strategies should be considered regarding the control of emissions namely for example on the fuel sulphur content, the use of different less pollutant combustibles, the creation of NOx control areas, the increase of engines efficiency regarding fuel consumption, the use of shore power during hotelling and others. In the future, it is important to study emissions from all Portuguese ports as well as those from all ships sailing up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast, which will allow making a total assessment of atmospheric emissions from ships in the Portuguese territory and in its coastal waters. Conflict of interests The authors declare no conflict of interests. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the port authorities of Viana do ~es, Setúbal and Sines for kindly providing data on Castelo, Leixo ship's movements and characteristics. This work was financially supported by: Project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006939 (Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy e LEPABE funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020 - Programa ~o (POCI) and Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalizaça grant SFRD/BPD/91918/2012 for SIV Sousa, funded by FCT, POPH/ QREN and European Social Fund (ESF). Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112. References rio do Estado do Ambiente 2016. Age ^ncia Portuguesa do AmbiAPA, 2016a. Relato ente. Available from: http://sniamb.apambiente.pt/infos/geoportaldocs/REA/ REA2016/REA2016.pdf. APA, 2016b. Portuguese National Inventory Report on Greenhouse Gases, 1990^ncia Portuguesa do Ambiente. Available from: http://unfccc. 2014. Amadora Age int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_ submissions/items/8108.php. APP, 2016. Portos de Protugal. Available from: http://www.portosdeportugal.pt/ web/app/home. Berechman, J., Tseng, P.H., 2012. Estimating the environmental costs of port related emissions: the case of Kaohsiung. Transp. Res. Part D. Transp. Environ. 17, 35e38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.09.009. ~es de poluentes atmosfe ricos na regi~ CCDR-N, 2014. Invent ario de emisso ao Norte rio Final elaborado no a ^mbito do Protocolo de colaboraç~ Relato ao estabelecido ~o de Coordenaça ~o e Desenvolvimento entre a CCDR Norte e a FCT/UNL. Comissa Regional do Norte. Corbett, J.J., Winebrake, J.J., Green, E.H., Kasibhatla, P., Eyring, V., Lauer, A., 2007. Mortality from ship emissions: a global assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 8512e8518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es071686z. Dataloy Systems, 2016. Dataloy Distance Table (DTT). Deniz, C., Kilic, A., 2009. Estimation and assessment of shipping emissions in the region of Ambarlı Port, Turkey. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 107e115. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep.10373. EEA, 2013. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2013: Technical Guidance to Prepare National Emission Inventories. European Environment Agency, Luxembourg. http://dx.doi.org/10.2800/92722. Entec, 2002. Quantification of Emissions from Ships Associated with Ship Movements between Ports in the European Community. European Commission, Final Report, Northwich, UK. Entec, 2007. Ship Emissions Inventory Mediterranean Sea, Final Report for Concawe. Entec, 2010. Defra UK Ship Emissions Inventory Final Report, London, UK. EMEP/EEA, 2016a. International Maritime Navigation, International Inland Navigation, National Navigation (Shipping), National Fishing, Military (Shipping), and Recreational Boats. EMEP/EEA, 2016b. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2016. Eyring, V., Isaksen, I., Berntsen, T., Collins, W., Corbett, J., Endresen, O., Grainger, R., Moldanova, J., Schlager, H., Stevenson, D., 2009. Transport impacts on
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
10
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
atmosphere and climate: Shipping. Atmos. Environ. 44, 4735e4771. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.059. Fan, Q., Zhang, Y., Ma, W., Ma, H., Feng, J., Yu, Q., Yang, X., Ng, S.K.W., Fu, Q., Chen, L., 2016. Spatial and seasonal dynamics of ship emissions over the Yangtze river delta and East China sea and their potential environmental influence. Environ. Sci. Technol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03965 acs.est.5b03965. Fitzgerald, W.B., Howitt, O.J.A., Smith, I.J., 2011. Greenhouse gas emissions from the international maritime transport of New Zealand's imports and exports. Energy Policy 39, 1521e1531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.026. Goldsworthy, L., Goldsworthy, B., 2015. Modelling of ship engine exhaust emissions in ports and extensive coastal waters based on terrestrial AIS data - an Australian case study. Environ. Model. Softw. 63, 45e60. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.09.009. ICF, 2009. Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port Related Emission Inventories (Final Report). IMO, 2016a. Marine Environment. International Maritime Organization. Available from: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Default.aspx. IMO, 2016b. Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships. International Maritime Organization. Available from: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/ PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Air-Pollution.aspx. IVL, 2004. Methodology for Calculating Emissions from Ships: 1. Update of emission factors Assignment for Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Jalkanen, J.-P., Brink, a., Kalli, J., Pettersson, H., Kukkonen, J., Stipa, T., 2009. A modelling system for the exhaust emissions of marine traffic and its application in the Baltic Sea area. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 9, 15339e15373. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acpd-9-15339-2009. Jalkanen, J.P., Johansson, L., Kukkonen, J., Brink, A., Kalli, J., Stipa, T., 2012. Extension of an assessment model of ship traffic exhaust emissions for particulate matter and carbon monoxide. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 12, 2641e2659. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5194/acp-12-2641-2012. Kilic, A., Deniz, C., 2010. Inventory of shipping emissions in izmit gulf. Turk. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 29, 221e232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep. Liu, T.K., Sheu, H.Y., Tsai, J.Y., 2014. Sulfur dioxide emission estimates from merchant vessels in a Port area and related control strat.egies. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 14, 413e421. http://dx.doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2013.02.0061. Maragkogianni, A., Papaefthimiou, S., 2015. Evaluating the social cost of cruise ships air emissions in major ports of Greece. Transp. Res. Part D. Transp. Environ. 36, 10e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.02.014. Marine Traffic, 2016. Available from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/ centerx:-8/centery:41/zoom:5. Matthias, V., Bewersdorff, I., Aulinger, A., Quante, M., 2010. The contribution of ship
emissions to air pollution in the North Sea regions. Environ. Pollut 158, 2241e2250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.02.013. Ng, S.K.W., Loh, C., Lin, C., Booth, V., Chan, J.W.M., Yip, A.C.K., Li, Y., Lau, A.K.H., 2013. Policy change driven by an AIS-assisted marine emission inventory in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta. Atmos. Environ. 76, 102e112. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.07.070. Nunes, R.A.O., Alvim-Ferraz, M.C.M., Martins, F.G., Sousa, S.I.V., 2017. The activitybased methodology to assess ship emissions e a review. Environ. Pollut. 231, 87e103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.099. s, F.X., 2014. Manoeuvring Sanabra, M.C., Usabiaga Santamaría, J.J., Martínez De Ose and hotelling external costs: enough for alternative energy sources? Marit. Policy Manag. 41, 42e60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013.782441. Saraçoǧlu, H., Deniz, C., Kiliç, A., 2013. An investigation on the effects of ship sourced emissions in Izmir port, Turkey. Sci. World J. 2013 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1155/2013/218324. Saxe, H., Larsen, T., 2004. Air pollution from ships in three Danish ports. Atmos. Environ. 38, 4057e4067. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.03.055. Song, S., 2014. Ship emissions inventory, social cost and eco-efficiency in Shanghai Yangshan port. Atmos. Environ. 82, 288e297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.atmosenv.2013.10.006. Song, S.K., Shon, Z.H., 2014. Current and future emission estimates of exhaust gases and particles from shipping at the largest port in Korea. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21, 6612e6622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-2569-5. Starcrest Consulting Group, 2014. Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions e 2013 Report. Starcrest Consulting Group, 2015. Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions e 2014 Report. Tichavska, M., Tovar, B., 2015. Port-city exhaust emission model: an application to cruise and ferry operations in Las Palmas Port. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 78, 347e360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.05.021. Trozzi, C., Consulting, T., Gregorio, V., Curbastro, R., Roma, I., 2010. Emission Estimate Methodology for Maritime Navigation 6. Tzannatos, E., 2010. Ship emissions and their externalities for the port of Piraeus e Greece. Atmos. Environ 44, 400e407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.atmosenv.2009.10.024. Yang, D.Q., Kwan, S.H., Lu, T., Fu, Q.Y., Cheng, J.M., Streets, D.G., Wu, Y.M., Li, J.J., 2007. An emission inventory of marine vessels in Shanghai in 2003. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 5183e5190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es061979c. Yau, P.S., Lee, S.C., Corbett, J.J., Wang, C., Cheng, Y., Ho, K.F., 2012. Estimation of exhaust emission from ocean-going vessels in Hong Kong. Sci. Total Environ. 431, 299e306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.092.
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Pollution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envpol
Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal* R.A.O. Nunes, M.C.M. Alvim-Ferraz, F.G. Martins, S.I.V. Sousa* LEPABE e Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 15 February 2017 Received in revised form 29 August 2017 Accepted 30 August 2017 Available online xxx
In the last few years, ship emissions have attracted growing attention in the scientific community. The main reason is the constant increase of marine emissions over the last twenty years due to the intensification of port traffic. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate ship emissions (PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, N2O CH4, NMVOC, and HC) through the activity-based methodology in four of the main ports of Portugal ~es, Setúbal, Sines and Viana do Castelo) during 2013 and 2014. The analysis was performed ac(Leixo cording to ship types (bulk carrier, container, general cargo, passenger, Ro-Ro cargo, tanker and others) and operational modes (manoeuvring, hotelling and during cruising). Results indicated that tankers were the largest emitters in two of the four analysed ports. Regarding cruising emissions, container ships were the largest emitters. . CO2, NOx and SO2 estimated emissions represented more than 95% of the cruising and in-port emissions. Results were also compared with the total national emissions reported by the Portuguese Environment Agency, and if the in-port emissions estimated in the present study would have been taken into account to these totals, emissions of NOx and SO2 would increase 15% and 24% in 2013 and 16% and 28% in 2014. Summing up ships seem to be an important source of air pollution, mainly regarding NOx and SO2. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Portuguese ports Activity-based method Air pollution Shipping emissions Climate change
1. Introduction Over the last twenty years the increase of in-port traffic has made shipping one of the most polluting industries in the world. In the past, the environmental and health risks associated with shipping were underestimated but nowadays these areas are attracting the attention of the scientific community. Maritime transport is considered a highly efficient mode of cargo transportation from an energetic point of view (capacity of tons transported per kilometre travelled). According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), shipping is responsible for around 80% of global trade by volume and over 70% of global trade by value worldwide (IMO, 2016a). Although maritime transport is an effective transport option, emissions from ships contribute significantly to the total emissions in global transport (Eyring et al., 2009; Saraçoǧlu et al., 2013; Yau et al., 2012). In Portugal, according to the Report of the State of the Environment 2016 made by the Portuguese Environment Agency (APA)
*
This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Charles Wong. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: sofi[email protected] (S.I.V. Sousa).
in 2016, 21 million tonnes were exported by sea, corresponding to 53.6% of the total that was exported by the country. On the other hand, maritime transport has also been responsible for 36.3 million tonnes of imported goods, corresponding to 61.7% of all imported goods at a national level (APA, 2016a). Portugal is a country with 942 km of coastline with a high activity in the maritime sector and densely populated in coastal areas, which makes the accurate quantification of emissions from ships that navigate and berth in Portuguese ports very important. Recent studies show that at least 70% of emissions from ships in international routes occur within 400 km of the coast (Eyring et al., 2009). Ships’ emissions can be easily transferred hundreds of kilometres towards the mainland and their impacts can be evident both on local and global scales, which may represent a significant risk to human health (Corbett et al., 2007; Eyring et al., 2009). In fact, the emissions from ships may cause adverse effects on air quality during hotelling or manoeuvring and in transiting along the coast (Kilic and Deniz, 2010). Emissions during hotelling and manoeuvring represent only a small part of the total emissions from shipping, however port areas are recognizable receptors and inevitably point sources of concentrated shipping emissions (Tzannatos, 2010). The main pollutants emitted from ships are particulate matter
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112 0269-7491/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
2
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
(PM), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Particular concern is related to PM, VOC CO, NOx and SOx due to their potential public health impacts, NOx and SOx due to their contribution for rain acidification, and CO2 due to its role on greenhouse effect (Matthias et al., 2010). Recent studies attribute to ships around 2.2%, 15%, and 5e8% of the global anthropogenic CO2, NOx and SOx levels, respectively (IMO, 2016b; Song, 2014; Tzannatos, 2010). The international nature of the maritime sector makes it difficult and complex to design and implement policies to decrease emissions, however, the monitoring and control of air pollution is a recognized part of the essential measures to minimize the impacts of port activities (Sanabra et al., 2014; Tzannatos, 2010). Shipping pollution is regulated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which is the most important international convention concerning the prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships both for operational and accidental reasons. Currently, MARPOL is divided into 6 Annexes (IMO, 2016b), and according to Annex VI “Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships” (in force since May 2005), IMO develops and promulgates international regulations for atmospheric emissions from ships. Since July 2010 and after the revision of Annex VI, IMO established limits for SOx and NOx emissions, prohibited emissions of stratospheric ozone depleting substances and created emission control areas (ECAs). Currently, the global limit for sulphur content of ships' fuel is 3.50% m/m, but IMO established a limit of 0.50% m/ m to be applied from January 2020 or January 2025, depending on the availability of low sulphur fuel for ships’ use. Since January 2015 the sulphur limit for fuel used by ships in SOx Emission Control Areas (SECAs) has been 0.10% m/m (IMO, 2016b). In Europe, passenger ships that sail outside SECAs have to respect a limit of 1.5% m/m sulphur in fuels (EEA, 2013). IMO regulates the NOx emissions through a three tier scheme (Tier I, II and III). The Tier III, currently in force, applies to new ships (built after January 2016) operating in North American and U.S. Caribbean NOx emissions control areas (NECAs) (IMO, 2016b). In 2021 the North Sea and the Baltic Sea will become NECAs and Tier III will be mandatory for ships built after January 2021 operating in those areas too (IMO, 2016b). Significant progress has been made for estimating ship emissions in different regions of the world. In the last few years several port inventory studies have been conducted. Tzannatos (2010) estimated the emission of the main pollutants from cruise ships for the Port of Piraeus in Greece, between 2008 and 2009, using an in-port ship activity-based methodology. Results indicated that overall cruise ship emissions in Piraeus Port reached 2600 tonnes annually. Deniz and Kilic (2009) calculated emissions from ships at Ambarli Port in 2005, estimating annual emissions of NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, VOC and PM of, respectively, 845 ty-1, 242 ty-1, 2127 ty-1, 78 590 ty-1, 504 ty-1 and 36 ty-1. They also reported that the maximum values of SO2 and NOx concentrations modelled in a 2 km range from the port exceeded 100 mg m3 of NOx and 55 mg m3 of SO2, affecting around 60 000 people. Berechman and Tseng (2012) conducted an emissions inventory at the Port of Kaohsiung in Taiwan to estimate the associated emission costs of ships and trucks that operate in that port during 2010. Using a bottom-up methodology, authors found that tankers, containerships and bulk ships were the major contributors to ship emissions. Liu et al. (2014) also estimated emissions of SO2 at Port of Kaohsiung from 2006 to 2010, concluding that estimating methods based on cargo capacity led to higher emissions than those based on vessel activity time. Saraçoǧlu et al. (2013) studied ship emissions at Izmir Port in Turkey for 2007 using a ship activity-based methodology. The emissions of NOx, SO2, CO2, hydrocarbons (HC) and PM were, respectively, 1923 ty-1, 1405 ty-1, 82 753 ty-1, 74 ty-1 and 165 ty-1
and, according to the results, ships calling at the Izmir Port were an important air pollution source towards Izmir city and its surroundings. Song (2014) reported a ship emissions study of CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SOx, CO and HC at Shanghai Yangshan port in China, investigating both in-port ship emissions and the associated social costs during 2009. The authors used an activity-based methodology, supported by data from the automatic identification system (AIS). The emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SOx, CO and HC were, respectively, 578 444 ty-1, 10 ty-1, 33 ty-1, 1078 ty-1, 859 ty-1, 10 758 ty-1, 5623 ty-1, 1136 ty-1 and 519 ty-1. Song and Shon (2014) conducted a study during three different years (2006, 2008 and 2009) to estimate emissions from ships at Busan Port in Korea. The largest emissions were estimated during “in port” mode and for container ships. Authors also estimated future ship emissions in 2020 and 2050 and predicted a gradual increase of the emissions, except for SO2 and PM. Tichavska and Tovar (2015) used a model called STEAM (Ship Traffic Emission Assessment Model) developed by Jalkanen et al. (2009, 2012) to estimate exhaust pollutants related with cruise and ferry operations in an island context (Las Palmas Port, Spain) during 2011. The authors highlighted that cruise ships were a significant source of air pollution at Las Palmas Port. Saxe and Larsen (2004), Maragkogianni and Papaefthimiou (2015) and Sanabra et al. (2014) considered port clusters for their studies. Saxe and Larsen (2004) developed a model to calculate the dispersion of air pollutants (NOx, SO2 and PM) from ships in three Danish ports in 2001. The authors concluded that in-port emissions of NOx possibly induce health problems to the population near the Danish ports and recommended monitoring air pollutants to suggest methods to reduce air pollution from ships. Maragkogianni and Papaefthimiou (2015) estimated emissions from cruise ships in the five busiest Greek ports for 2013 and concluded that seasonality plays a major role. In summer the emissions and associated impacts were significantly amplified. Sanabra et al. (2014) assessed the local impact of ship air pollution for the Spanish ports network in 2009. Results indicated that the main emitted pollutant was NOx, representing 86% of total emissions and that PM2.5 and NOX were the pollutants that presented higher externalities. In Portugal the Commission for the Coordination and Development of the Northern Region (CCDR-N) reported a study for the North of Portugal in 2008, which included the emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx, VOCs and PM from maritime transport produced at ~es Port. However, this study only considered the emissions Leixo during manoeuvring, hotelling and loading/unloading (the latter applied to tankers) (CCDR-N, 2014) and was performed with a topdown approach. In 2016 the Portuguese Environment Agency (APA) published the “Portuguese national inventory report on greenhouse gases, 1990e2014” which included an inventory of atmospheric emissions from domestic ship traffic between Portuguese ports for the period between 1990 and 2014 (APA, 2016b). However, interpolations of values for the activity of ships were made for the periods of 1991e1994 and 1996 to 1999 and only CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions for domestic ship transport between Portuguese ports in mainland territory were considered. Thus, despite the work already performed, it is important to conduct a more detailed inventory of atmospheric emissions from ships in Portuguese ports to evaluate the real impact of this transport mode on air quality and health. As far as known, no previous paper concerning ship emissions has been published with reference to ports in Portugal. Thus, the present study aimed to estimate PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, N2O CH4, NMVOC, and HC in-port (manoeuvring and hotelling) and cruising emissions in four of the main ports of Portugal using a Bottom-up methodology based on the movement and activity of ships. To estimate emissions during cruising a buffer area was drawn, which allowed to determine the distance between ports up
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
to 400 km from the Portuguese coast. Emissions during cruising were estimated only for the ships that docked in the ports analysed and for the part of the routes inside the buffer area. As far as known, AIS data seem to be the most reliable and accurate approach to describe ships activities (Nunes et al., 2017). Unfortunately, after several attempts to get AIS data for the Portugal coastline, namely through several Portuguese official organisations (without success) and commercial databases (no funding available), it was decided to perform the study even without AIS data, because in Portugal there are no publications concerning international shipping emissions, thus, and although AIS was not used, this study is a very important contribution to the existing literature fulfilling the existing lack in this field of knowledge. 2. Material and methods 2.1. Study area and ports characteristics Portugal is located in southwestern Europe and due to its Atlantic centrality has a high geostrategic importance in the connection of maritime traffic from the Americas and Africa to Europe. Fig. S1 (in Supplementary Material e SM1) shows a shipping traffic density map for 2015 that allows understanding the geostrategic importance of Portugal in the international maritime traffic. According to the Association of Portugal Ports, national ports have essentially a commercial function (APP, 2016). Fig. 1 shows the ~es, Setúbal, Sines and Viana do location of the studied ports (Leixo Castelo) and the buffer area with 400 km from the Portuguese coast line. ~es and Viana do Castelo ports are managed by the same Leixo ~es and administration (APDL - Douro Ports Administration, Leixo ~es is the largest port infrastructure in Viana do Castelo, S.A.). Leixo the Northern Region of Portugal and one of the most important in the country. It represents 25% of Portuguese international trade and moves about 14 million tonnes of goods per year. Viana do Castelo Port is located near the mouth of Lima River, incorporating a commercial port, an industrial port, a marina and a fishing port. The commercial port can handle about 900 000 tonnes per year; the industrial port consists of two plants: the shipyards of Viana do Castelo (ENVC) and a component manufacturing industry for wind turbines (ENERCON). The port is responsible for handling fractional general cargo, dry bulk, liquid bulk and Ro-Ro cargo. APDL has annual incomes of about 10 million V. Setúbal Port is an Iberian solution in the Lisbon Region. Located at the junction of major routes of intercontinental navigation North-South and East-West, it has a direct connection to the main road and rail routes in Portugal and Spain. This port is a leader in fractional general cargo transportation, with about 43% of the national total and is also leader in the Ro-Ro traffic of the new light vehicles, with around 90% of the national total (annual incomes of about 3.5 million V). Sines Port is the largest artificial port in Portugal, and a deep water port. This port has specialized terminals that allow movement of different types of goods. It is the main port on the Atlantic coast of Portugal due to its geophysical characteristics and the main power supply input port in Portugal (natural gas, coal, oil and oil products). It is the Portuguese port with the highest annual incomes of around 12 million V (APP, 2016). 2.2. Calculation method The methodology quoted as Tier 3 in the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme/European Environment Agency (EMEP/ EEA) air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2016 was used for the estimation of air polluting emissions from ships in this study.
3
This methodology also known as “activity-based” method or “bottom-up” approach is based on the ship movement information and involves the application of emission factors to a particular ship activity. The emission factors are used to relate the emitted quantity of a certain pollutant with the energy spent by the ship’ engines (considering the specifications of operation) during a certain activity. The activities here considered were: i) manoeuvring considered the average time when the ship was inside the port in manoeuvre operations (given by port authorities); ii) hotelling considered all the time the ship was inside the port, with exception of manoeuvring operations; and iii) cruising e considered when the ship was at sea (up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast accounted from the point of entrance/exit of the port). This last operational mode only considers ships’ routes that entered/exited the four ports here analysed. For every ship call, the amount of air pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, N2O CH4, NMVOC, and HC) produced during cruising up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast, manoeuvring and hotelling were estimated using the following expressions, respectively:
ECruising ðtonÞ ¼
D ðME LFME ME EF þ AE LFAE EFÞ V (1)
EManoeuv ðtonÞ ¼ TManoeuv ðME LFME EF þ AE LFAE EF þ AB EFÞ (2) EHotell ðtonÞ ¼ THotell ðME LFME EF þ AE LFAE EFþ AB EFÞ (3) where ME is the maximum main engine power (kW), AE is the auxiliary engine power (kW), AB is the auxiliary boiler energy default, V is the ship average speed for each type of ship (km/h), D is the distance between port up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast line (km), LFME is the load factor of ME at cruising, manoeuvring and hotelling (%), respectively for Equations (1)e(3), LFAE is the load factor of AE at cruising, manoeuvring and hotelling (%), respectively for Equations (1)e(3), EF is the emission factor for different engine types/fuel combinations and operational modes (cruising, manoeuvring and hotelling) (g/kWh), respectively for Equations (1)e(3), TManoeuv is the average time spent during manoeuvring (h) and THotell is the average time spent at berth (h).
2.3. Data requirements and data sources The survey information and operational data, such as ships names, arrival and departure information of each ship (used to calculate the hoteling times) and manoeuvring times, as well as the names/identification numbers, date of construction, gross weight and gross tonnage (GT) of ships were obtained from port authorities. For Viana do Castelo port, it was not possible to obtain the arrival and departure information of ships because port authorities were not able to compile this information. Thus ships calling Viana do Castelo port were not considered in the estimation of cruising emissions. In this study seven primary categories of ships were considered: i) bulk carrier; ii) container; iii) general cargo; iv) passenger; v) Ro-Ro cargo; vi) tanker; and vii) others. The type of each ship provided by the port authorities were assigned into the above described seven primary categories according to Entec (2010) study. In the “others” category, war vessels, tugs, fishing boats, dredgers and unknown ships were considered.
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
4
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
Fig. 1. Location of the four studied ports and the buffer area with 400 km from the Portuguese coast line (Grey line).
2.3.1. Engine powers and load factors Since it was not possible to obtain the engine powers by another method, default tables were used to obtain the maximum engine powers of main (ME) and auxiliary engines (AE) and auxiliary boilers (AB), and the load factors for the engines for different operating modes. According to the information present in the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2016, the ME maximum powers can be obtained as a function of GT. Thus, ME maximum powers were obtained according to Table S1 (Supplementary Material e SM2) and used as the maximum continuous power of the propulsion engine (MCR) with reference to the World fleet of 2010. For ships where GT was not available in the data provided by Port Authorities, data from Marine Traffic website was extracted (Marine Traffic, 2016). The AE rated powers were obtained posteriorly from ME to AE ratios by ship type developed by Trozzi et al. (2010) also with reference to 2010 world fleet (Table S2 e Supplementary Material SM2). It should be noted that, the world fleet characterization was based on an analysis of the available literature on the subject and on statistical analysis of Lloyd's database for 1999 and 2010 in the frame of MEET project and in the update of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook. The AB energy defaults were obtained from the ICF (2009), Starcrest Consulting Group (2014, 2015) reports and are resumed in Table S3 (Supplementary Material SM2). It was assumed that
boilers were not used during cruising. As far as known, AB are usually used during cruising when ME loads are less than 20%, however in this study a default load factor of 80% was assumed because it was not possible to estimate ME load factors through Propeller Law. Consequently, since domestic literature regarding the activity of ship engine loads in the Portuguese Coast and Ports is deficient, the assumptions made by Entec (2002) were adopted according to Table S4 (additional details of load factors are included as Supplementary Information e SM3). 2.3.2. Cruising time and duration of in-port activities Since it is not possible obtain the actual speeds for ships under this study, average speeds by type of ship from Entec (2002) were adopted according to Table S5 (Supplementary Material SM3). In order to calculate cruising times from port to overseas-port distances up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast line, Dataloy Distance Table (DDT) online calculator (Dataloy Systems, 2016) was used for each of the distinct international origin/destination combinations. According to the study performed by Fitzgerald et al. (2011), DDT was considered one of the most accurate software to calculate international port-to-port distances, because it considers a great number of waypoints and logical relations between them.
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
As above referred, a buffer area with 400 km from the Portuguese coast line was drawn and for each ship call only the track inside this area (using the Google Earth software) was considered and the ship-travelled distance corresponded to the part of the routes inside this area (Fig. 1). To avoid duplication of the routes, half of the travelled distances was considered for the ships that travelled between the studied ports. The cruising time of each trip was calculated by the quotient between the distance travelled inside of the buffer area and the speed of each ship. Hotelling times were calculated by the difference between arrival and departure times (considering the first and the last berthing locations). Average manoeuvring times for each port were obtained from Port Authorities. It should be noted that all values mentioned above were verified through interviews with experienced members of the shipping sector and by port authorities’ responsible.
2.3.3. Engine/fuel type profiles, fuel sulphur content and emission factors Emission factors (EF) are largely dependent on engine/fuel type profiles and fuel sulphur content. For this study engine/fuel type profiles have been obtained from the LMIS dataset from Entec (2010) study which considered 14255 ships (Entec, 2010). The classification of ME was made based on GT of the respective ship types according to Table S6 (Supplementary Material SM4). For AE, it was assumed that all ships' categories had MSD or HSD engines without distinction (M/H SD) (See Supplementary Material e SM4). Ships were assumed to use three fuel types: i) Residual Oil (RO) with a sulphur content of 2.7% by mass; ii) Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) with a sulphur content of 1.0% by mass; and iii) Marine Gas Oil (MGO) with a sulphur content of 0.5% by mass. Fuel sulphur contents have been based on data provided to the International Maritime Organisation's Marine Environment Protection Committee (IMO MEPC) (2001) according to Entec (2002). The fuel types used by ships (for ME and AE) in the study area of this work were assigned according to ship type based on information from the Entec (2010) (Table S7, Supplementary Material SM4). In this study it was assumed that all auxiliary boilers (AB) used RO. Since that at the moment there are no locally derived emission factors for the Portuguese coast, EF used in this study were taken from other overseas studies (EMEP/EEA, 2016a; Entec, 2002; ICF, 2009; IVL, 2004). The EF of SO2, CO2, HC and the specific fuel consumption (SFC) for main and auxiliary engines were taken from the Entec 2002 study (Entec, 2002), while those of CO, CH4 and N2O were derived from the study performed by IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL, 2004). EF for PM10 were taken from the ICF (2009) study based on a formulae that is function of fuel type and sulphur content. PM2.5 EF were obtained from a PM10 to PM2.5 conversion factor of 0.92 (ICF, 2009). From EMEP/EEA 2016a,b study EF of NMOC and NOX were assumed. Three different EF for NOX emissions were assumed according to the construction date of the ships. According to EMEP/EEA 2016a,b report, NOX EF for 2000 (Entec, 2002) are representative of the fleet before application of IMO NOx Technical Code, while 2005 and 2010 values (according to Entec, 2007) were obtained from the year 2000 NOx EF with a reduction of 3.4% and 6.8% to account for the new engines introduced by 2005 and 2010, respectively. EF for the different pollutants were assigned according to engine type (ME, AE and AB), operational modes (cruising, manoeuvring and hotelling) and fuel type (RO, MDO and MGO) (additional details of EF is included as Supplementary Material SM5 Table S8).
5
3. Results and discussion 3.1. In-port emissions Emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, N2O CH4, NMVOC, and HC during manoeuvring and hotelling were estimated for the selected ship categories and ports during 2013 and 2014. Table 1 summarizes the total amounts of emitted air pollutants as well as, the number of ship calls at each port during 2013 and 2014. In terms of in-port emissions, the ships calling at Sines port during 2014 have produced the higher emission amounts (3.4Eþ05 ton ~es y1) followed by ships at Setúbal port (3.4Eþ05 ton y1), at Leixo port (3.4Eþ05 ton y1), and finally at Viana do Castelo port (8.9Eþ03 ton y1). It should be noted that emissions were higher ~es where they were during 2014 than during 2013, except at Leixo similar for both years. Nevertheless, when considering total GT of the ships calling each port, Sines was the one with the lowest ~es, Viana do Castelo and emissions per total GT, followed by Leixo ~es and Sines Setúbal. As seen from Table 1, number of ships at Leixo were significantly higher than at the other ports. The total number ~es port was the highest (2641 ship calls) in 2014. of ships at Leixo The port of Viana do Castelo was the only one where the total number of ships was higher in 2013 than in 2014. Regarding emissions by type of pollutant, those of CO2 were found to be dominant (more than 93% of total), followed by NOx emissions (3.0e4.2% of total), SO2 emissions (1.5e1.6%) and PM10 and PM2.5 emissions (0.2% of total) for all analysed ports during the studied period. Emissions of NMVOCs, CH4 and N2O were the lowest corresponding to <0.1% of total estimated emissions. In general, the categories that registered more calls in 2013 and ~es port 2014 were general cargo, container ships and tankers. Leixo was the only one that registered a considerable number of calls of passenger ships. At Setúbal, the number of calls of general cargo was higher than 50% of the total. Furthermore, both in 2013 and 2014 Setúbal port was the one that registered more calls of Ro-Ro cargo and bulk carriers. This was expected because Setúbal port is the main port in Portugal in the Ro-Ro traffic of new light vehicles. At Sines, container ships and tankers were responsible for the majority of calls, which seems to be related with this port being the main receptor of goods from the energy sector (natural gas, coal, oil and oil products). Viana do Castelo port registered the lowest number of ship calls. In this port general cargo ships were responsible for more than 80% of the calls in both years. These differences in terms of calls by ship type suggest that pollutant ~es and emissions may be different in each port. In fact, at Leixo Setúbal, ship calls increased 1.9% and 12.1% from 2013 to 2014 respectively, which lead to an increase of 3.0% and 13.1% in total pollutant emissions. At Sines although the number of ship calls was similar in 2013 and 2014, total emissions increased 8.8%. This increase seems to be related to the large number of containers ships that berthed in this port during 2014 (containers ship’ calls increased 4.8%). At Viana do Castelo, although port ship calls decreased 9% total emissions increase 2.8%. This increase seems to be related with the higher ME and AE rated powers that were higher for the ships that berth in Viana do Castelo during 2014 which led to higher emissions. Fig. 2 shows in-port ship emissions by ship types for 2014 at: a) ~es Port, b) Setúbal Port, c) Sines Port and d) Viana do Castelo Leixo Port. The same information for 2013 can be found in Fig. S2 (Supplementary Material SM6). Regarding emissions from different ship ~es emissions from container ships and tankers were types, at Leixo similar and corresponded to around 30% of estimated emissions.
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
6
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
Table 1 In-port Emissions of air pollutants and ship calls by port during 2013 and 2014 (in t y1). Port
Year
NOx
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
HC
NMVOC
CO
CO2
CH4
N2O
Total
Calls
~es Leixo
2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014
8.1Eþ03 8.2Eþ03 9.8Eþ03 1.1Eþ04 9.4Eþ03 1.0Eþ04 3.6Eþ02 3.5Eþ02
3.3Eþ03 3.3Eþ03 4.2Eþ03 4.9Eþ03 5.0Eþ03 5.5Eþ03 1.4Eþ02 1.4Eþ02
3.5Eþ02 3.6Eþ02 4.7Eþ02 5.5Eþ02 5.6Eþ02 6.1Eþ02 1.5Eþ01 1.6Eþ01
3.2Eþ02 3.3Eþ02 4.3Eþ02 5.1Eþ02 5.2Eþ02 5.6Eþ02 1.4Eþ01 1.4Eþ01
2.6Eþ02 2.7Eþ02 3.8Eþ02 4.4Eþ02 4.4Eþ02 4.9Eþ02 1.1Eþ01 1.2Eþ01
1.0Eþ02 1.1Eþ02 1.6Eþ02 1.8Eþ02 1.8Eþ02 2.0Eþ02 4.1 4.6
3.1Eþ02 3.1Eþ02 3.7Eþ02 4.2Eþ02 3.9Eþ02 4.3Eþ02 1.4Eþ01 1.4Eþ01
1.9Eþ05 2.0Eþ05 2.6Eþ05 2.9Eþ05 3.0Eþ05 3.2Eþ05 8.1Eþ03 8.3Eþ03
2.7 2.8 3.8 4.4 4.5 4.9 1.1E-01 1.1E-01
9.9 1.0Eþ01 1.3Eþ01 1.5Eþ01 1.5Eþ01 1.6Eþ01 4.1E-01 4.1E-01
2.1Eþ05 2.1Eþ05 2.8Eþ05 3.1Eþ05 3.1Eþ05 3.4Eþ05 8.6Eþ03 8.9Eþ03
2564 2612 1350 1514 1982 1975 199 181
Setúbal Sines Viana do Castelo
~es Port, b) Setúbal Port, c) Sines Port and d) Viana do Castelo Port. Fig. 2. In-port ship emissions according to ship types in 2014 at: a) Leixo
Although the number of calls from tankers was lower (around 18% of the total) than calls from container ships (more than 40% of the total), tankers emitted higher amounts of pollutants. At Setúbal port emissions from tankers represented more than 50% of total emissions, nevertheless this type of ship only accounted with
around 11e12% of total ship calls. General cargo ships recorded the largest number of calls (more than 50% of the total), but only ~es and Setúbal, accounted for 18% of total emissions. Both in Leixo this seems related to the higher hotelling times and AE loads, during this mode of operation for tankers. At Sines container ships
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
emitted the highest amount of pollutants in 2013 and 2014 with more than 50% of total emissions. This result seems to be related with the high engine powers of container ships. Yau et al. (2012), Ng et al. (2013), Saraçoǧlu et al. (2013) and Song and Shon (2014) concluded the same in their studies. At Viana do Castelo general cargo ships were the highest emitters responsible for more than 75% of in-port emissions. For all the analysed ports and years, emissions during manoeuvring were lower compared to emissions during hotelling, nevertheless these were important to the total amounts of in-port emissions. This information can be found in Tables S9eS16 (Supplementary Material SM7). 3.2. Cruising emissions Emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, N2O CH4, NMVOC, and HC for cruising up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast for the ships that berthed in the four ports analysed in this study during 2013 and 2014 were estimated. Table 2 summarizes the amounts of emitted air pollutants by ship type as well as, the number of ships for each category during 2013 and 2014. For cruising, container ships were the largest emitters responsible for 8.2Eþ05 ton y1 and 9.1Eþ05 ton y1 which corresponded to 59% and 65% of total emissions in 2013 and 2014, respectively. This results were related with the higher distances travelled at sea up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast for container ships, which led to higher times of permanency in open sea. As seen from Table 2, and similar to inport emissions, CO2 emissions were found to be dominant (95% of total in 2013 and 2014), followed by NOx emissions (3% of total) and SO2 emissions (2%). Emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NMVOCs, CH4 and N2O represent less than 1% of the total estimated cruising emissions. 3.3. Contribution of the calculated ship emissions to the national emissions The in-port and cruising estimated emissions of NOx, SO2, CO2 and NMVOC for 2013 and 2014 were compared with the total national emissions reported on the Portuguese National Inventory Report on Greenhouse Gases, 1990 e 2014 performed by APA submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol (APA, 2016b). This report is the official annual accounting of all anthropogenic (human-induced) emissions of greenhouse gases and other gases species such as NOx, SO2 and NMVOC in Portugal. In this report, emissions were estimated taking into account five large sectors (Energy, Industrial Processes and Product Uses, Agriculture, Land
7
Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) and Waste) and were calculated using the Guidelines from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whenever possible. CO2 ship emissions were accounted in this report in the Energy sector as domestic ship traffic between Portuguese ports. Although this assessment is very important, it underestimates the total emissions from shipping in Portugal, because it does not include emissions from international navigation. In order to assess the contribution of the ship emissions calculated in this study to the total of national emissions above referred, CO2 ship emissions calculated by APA for 2013 and 2014 were subtracted from the total of emissions. For NOx, SO2 and NMVOC emissions, the totals of emissions reported by APA were considered. Table 3 shows the contribution of total and in-port ship air pollutant emissions (NOx, SO2, CO2 and NMVOC) to the total national emissions during 2013 and 2014. As can be seen in Table 3, if the total (in-port and cruising) emissions calculated in the present study were accounted in the National Inventory Report made by APA, emissions of NOx, SO2, CO2 and NMVOC would increase 29%, 40%, 4% and <1% in 2013 and 31%, 45%, 5% and <1% in 2014. If only in-port emissions were accounted, the contribution of the estimated emissions remains significant and the emissions of NOx, SO2, CO2 and NMVOC would increase 14%, 19%, 2% and <1% in 2013 and 15%, 23%, 2% and <1% in 2014 These percentages could be even higher if emissions were calculated for all Portuguese ports and including ships that just pass along the Portuguese coast up to 400 km. Accordingly, ships seem to be an important source of SO2 and NOx emissions when compared with land-based sources. These results are consistent with those of other studies which suggested that ship emissions are a significant source of airborne pollution (mainly regarding NOx and SO2) (Fan et al., 2016; Goldsworthy and Goldsworthy, 2015; Kilic and Deniz, 2010; Saraçoǧlu et al., 2013). Moreover, according to the Air quality in Europe - 2016 report, performed by the European Environment Agency for EU-28, emissions from international shipping within European seas, may increase in 50% the NOx emissions and in 75% the SOx emissions (EMEP/EEA, 2016b). In fact, NOx emissions from ships are relatively high due to the high temperatures and pressures in which marine engines operate, in most cases without reduction technologies. SO2 emissions are high because of high average sulphur content in some marine fuels used by most ships (Eyring et al., 2009). These results highlight the necessity of improving the monitoring and control of ship emissions in Portugal.
Table 2 Cruising Emissions of air pollutants and ship calls by ship type during 2013 and 2014 (in t y1). Ship type
Year
NOx
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
HC
NMVOC
CO
CO2
CH4
N2O
Total
Calls
Bulk Carrier
2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014
1.3Eþ03 1.6Eþ03 2.4Eþ04 2.6Eþ04 4.8Eþ03 4.9Eþ03 6.4Eþ03 6.6Eþ03 3.9Eþ02 5.2Eþ02 4.2Eþ03 5.0Eþ03 1.5Eþ02 1.3Eþ02 4.1Eþ04 4.5Eþ04
6.5Eþ02 8.1Eþ02 1.3Eþ04 1.5Eþ04 2.8Eþ03 2.8Eþ03 3.4Eþ03 3.4Eþ03 4.3Eþ01 5.4Eþ01 2.2Eþ03 2.6Eþ03 1.4Eþ01 2.1Eþ01 2.2Eþ04 2.4Eþ04
8.6Eþ01 1.1Eþ02 1.7Eþ03 1.9Eþ03 3.5Eþ02 3.6Eþ02 4.4Eþ02 4.5Eþ02 8.1 1.1Eþ01 2.9Eþ02 3.4Eþ02 3.1 3.7 2.9Eþ03 3.2Eþ03
8.0Eþ01 9.9Eþ01 1.6Eþ03 1.8Eþ03 3.4Eþ02 3.5Eþ02 4.1Eþ02 4.2Eþ02 8.6 1.1Eþ01 2.7Eþ02 3.2Eþ02 3.1 3.6 2.7Eþ03 3.0Eþ03
3.5Eþ01 4.3Eþ01 6.9Eþ02 7.6Eþ02 1.4Eþ02 1.4Eþ02 1.8Eþ02 1.8Eþ02 1.2Eþ01 1.6Eþ01 1.2Eþ02 1.4Eþ02 3.9 3.6 1.2Eþ03 1.3Eþ03
1.8Eþ01 2.2Eþ01 3.5Eþ02 3.8Eþ02 6.6Eþ01 6.8Eþ01 9.1Eþ01 9.3Eþ01 5.2 7.0 5.8Eþ01 7.0Eþ01 1.8 1.7 5.9Eþ02 6.4Eþ02
3.6Eþ01 4.5Eþ01 8.2Eþ02 9.1Eþ02 2.0Eþ02 2.1Eþ02 2.0Eþ02 2.0Eþ02 2.7Eþ01 3.6Eþ01 1.4Eþ02 1.5Eþ02 8.1 6.8 1.4Eþ03 1.6Eþ03
3.8Eþ04 4.8Eþ04 7.8Eþ05 8.7Eþ05 1.6Eþ05 1.7Eþ05 2.0Eþ05 2.0Eþ05 1.6Eþ04 2.2Eþ04 1.3Eþ05 1.5Eþ05 5.1Eþ03 4.6Eþ03 1.3Eþ06 1.5Eþ06
3.6E-01 4.5E-01 6.9 7.7 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.0E-01 1.4E-01 1.2 1.4 3.6E-02 3.3E-02 1.2Eþ01 1.3Eþ01
1.9 2.3 3.8Eþ01 4.2Eþ01 7.8 8.0 9.6 9.8 7.7E-01 1.0 6.3 7.5 2.5E-01 2.2E-01 6.5Eþ01 7.1Eþ01
4.1Eþ04 5.0Eþ04 8.2Eþ05 9.1Eþ05 1.7Eþ05 1.8Eþ05 2.1Eþ05 2.1Eþ05 1.7Eþ04 2.2Eþ04 1.4Eþ05 1.6Eþ05 5.3Eþ03 4.7Eþ03 1.4Eþ06 1.5Eþ06
199 234 2094 2235 1661 1695 1552 1495 68 78 239 285 83 79 5896 6101
Container Ship General Cargo Tanker Passenger Ship Ro-Ro Cargo Others Total
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
8
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
Table 3 Shipping emissions contribution of the four studied ports to the national emissions in 2013 and 2014 (in t y1). Total shipping emissions contribution to the national emissions in 2013; 2014
In-port shipping emissions contribution to the national emissions in 2013; 2014
Pollutant Portugal emissions from APA report, in 2013
Portugal emissions from APA report, in 2014
Total ship emissions (in 2013; 2014)
In-port ship emissions (in 2013; 2014)
NOx
164 000
167 000
1.9Eþ05; 1.9Eþ05 29%; 31%
14%; 15%
SO2
53 000
47 000
6.6Eþ04; 6.1Eþ04 40%; 45%
19%; 23%
CO2
47 235 000
47 047 100
2.4Eþ05; 2.4Eþ05 8.8Eþ04; 8.5Eþ04 4.9Eþ07; 4.9Eþ07 1.8Eþ05; 1.7Eþ05
4.8Eþ07; 4.8Eþ07 4%; 5%
2%; 2%
1.7Eþ05; 1.7Eþ05 <1%; <1%
<1%; <1%
NMVOC 174 000
170 000
3.4. Comparison between calculated ship emissions and other foreign ports Shipping emissions assessed in this study were compared with other estimated for ports around the world (Table 4). All the studies used for comparison applied the activity-based method to estimate ship emissions, although the focus of the estimations differ with respect to geographical boundaries (only in-port waters, or also territorial waters), ship types, port activities/operations and pollutants that were considered. Despite these constraints, some comparisons can be useful. Table 4 shows the total amount of ship emissions on ports, number of ship calls, operational modes and ship routes considered in the different studies. ~es, Setúbal and Sines ports The in-port ship emissions at Leixo were higher than those estimated at Copenhagen Port, Elsinore Port, Køge Port, Ambarlı Port and Izmir Port, despite the lower number of ship calls at Portuguese ports (except for port of Køge). ~es. It should The emissions at Las Palmas Port were similar to Leixo be noted that the emissions reported by Saxe and Larsen (2004) for the Denmark ports were lower than emissions calculated for all
ports in the present study. This seems related to the fact that for Danish ports, CO2 and CO emissions were not included in the inventory. Emissions at Busan Port were higher than those calculated for the studied ports. Moreover, for the ship emissions inventory of Busan Port the emissions of CO, CH4, N2O and HC were not estimated. Ship emissions of all pollutants calculated in this study were considerably lower than those at Shanghai Port, which is one of the largest port in the world (Yang et al., 2007). Although in the present study cruising emissions were calculated only for ships that anchored in four Portuguese ports up to 400 km from the coast, the emissions of this mode of operation were higher than all foreign ports emissions, except for Shanghai, which shows the importance of the calculation of emissions from ships at open sea. 4. Uncertainties The accuracy of this emission inventory is dependent on the input data used and the assumptions made. In this study, the number of calls, arrival and departure information of each ship
Table 4 Total amounts of ship emissions ports (in ton yr-1), number of ship calls, operational modes and ship routes considered in different studies. Port
Inventory period
~es Port Leixo
2013, 2014 2 614, 2641
Setúbal Port
1 350, 1514
Sines Port
1 982, 1975
Viana do Castelo Port Cruising
199, 182
M, H
e
e
Up to 400 km from the coast
5729
M, H
In-port waters
Copenhagen Port, Denmark Elsinore Port, Denmark Køge Port, Denmark Shanghai Port, China Ambarlı Port, Turkey Izmir Port, Turkey
2001
Operation Ship navigation routes mode
Pollutants analysed
Ca, Mb, Hc
NOx, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, NMVOC, CO, CO2, 2.1Eþ05, CH4, N2O and HC 2.1Eþ05 2.8Eþ05, 3.1Eþ05 3.1Eþ05, 3.4Eþ05 8.6Eþ03, 8.9Eþ03 1.4Eþ06; 1.5Eþ06 NOx, SOx and TSP 698.3 1096.6
543
49.3
Study This study
Saxe and Larsen (2004)
3.1Eþ06
Yang et al. (2007)
C, M, H
129 km 102 km Shanghai Port NOx, SO2, PM, CO2 and HC study domain In-port waters
8.2Eþ04
C, M, H
A cruising distance of 128.8 km NOx, SO2, PM, CO2 and HC
8.6Eþ04
In-port waters
NOx, SO2, VOC, PM and CO2
5.7Eþ05
In-port waters
NOx, SOx, PM2.5 and CO2
2.2Eþ05
Deniz and Kilic (2009) Saraçoǧlu et al. (2013) Song and Shon (2014) Tichavska and Tovar (2015)
1 280 128
C, M, H
2005
5432
2007
2803
2011
In-port waters
Emissions (ton y1)
45 226
2003
Busan Port, Korea 2008 Las Palmas Port, Spain
Ship calls
50 402, 58 858, C, M, H 49 736 3183 C, M, H
N. a e Not applicable. a C e Cruising. b M e Manoeuvring. c H e Hotelling.
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
(used to calculate the hoteling times) and manoeuvring times, as well as the names/identification numbers, date of construction, gross weight and gross tonnage (GT) of ships were obtained from port authorities. All ship characteristics were confirmed according to Marine Traffic website which is a complete and reliable source for basic ship information. Empirical values for ship speeds, engine powers and load factors were used in this study, which may induce a certain degree of uncertainty. The uncertainties in the emissions estimations arise primarily from the following: i) the use of nonlinear regressions as a function of gross tonnage (GT) to obtain ME powers, the determination of AE powers as a fraction of ME power and the use of default AB powers; ii) the assignment of the engine/fuel type profiles based on the ship fleet used in Entec UK Limited study 2010, and iii) the use of default and constant ship speeds and engine loads, which is known to change during ship activities and for different weather conditions. In order to minimize as much as possible the uncertainties associated with the use of these default values, interviews with experienced members of the shipping sector and with port authorities were performed. The used EF also produce uncertainties, because they were based on other overseas studies. Despite this, the selection was performed to be the most representative for the Portuguese coast. Further work is needed to improve the outcomes of this study and minimize the scale of uncertainties. Improves could be achieved with the use of higher-resolution input data, especially on the actual power of ME and EF. 5. Conclusions This study allowed estimating the ship emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, N2O CH4, NMVOC, and HC based on the activity~es, based methodology in four of the main ports of Portugal (Leixo Setúbal and Sines and Viana do Castelo) during 2013 and 2014. ~es was the port that received more According to the results, Leixo ship calls in 2013 and 2014, followed by Sines, Setúbal, and Viana do Castelo. The ship types that registered more ship calls were container ships, general cargo and tankers. ~es emissions from container ships and tankers were At Leixo similar, corresponding to around 30% of estimated emissions. At Setúbal Port emissions from tankers represents more than 50% of total emissions which seems related to the higher hotelling times and AE loads for these ships. At Sines container ships emitted the highest amount of pollutants in 2013 and 2014 with more than 50% of total emissions which seems related with the high engine powers of these ships. At Viana do Castelo general cargo ships were the highest emitters responsible for more than 75% of in-port emissions. Regarding cruising emissions, container ships were the largest emitters responsible for around 59% and 65% of total emissions in 2013 and 2014, respectively. This results were related with the higher distances travelled at sea up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast for container ships, which led to higher times of permanency in open sea. CO2, NOx and SO2 were the pollutants for which the highest amounts of cruising and in-port emissions were estimated. These three pollutants represents more than 95% of the cruising and inport emissions. If the total emissions from ships calculated in the present study, would have been taken into account in the National Inventory Report on Greenhouse Gases, 1990e2014 performed by APA, emissions of NOx, SO2, CO2 and NMVOC would increase 29%, 40%, 4% and <1% in 2013 and 31%, 45%, 5% and <1% in 2014. Thus, it was possible to conclude that ships can be an important air pollution source in Portugal, especially for NOx and SO2 emissions, even not considering all Portuguese ports in the study. Nevertheless, maritime transport is highly efficient in an energetic point of
9
view, thus considering an increase on this type of transportation in the following years, and consequently the increase in the associated emissions, mitigation strategies should be considered regarding the control of emissions namely for example on the fuel sulphur content, the use of different less pollutant combustibles, the creation of NOx control areas, the increase of engines efficiency regarding fuel consumption, the use of shore power during hotelling and others. In the future, it is important to study emissions from all Portuguese ports as well as those from all ships sailing up to 400 km from the Portuguese coast, which will allow making a total assessment of atmospheric emissions from ships in the Portuguese territory and in its coastal waters. Conflict of interests The authors declare no conflict of interests. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the port authorities of Viana do ~es, Setúbal and Sines for kindly providing data on Castelo, Leixo ship's movements and characteristics. This work was financially supported by: Project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006939 (Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy e LEPABE funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020 - Programa ~o (POCI) and Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalizaça grant SFRD/BPD/91918/2012 for SIV Sousa, funded by FCT, POPH/ QREN and European Social Fund (ESF). Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112. References rio do Estado do Ambiente 2016. Age ^ncia Portuguesa do AmbiAPA, 2016a. Relato ente. Available from: http://sniamb.apambiente.pt/infos/geoportaldocs/REA/ REA2016/REA2016.pdf. APA, 2016b. Portuguese National Inventory Report on Greenhouse Gases, 1990^ncia Portuguesa do Ambiente. Available from: http://unfccc. 2014. Amadora Age int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_ submissions/items/8108.php. APP, 2016. Portos de Protugal. Available from: http://www.portosdeportugal.pt/ web/app/home. Berechman, J., Tseng, P.H., 2012. Estimating the environmental costs of port related emissions: the case of Kaohsiung. Transp. Res. Part D. Transp. Environ. 17, 35e38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.09.009. ~es de poluentes atmosfe ricos na regi~ CCDR-N, 2014. Invent ario de emisso ao Norte rio Final elaborado no a ^mbito do Protocolo de colaboraç~ Relato ao estabelecido ~o de Coordenaça ~o e Desenvolvimento entre a CCDR Norte e a FCT/UNL. Comissa Regional do Norte. Corbett, J.J., Winebrake, J.J., Green, E.H., Kasibhatla, P., Eyring, V., Lauer, A., 2007. Mortality from ship emissions: a global assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 8512e8518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es071686z. Dataloy Systems, 2016. Dataloy Distance Table (DTT). Deniz, C., Kilic, A., 2009. Estimation and assessment of shipping emissions in the region of Ambarlı Port, Turkey. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 107e115. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep.10373. EEA, 2013. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2013: Technical Guidance to Prepare National Emission Inventories. European Environment Agency, Luxembourg. http://dx.doi.org/10.2800/92722. Entec, 2002. Quantification of Emissions from Ships Associated with Ship Movements between Ports in the European Community. European Commission, Final Report, Northwich, UK. Entec, 2007. Ship Emissions Inventory Mediterranean Sea, Final Report for Concawe. Entec, 2010. Defra UK Ship Emissions Inventory Final Report, London, UK. EMEP/EEA, 2016a. International Maritime Navigation, International Inland Navigation, National Navigation (Shipping), National Fishing, Military (Shipping), and Recreational Boats. EMEP/EEA, 2016b. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2016. Eyring, V., Isaksen, I., Berntsen, T., Collins, W., Corbett, J., Endresen, O., Grainger, R., Moldanova, J., Schlager, H., Stevenson, D., 2009. Transport impacts on
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
10
R.A.O. Nunes et al. / Environmental Pollution xxx (2017) 1e10
atmosphere and climate: Shipping. Atmos. Environ. 44, 4735e4771. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.059. Fan, Q., Zhang, Y., Ma, W., Ma, H., Feng, J., Yu, Q., Yang, X., Ng, S.K.W., Fu, Q., Chen, L., 2016. Spatial and seasonal dynamics of ship emissions over the Yangtze river delta and East China sea and their potential environmental influence. Environ. Sci. Technol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03965 acs.est.5b03965. Fitzgerald, W.B., Howitt, O.J.A., Smith, I.J., 2011. Greenhouse gas emissions from the international maritime transport of New Zealand's imports and exports. Energy Policy 39, 1521e1531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.026. Goldsworthy, L., Goldsworthy, B., 2015. Modelling of ship engine exhaust emissions in ports and extensive coastal waters based on terrestrial AIS data - an Australian case study. Environ. Model. Softw. 63, 45e60. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.09.009. ICF, 2009. Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port Related Emission Inventories (Final Report). IMO, 2016a. Marine Environment. International Maritime Organization. Available from: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Default.aspx. IMO, 2016b. Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships. International Maritime Organization. Available from: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/ PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Air-Pollution.aspx. IVL, 2004. Methodology for Calculating Emissions from Ships: 1. Update of emission factors Assignment for Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Jalkanen, J.-P., Brink, a., Kalli, J., Pettersson, H., Kukkonen, J., Stipa, T., 2009. A modelling system for the exhaust emissions of marine traffic and its application in the Baltic Sea area. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 9, 15339e15373. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acpd-9-15339-2009. Jalkanen, J.P., Johansson, L., Kukkonen, J., Brink, A., Kalli, J., Stipa, T., 2012. Extension of an assessment model of ship traffic exhaust emissions for particulate matter and carbon monoxide. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 12, 2641e2659. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5194/acp-12-2641-2012. Kilic, A., Deniz, C., 2010. Inventory of shipping emissions in izmit gulf. Turk. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 29, 221e232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep. Liu, T.K., Sheu, H.Y., Tsai, J.Y., 2014. Sulfur dioxide emission estimates from merchant vessels in a Port area and related control strat.egies. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 14, 413e421. http://dx.doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2013.02.0061. Maragkogianni, A., Papaefthimiou, S., 2015. Evaluating the social cost of cruise ships air emissions in major ports of Greece. Transp. Res. Part D. Transp. Environ. 36, 10e17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.02.014. Marine Traffic, 2016. Available from: http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/ centerx:-8/centery:41/zoom:5. Matthias, V., Bewersdorff, I., Aulinger, A., Quante, M., 2010. The contribution of ship
emissions to air pollution in the North Sea regions. Environ. Pollut 158, 2241e2250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.02.013. Ng, S.K.W., Loh, C., Lin, C., Booth, V., Chan, J.W.M., Yip, A.C.K., Li, Y., Lau, A.K.H., 2013. Policy change driven by an AIS-assisted marine emission inventory in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta. Atmos. Environ. 76, 102e112. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.07.070. Nunes, R.A.O., Alvim-Ferraz, M.C.M., Martins, F.G., Sousa, S.I.V., 2017. The activitybased methodology to assess ship emissions e a review. Environ. Pollut. 231, 87e103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.099. s, F.X., 2014. Manoeuvring Sanabra, M.C., Usabiaga Santamaría, J.J., Martínez De Ose and hotelling external costs: enough for alternative energy sources? Marit. Policy Manag. 41, 42e60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013.782441. Saraçoǧlu, H., Deniz, C., Kiliç, A., 2013. An investigation on the effects of ship sourced emissions in Izmir port, Turkey. Sci. World J. 2013 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1155/2013/218324. Saxe, H., Larsen, T., 2004. Air pollution from ships in three Danish ports. Atmos. Environ. 38, 4057e4067. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.03.055. Song, S., 2014. Ship emissions inventory, social cost and eco-efficiency in Shanghai Yangshan port. Atmos. Environ. 82, 288e297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.atmosenv.2013.10.006. Song, S.K., Shon, Z.H., 2014. Current and future emission estimates of exhaust gases and particles from shipping at the largest port in Korea. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21, 6612e6622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-2569-5. Starcrest Consulting Group, 2014. Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions e 2013 Report. Starcrest Consulting Group, 2015. Port of Los Angeles Inventory of Air Emissions e 2014 Report. Tichavska, M., Tovar, B., 2015. Port-city exhaust emission model: an application to cruise and ferry operations in Las Palmas Port. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 78, 347e360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.05.021. Trozzi, C., Consulting, T., Gregorio, V., Curbastro, R., Roma, I., 2010. Emission Estimate Methodology for Maritime Navigation 6. Tzannatos, E., 2010. Ship emissions and their externalities for the port of Piraeus e Greece. Atmos. Environ 44, 400e407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.atmosenv.2009.10.024. Yang, D.Q., Kwan, S.H., Lu, T., Fu, Q.Y., Cheng, J.M., Streets, D.G., Wu, Y.M., Li, J.J., 2007. An emission inventory of marine vessels in Shanghai in 2003. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 5183e5190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es061979c. Yau, P.S., Lee, S.C., Corbett, J.J., Wang, C., Cheng, Y., Ho, K.F., 2012. Estimation of exhaust emission from ocean-going vessels in Hong Kong. Sci. Total Environ. 431, 299e306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.092.
Please cite this article in press as: Nunes, R.A.O., et al., Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environmental Pollution (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112