Low Carbon Emissions in Shipping - Coursework Example

Low Carbon Emissions in Shipping. According to the estimates made in 2007, shipping industry accounts for over 3.3% of the global emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide(Fridell, Winnes and Styhre, 2013). Other estimates compiled by authorities in the field indicate that in 2050, shipping will account for 18% (Fridell, Winnes and Styhre, 2013). of all the emissions of carbon dioxide in the event that the stakeholders take no action to deal with the carbon emissions. The effect of the emissions is not instantaneous but it is cumulative since according to the nature of the emissions, the gas is the hardest to eliminate from the atmosphere(Chen, Liu and Hua, 2013). The drawn out contracting and the evolutions of the finances in the sector acted as a major prevention for the creation of a holistic understanding of the shipping industry(Darkwa and OCallaghan, 1997). This means that the majority of the commercial habits inherent in the shipping industry are built in making it hard to remove the ingrained precursors for emission that thwart the efforts to create a better environment. The Copenhagen Accord of 2009 has brought with it some repercussions for the defaulters such that the major players in the shipping industry had to look into ways of reducing carbon emissions to the accepted levels stated in the accord(Fridell, Winnes and Styhre, 2013). This was and still remains to be a daunting task for the majority of the players in the shipping industry. The development of a proportionate response to the responsibilities of the shipping industry, minimization of the risk of causing harm to the industry itself and the responsibility of maintaining access to facilitate the economic development fall under the shipping industry and the arrival at an approach that will guarantee the fulfillment of the three responsibilities has been elusive. The development of the effective approach to apply in the shipping industry has been elusive due to lack of a toolset that will facilitate the evaluation of the potential impacts and reactions in the global shipping system(Jafarzadeh and Utne, 2014). The main sources of the emissions come from shipping in the cargo subsection of the industry. 75% of all the emissions in the shipping industry come from the freight handling sector. The major sources of the pollution include ships in the dry bulk ships, wet bulk goods and the gas carrying ships. (Oceana, 2014) Economic Context of the need for eco-friendly shipping In the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008, major industries including the shipping industry found themselves dealing with new issues that affected their operations. The new paradigm was characterized by constant high global oil prices, continued regulations of the emissions and efficiency of the operations and all time low revenues. The industry has responded to the paradigm shift with the creation of a two tiered fleet system. Trends in the shipping industry indicate that the majority of the operators in the industry are moving away from the small and less fuel efficient ships to large carriers. The performance of the so called eco ships is yet to be verified in the domain(Johnson, 2013). The savings and efficiency projections of the eco-ships could be inflated. High tonnage ships will definitely have a high advantage over the existing low tonnage ships. The effects of developing the high tonnage ships in the industry could either assume higher prices commanding system owing to time charter day rate or creation of a higher market share or even a combination of the two. (EurActiv 2014) Policy Context As at 2010, the policy development and the regulatory framework for carbon emissions were largely immature. Maturity of the regulatory backdrop for carbon dioxide emissions is still complex and evolving. Initial regulations on shipping were hazy since they assumed the shape of proposals extended by the United Nations, European Union and the United Kingdom internal policies. The uncertainty around the manipulations of the path has been eliminated over the years leading to a more explicit and understandable policies(Johnson and Andersson, 2011). The shipping industry has undergone changes such that it has transitioned from being a target for pressure on the reduction of the emissions to being the first industry to make international and legally binding commitments to the reductions of carbon emissions. Slow Streaming as an approach to emission reduction The reduction in the speed used in the shipping industry has had a significant effect in the attainment of low carbon emissions targets. Slow streaming works on the premise that the reduction in the speed in relation to the power needed to propel a ship. This means that the ships ought to move on a lower speed such that the unnecessary emissions in the industry are reduced. Various information sources indicate that the majority of the ships have implemented this policy in order to reduce the emissions. In 2011, the bulk handling ships were moving at 10-15% (Koch et al., 2013). Lower speeds than the average non fuel efficiency mindful ships. Container ships reduced their speeds by an approximate speed of 25%. As a result, the fuel consumption by the above classes of fleets has reduced significantly (Koch et al., 2013). However, in as much as the reduction in the speeds of the ships has led to the development of obvious gains for the shipping operators, the reduction in the speed means that the average time taken in a voyage will reduce significantly. In order for the economic benefits of the shipping industry to be sustained and the volume of cargo moved per year to be maintained, there is a need for the development of new fleets. This means that the engineering work has to increase(Johnson, Johansson and Andersson, 2012). Manufacturing new fleets may offset the imperative benefits of the slow streaming. The emissions of the new fleets may also counter the gains made by the development of additional fleets. Interfaces in Shipping and other industries . It is impossible for there to be a shipping industry without the interactions with other modes of transport(Peng, 2009). This is the first interface in the industry. Majority of the shipping routes demand that there is an intermodal relationship between the ships and other modes of transport. Working hard to reduce the emissions in the shipping industry may lead to less identifiable results compared to working with the other players at the interfaces. The second interface is the owner and the operators since majority of the ships are operated by different people apart from the owners(Peng and Wang, n.d.). The pressure to make margins on both sides may thwart the emission reduction efforts. Therefore, the best approach to the development of effective shipping is through the creation of a universally applied energy efficiency approach. Efficiency Increasing Approaches As indicated earlier, low streaming of the vessels has resulted in significant reductions of the emissions in the shipping industry. The other strategy that has been proposed to reduce the emissions from the shipping industry is the use of alternative sources of power for the propulsion. Increase in the cargo capacity of the ships has also been proposed as a major source of reduction in fuel emissions(Potter, Rye and Smith, 1999). Some of the shipping companies have implemented these approaches in the reduction of the emissions and there are evident gains from the reduction. However, there are various issues that are in the way for the attainment of the accurate emissions reduction formula. Barriers to the effective implementation of low carbon emission shipping Different literature has indicated that there are major barriers to the effective implantations of the carbon reduction ideals in the shipping industry. Despite the substantial and inherent abatement potential of the cost effective fuel efficiency measures, empirical research indicate the lack of will to implement them(Qi, Shen and Dou, 2013). The debate on the barriers of the energy reduction efficiency gained momentum in 1980. The correct definition of the barriers is a postulated mechanism that acts as an inhibition on investment in the technologies that are both economically viable and energy efficient. It is important point out the differences in energy efficiency and economic viability. The heuristic of the energy efficiency implementation approach has been that an innovation ought to be implemented only if the implementation leads to the attainment or improvement of economic efficiency or it results in an increase in the social welfare(Wei, 2010). This distinction is important in that some of the energy reduction plans may be on track when it comes to the reduction of the emissions and attainment of low carbon industry while in the real sense there are no actual economic benefits of the economic reduction(Wang, 2010). Energy efficiency gap refers to the variation between the lower levels of energy efficiency measures and the higher levels that would be effective. The introduction of the transaction costs and a more realistic representation of the decision making process will lead to a better explanation of the energy efficiency gap. Market barriers are the do not emanate from the market failures but that are contributing factors to the slow diffusion and acceptance of the energy efficient innovations (Fridell, Winnes and Styhre, 2013). Therefore, these barriers are also known as non-market failures. The above elements are the real features that make up the decision making environment even though they are the hardest to implement in the engineering environment. Market failures occur when there is a violation of the requirements needed for the optimal apportionment of resources. The result of market failures is incomplete market or imperfect competition(Zhang, 2010). The nature of the information in the market failure is both imperfect and asymmetric. Improvement of the Ship and Propulsion Hydrodynamics There should be incremental improvements on the ship through the enactment of the refinements on the conventional designs of hull. Radical changes have to be drawn from the operational procedures that relate to the ballast loading and trim. It is possible to attain reduction of the carbon dioxide in the order of 16%. The attainment of this emission levels calls for the enactment of substantial changes in the overall aspects of the ship. The changes are impractical in the event that there are operational and financial constraints(Zhang, 2010). There are various devices suitable for retrofitting that can be applied on the new and existing ships. The manufacturers of the retrofitting promise some changes but the level of the savings attained from retrofitting is usually below the documented ones. This could be as a result of the model-scale physical tests or Computational Fluid Dynamics. The discrepancy could also result from the inappropriateness of both the metric and method used. The other argument for the failure of the retrofitting could be the failure of the optimization of the modern designs(Potter, Rye and Smith, 1999). Internal Combustion Technology Various advancements are being undertaken in the marine engineering propulsion designs. Future machine designs offer efficiency gains over the modern existing technologies. The current two stroke system could undergo some significant engineering improvements that will results in better and more efficient production. Improvement in performance of the two stroke engine could come from the combination of elements as opposed to a particular step change technology. The engine could be changed in such a manner that there is a long stroke. The engine could operate on liquefied natural gas fuel with the source of the injection being run on a digital electronic control that will lead to optimal fuel injection (Fridell, Winnes and Styhre, 2013). Other improvements on the two stroke engine could emanate from the development of a better exhaust valve coupled by a scavenger with a waste recovery system. Otherwise, it is impossible to envision what can actually be done to enact actual efficiency performance on the two-stroke diesel engine. Electrical Propulsion Propulsion technology used in the shipping industry is also undergoing numerous changes. The development in the electrical technology offer the users of the ships with advanced means of ensuring that they are more flexible than in the previous engine designs. The developments in the industry have led to the development of advanced motor systems. The drives of the next generation power electronic are within the reach of the investors. This will make it possible for the industry players to attain the required levels of emissions (Fridell, Winnes and Styhre, 2013). The success of the electrically propelled engines will lead to the attainment of the required levels of carbon emissions. Other investments in the shipping industry will lead to the attainment of better and more fuel efficient propulsions include the superconductivity. However, the downfall of the superconductivity is that it is too futuristic for the reduction of the efficiency gap in the fuel consumption and carbon emissions Therefore, the best approach for the attainment of the required fuel emissions are nonexistent. Reduction of the carbon emission gap will be attained based on the capitalization of existing methods (Fridell, Winnes and Styhre, 2013). References Chen, F. Liu, Y. and Hua, G. (2013).LTLGB 2012. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer. Darkwa, K. and OCallaghan, P. (1997). Green transport technology (GTT): analytical studies of a thermo chemical store for minimizing energy consumption and air pollution from automobile engines. Applied thermal engineering, 17(7), pp.603--614. EurActiv, (2014). Stricter shipping emission controls could save industry €9 million: study. [online] EurActiv | EU News & policy debates, across languages. Available at: http://www.euractiv.com/transport/better-shipping-emissions-monito-news-532651 [Accessed 10 Jun. 2014]. Fridell, E., Winnes, H. and Styhre, L. (2013).Measures to improve energy efficiency in shipping.FAL Bulletin. Jafarzadeh, S. and Utne, I. (2014).A framework to bridge the energy efficiency gap in shipping.Energy, 69, pp.603--612. Johnson, H. (2013). Towards understanding energy efficiency in shipping. Chalmers University of Technology. Johnson, H. and Andersson, K. (2011).The energy efficiency gap in shipping-barriers to improvement. Johnson, H., Johansson, M. and Andersson, K. (2012). Barriers to energy efficiency in short sea shipping: a case study. Koch, H., Ko¨nig, D., Sanden, J. and Verheyen, R. (2013). Climate change and environmental hazards related to shipping. 1st ed. Leiden: MartinusNijhoff Publishers. Oceana, (2014). Shipping Emissions: Overview. [online] Oceana. Available at: http://oceana.org/en/our-work/climate-energy/shipping-emissions/overview [Accessed 10 Jun. 2014]. Peng, Q. (2009). International Conference on Transportation Engineering, 2009. 1st ed. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Peng, Q. and Wang, K. (n.d.).ICTE 2013. 1st ed. Potter, S., Rye, T. and Smith, M. (1999). Tax and green transport plans: a survey of UK experience. Transport Policy, 6(4), pp.197--205. Qi, E., Shen, J. and Dou, R. (2013).The 19th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer. Wang, H. (2010). The reduction cost of GHG from ships and its impact on transportation cost and international trade. 1st ed. Wei, H. (2010). ICCTP 2010. 1st ed. [Reston, Va.]: American Society of Civil Engineers. Zhang, J. (2010). ICLEM 2010. 1st ed. [Reston, Va.]: American Society of Civil Engineers. Read More