Air Pollution

Submitted by admin on Mar 6th 2013, 12:00am

News›Hong Kong

MARINE POLLUTION

Keith Wallis keith.wallis@scmp.com

Noxious exhaust emissions from cruise ships calling at the city will be cut significantly if the vessels switch to using low-sulphur fuel or shore power, local think tank Civic Exchange says.

Simon Ng Ka-wing, the centre’s head of transport and sustainable research, said there would have been a 71 per cent cut in sulphur dioxide emissions last year if the 2,185 cruise ships that called at Hong Kong had used low-sulphur fuel instead of the dirtier marine bunker fuel. Particulate matter emissions would have fallen by 60 per cent, he said.

Low-sulphur fuel has a sulphur content of 0.5 to 1 per cent, compared with bunker fuel’s 4.5 per cent.

Based on the 16 cruise ships booked to berth at the Kai Tak cruise terminal between June and April 2014, Ng said, sulphur dioxide emissions would be reduced by 83 per cent and particulate matter by 78 per cent if the vessels used cleaner diesel.

But if they did not, they would emit 43 tonnes of sulphur, 44 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide and 5 tonnes of particulate matter in just this year alone, he said.

Industry sources, however, argue that the vessels calling at Kai Tak in the first year will account for less than 0.4 per cent of the city’s total marine emissions. This included pollution caused by container ships, tankers, river trade vessels, ferries and pleasure craft, they said.

“There would be a very substantial improvement by switching to low-sulphur diesel at berth,” Ng said. This would benefit residents in the pollution hotspots of Tsim Sha Tsui, Hung Hom and Kowloon Bay, where most cruise ships currently moor.

Another option, Ng said, was to use shore power, which was more suitable at Kai Tak where there was space to install the equipment rather than at Ocean Terminal. But more research had to be done to see if shore power was cheaper and environmentally beneficial than low-sulphur diesel, he said.

Civic Exchange hosted a workshop yesterday that attracted about 20 cruise and shipping industry representatives to brief the sector about its cruise ship emissions report.

Ng said the paper was “a first step to engage the cruise industry in Hong Kong”. “By speaking directly to the cruise industry, we shall learn more about … what their major concerns are about government control and regulation,” he said.

Topics:

Marine pollution

Civic Exchange

Cruise Ships

http://www.maritimeprofessional.com/Blogs/Far-East-Maritime/March-2013/Ship-emissions-an-afterthought-at-Hong-Kong-cruise.aspx

Ship emissions an afterthought at Hong Kong cruise terminal

by Greg Knowler

Mar 06, 2013, 9:54PM EST

It hardly comes as a surprise to learn that curbing ship emissions at Hong Kong’s new cruise terminal is not regarded as a priority by the Tourism Board.

When it comes to infrastructure projects in Hong Kong, environmental concerns are rarely allowed to stand in the way. The grossly wasteful and pointless Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge is a case in point, and we do not have the slightest doubt that the airport’s third runway will go ahead regardless of the cost to taxpayers or the cacophony of protest from green groups.

But we were astounded to see a report by local think tank Civic Exchange that warned of significant ship emissions in the six months after the terminal opens. Cruise ships using its two berths will emit 43 tonnes of sulphur, 44 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide and five tonnes of particulate matter.

Okay, in terms of the marine emissions by container ships and the enormous volume of Pearl River delta traffic in Hong Kong waters such as river trade vessels, tankers and pleasure craft, the cruise terminal’s contribution to the total will be relatively minor.

However, the Civic Exchange report goes on to say the emissions from ships using the cruise terminal can be cut by more than 80 percent if the vessels switch to low sulphur fuel while in port, or even plug in to berth-based electrical power while alongside.

That sounds reasonable and a good idea. Our question is why wasn’t that covered in the environmental impact process before the project was given the go ahead? Why is it that only now, three months before the terminal’s two berths are scheduled to open, these emissions-curbing “options” are being mentioned?

Newspapers reported that the cruise industry is “mulling the feasibility” of introducing low sulphur fuel or onshore power. They are understandably concerned over the costs of adopting a low emissions strategy, and in the absence of legislation forcing shipping to use low sulphur fuel while in port, you can bet the cruise operators will do nothing about it.

The cruise terminal was approved by the former administration of Donald Tsang, a disastrous five-year period in the territory’s history that will be remembered for its profligate infrastructure projects plugged into the public purse.

Still, if the current bunch of clowns running Hong Kong had any testicular fortitude they would ram through mandatory regulation that all vessels switch to low sulphur fuel while at berth, regardless of the cost to shipping.

So far about 570 ships have registered for the Fair Winds Charter, a voluntary scheme to use low sulphur fuel to reduce ship emissions while alongside in Hong Kong. But they have warned that if there is no regulation in place by the end of the year, they will go back to burning the dirty stuff.

Voluntary doesn’t work in business, at least not for long when it is costing shipping companies US$1.5 million a year to use the low emission fuel in port. Make it compulsory or laugh it off.

There are signs that the government is paying more than lip service to environmental protection, but it remains to be seen if this administration puts a higher priority on public health than the previous one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world

By Fred Pearce
UPDATED:22:13 GMT, 21 November 2009

Eco expert: Fred Pearce is an environmental consultant to New Scientist magazine

Last week it was revealed that 54 oil tankers are anchored off the coast of Britain, refusing to unload their fuel until prices have risen.

But that is not the only scandal in the shipping world. Today award-winning science writer Fred Pearce – environmental consultant to New Scientist and author of Confessions Of An Eco Sinner – reveals that the super-ships that keep the West in everything from Christmas gifts to computers pump out killer chemicals linked to thousands of deaths because of the filthy fuel they use.

We’ve all noticed it. The filthy black smoke kicked out by funnels on cross-Channel ferries, cruise liners, container ships, oil tankers and even tugboats.

It looks foul, and leaves a brown haze across ports and shipping lanes. But what hasn’t been clear until now is that it is also a major killer, probably causing thousands of deaths in Britain alone.

As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.

Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations.

But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use.

Thanks to decisions taken in London by the body that polices world shipping, this pollution could kill as many as a million more people in the coming decade – even though a simple change in the rules could stop it.

There are now an estimated 100,000 ships on the seas, and the fleet is growing fast as goods are ferried in vast quantities from Asian industrial powerhouses to consumers in Europe and North America.

The recession has barely dented the trade. This Christmas, most of our presents will have come by super-ship from the Far East; ships such as the Emma Maersk and her seven sisters Evelyn, Eugen, Estelle, Ebba, Eleonora, Elly and Edith Maersk.

Each is a quarter of a mile long and can carry up to 14,000 full-size containers on their regular routes from China to Europe.

Waiting game: Tankers moored off Devon waiting for oil prices to rise even further

Emma – dubbed SS Santa by the media – brought Christmas presents to Europe in October and is now en route from Algeciras in Spain to Yantian in southern China, carrying containers full of our waste paper, plastic and electronics for recycling.

But it burns marine heavy fuel, or ‘bunker fuel’, which leaves behind a trail of potentially lethal chemicals: sulphur and smoke that have been linked to breathing problems, inflammation, cancer and heart disease.

James Corbett, of the University of Delaware, is an authority on ship emissions. He calculates a worldwide death toll of about 64,000 a year, of which 27,000 are in Europe. Britain is one of the worst-hit countries, with about 2,000 deaths from funnel fumes. Corbett predicts the global figure will rise to 87,000 deaths a year by 2012.

Part of the blame for this international scandal lies close to home.

In London, on the south bank of the Thames looking across at the Houses of Parliament, is the International Maritime Organisation, the UN body that polices the world’s shipping.

For decades, the IMO has rebuffed calls to clean up ship pollution. As a result, while it has long since been illegal to belch black, sulphur-laden smoke from power-station chimneys or lorry exhausts, shipping has kept its licence to pollute.

For 31 years, the IMO has operated a policy agreed by the 169 governments that make up the organisation which allows most ships to burn bunker fuel.

Christian Eyde Moller, boss of the DK shipping company in Rotterdam, recently described this as ‘just waste oil, basically what is left over after all the cleaner fuels have been extracted from crude oil. It’s tar, the same as asphalt. It’s the cheapest and dirtiest fuel in the world’.

Bunker fuel is also thick with sulphur. IMO rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur. That is 4,500 times more than is allowed in car fuel in
the European Union. The sulphur comes out of ship funnels as tiny particles, and it is these that get deep into lungs.

Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year.

With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars.

Enlarge

A year ago, the IMO belatedly decided to clean up its act. It said shipping fuel should not contain more than 3.5 per cent sulphur by 2012 and eventually must come down to 0.5 per cent. This lower figure could halve the deaths, says Corbett.

It should not be hard to do. There is no reason ship engines cannot run on clean fuel, like cars. But, away from a handful of low-sulphur zones, including the English Channel and North Sea, the IMO gave shipping lines a staggering 12 years to make the switch. And, even then, it will depend on a final ‘feasibility review’ in 2018.

In the meantime, according to Corbett’s figures, nearly one million more people will die.

Smoke and sulphur are not the only threats from ships’ funnels. Every year they are also belching out almost one billion tons of carbon dioxide. Ships are as big a contributor to global warming as aircraft – but have had much less attention from environmentalists.

Both international shipping and aviation are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol rules on cutting carbon emissions. But green pressure is having its effect on airlines. Ahead of next month’s Copenhagen climate talks, airlines have promised to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.

But shipping companies are keeping their heads down. A meeting of the IMO in July threw out proposals from the British Chamber of Shipping, among others, to set up a
carbon-trading scheme to encourage emissions reductions.

Amazingly, they pleaded poverty. Two-thirds of the world’s ships are registered in developing countries such as Panama. These are just flags of convenience, to evade tougher rules on safety and pay for sailors.

But at the IMO, governments successfully argued that ships from developing countries should not have to cut carbon emissions. IMO secretary-general Efthimios Mitropoulos insisted: ‘We are heavily and consistently engaged in the fight to protect and preserve our environment.’ Yet without limits, carbon emissions from shipping could triple by 2050.

The failure brought calls for the IMO to be stripped of its powers to control the world’s ships. Colin Whybrow, of Greenwave, a British charity set up to campaign for cleaner shipping, says: ‘The IMO is drinking in the last-chance saloon.’

Burning low-sulphur fuel won’t cut carbon emissions from ships. But there are other ways. More efficient engines could reduce emissions by 30 per cent, according to British marine consultant Robin Meech.

Cutting speed could reduce emissions by as much again. And there are even wackier ways, such as putting up giant kites to harness the wind as in the days of sailing ships.

However you look at it, the super-ships are rogues on the high seas, operating under pollution standards long since banished on land; warming the planet and killing its inhabitants. Santa’s sleigh, they are not.

• Robert Pedersen, of Maersk, said: ‘The sulphur content varies according to where you get your fuel. Our average sulphur content is, I believe, 2.5 per cent. It’s rather rare you get anything close to 4.5 per cent.’ He added that ‘the sulphur issue is one for the whole industry’ and that there would be a ‘huge cost implication’ to switch to cleaner fuel.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html#ixzz2MfeqpweH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Ship pollution links

1. Air pollution from ships

Ships pour out large quantities of pollutants into the air, principally in the … oxides and particulate matter (PM). The emissions from ships engaged in international trade in the seas surrounding Europe – the … in October 2008 For details see Air Pollution from Ships (pdf, 980 kB). Control measures There are however available …

Basic page – kajsa – Wed, 2013-02-06 11:04

2. Ships pollute half as much as world’s cars

… a significant health concern. Globally, commercial ships emit almost half as much particulate pollution into the air as the … measurements of emissions, it is estimated that worldwide, ships emit 900,000 tonnes of particulate matter (PM) pollution each year. …

Acid news – kajsa – Tue, 2012-02-28 10:50

3. Make ships pay for their NOx emissions

… (NOx) are a cause of major environmental problems, and ships account for a large and growing share of these emissions. In spite of the somewhat strengthened emission standards for new ships adopted in 2008 by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), NOx …

Acid news – kajsa – Tue, 2012-02-28 09:56

4. Energy efficiency standards for new ships

… an Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) regulation for new ships. The EEDI will require new ships to meet a minimum level of energy efficiency: ships built between 2015 …

Acid news – kajsa – Tue, 2012-07-10 14:54

5. Particle filters on inland ships

… 2010, particle filters have been mandatory for all new ships and, wherever feasible and economically viable for the existing fleet. ZSG reports that the material costs for the equipment of its ships amounted to around CHF1.3 million, and that installation takes up to 20 …

Acid news – kajsa – Tue, 2012-07-10 14:52

6. No IMO deal on fuel efficiency for ships

… IMO to implement an Energy Efficient Design Index (EEDI) for ships was blocked by several developing countries at a meeting of the IMO’s … will benefit just as m uch as developed countries from ships that use less fuel.” Source: T&E press release 4 October 2010. …

Acid news – kajsa – Mon, 2012-03-05 13:31

7. Several options for cutting ships’ emissions

… and methodologies available to estimate air emissions from ships, the JRC concludes that limited availability of data on shipping … Ågren The report “Regulating air emissions from ships: the state of the art on methodologies, technologies and policy options”, …

Acid news – kajsa – Thu, 2012-03-08 17:07

8. Air pollution from ships

…

Publications – kajsa – Thu, 2012-02-09 11:15

9. Air pollution from ships

… environmental NGOs. Air pollution from ships_Nov_2011.pdf …

Publications – kajsa – Mon, 2012-02-20 17:29

10.Appropriate standards to reduce air pollution from ships

… IMO_Appropriate_standards_to_reduce_air_pollution_from_ships.pdf …

Publications – kajsa – Thu, 2012-04-26 11:36

http://www.airclim.org/acidnews/2010/AN4-10/japan-preparing-eca-applicat
ion

Japan preparing for ECA application

Japan is planning to submit an application to the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) for an emission control area (ECA). Currently three
different options are being considered, ranging from localised
“micro-ECAs” to a comprehensive ECA similar to that adopted for North
America.

The “micro-ECAs” would introduce strict emission limits in waters around
some of the most densely populated areas with a high volume of shipping
traffic, such as Tokyo and Osaka Bay. The two other options are a 200
nautical mile (nm) or a 50 nm ECA zone in the coastal waters around
Japan. An assessment of costs and benefits is currently underway for the
different options.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/global-observer/hong-kong-contends-with-pollution-from-a-growing-cruise-industry/9076

HONG KONG — As Asian cities push for a stronger presence in the cruise industry, alarm is being raised in Hong Kong about the huge impact these ships have on the city’s air pollution.

Hong Kong is building a new cruise terminal for these opulent and sleek ships to dock, but some activists are urging the government to take measures to lessen the harmful effects that these ships have on the city’s air by installing electricity outlets for cruiseliners to plug into when berthed — and requiring them to do so.

It is a solution that cruise operators have said is an unrealistic demand, since older ships do not have such capabilities.

Emissions from berthed ships are considered the No. 1 contributor to Hong Kong’s severe air pollution problem and are said to account for 40% of greenhouse gases within its borders. Coming from cruise and cargo ships, these emissions outdo that of power plants and road vehicles.

“For the last 10 years, the government has done nothing to improve this,” said Melonie Chau, senior environmental affairs officer at Friends of the Earth in Hong Kong. “The government should do more to encourage or give more incentive or administrative measures to push the industry to help Hong Kong be a green port,” Chau said.

And it seems that now, small steps are being taken to address the situation.

Last week, Hong Kong’s leader, Leung Chun-ying, announced in a policy address that the government will look into requiring ships to switch to low-sulfur diesel when they are berthed in the Pearl River Delta, which encompasses areas surrounding the city.

Discussions are still in early stages, and it will take several years for this plan to be put into place, according to Chau.

The government has also said that the new cruise ship terminal, which is currently under construction and slated to open this year, will provide on-shore power supplies, allowing ships to be plugged into electric power on land and reducing emissions.

At a cruise forum last week, Pier Luigi Foschi, the chief executive of Carnival Asia, a major cruise operator, said it is unrealistic to require ships to use on-shore power because many existing ships are not equipped to be plugged in. He said that switching to cleaner fuel would be an easier option for the industry.

The discussions come at a time when the cruise industry is expanding in Asia. The Chinese airline and property company HNA has just set sail its first cruise ship from Sanya, a resort town in China, to Vietnam. Taiwan is also investing $360 million in upgrades for its two cruise terminals.

Foschi said at the forum that he expects seven million cruise passengers to come from Asia by 2020.

Container ships have in recent years also been asked, but not required, to switch to low-sulphur fuel when entering Hong Kong waters.

But those complying with the request are getting fed up with the extra cost of doing so. Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that Maersk, the shipping giant, said that it would stop switching to clean fuel, which it had been doing voluntarily, unless the city required its rivals to do so too.

Hong Kong’s smog is considered a major health threat. A study by the University of Hong Kong linked air pollution to 1,200 deaths per year. A local think tank, Civic Exchange, has put the number of air-pollution-related deaths at 3,000 per year. The city is also one of the busiest ports in the world.

Photo: Flickr/dennis and aimee jonez

Submitted by admin on Jan 21st 2013, 12:00am

News› Hong Kong

ENVIRONMENT

Phila Siu phila.siu@scmp.com

Cruise ships could see change next year, but power facilities at Kai Tak will take longer

It will take several years for the government to introduce onshore electricity power facilities at the Kai Tak cruise terminal but a law requiring ocean-going vessels berthing at the city to use cleaner fuel can be in place next year at the earliest.

Undersecretary for the Environment Christine Loh Kung-wai made these remarks at a forum yesterday when challenged by green activists about emission levels after the Kai Tak cruise terminal opens in June.

According to the think tank Civic Exchange, vessels visiting Ocean Terminal emitted 252 tonnes of sulphur dioxide in 2007 – comparable to the 286 tonnes of vehicle emissions in Hong Kong in 2010.

Loh said the government planned to build onshore electricity facilities for cruises berthing at the Kai Tak terminal as soon as possible, but it could take several years.

She said the government first needed to draft a proposal, which then has to be passed by the Legislative Council’s environmental affairs panel and the Finance Committee. The next step would be to invite a tender. The whole process would take several years, she said.

Explaining why the government had not introduced the measure before now, Loh said: “There had been no international standard on how it should be done until around the middle of last year. Now that we know how to do it, it [the standard] will be very useful to us in the future.”

Loh also said that the government planned to introduce a law next year at the earliest requiring all ocean-going vessels – not just cruises – to use fuel with a cleaner sulphur content when in the city.

Hong Kong would be the first city in Asia to have this law if it were passed, although some European countries already had it, Loh said.

“We are determined … we need to protect Hongkongers’ health,” she said.

Other speakers at the forum, including Friends of the Earth’s senior environmental affairs officer Melonie Chau Yuet-cheung, agreed these two measures needed to be taken.

But they wanted more to be done as the Kai Tak cruise terminal will open in June, meaning there will be a “time gap” in between.

“Vehicles do not generate the most pollution. They are only the third on the list. Topping the list are the vessels,” Chau said.

Labour sector lawmaker Kwok Wai-keung, from the Federation of Trade Unions, said the situation was “worrying”, and suggested that the government charge a higher fee for vessels using more polluting fuel than those using cleaner fuel when they berth at the city.

Loh said that the government had introduced a programme in which vessels switching to low-sulphur fuel could get a 50 per cent reduction on port and navigation charges. She also said that there was already a voluntary scheme, the Fair Winds Charter, under which vessel operators agreed to switch to low-sulphur fuel to the maximum extent possible for two years from January 2011.

The public should not underestimate the effectiveness of these programmes, Loh said.

Topics:

Kai Tak Cruise Terminal

Air Pollution

Fuel

Electricity Supply

Environment

Christine Loh