2. Preface & Acknowledgements
With the advent of climate protection issues and concerns in recent years, enterprises around
the world are under intense pressure from regulators, stakeholders, customers and their immediate
community to become more environmentally sustainable. Many ports have been proactive in
measuring, managing and reducing their carbon footprint in their effort to be more sustainable,
with US and European ports leading the way in this regard. In Asia, some ports have started
to follow suit with considerable success. In 2010, to comply with impending regulations and in
line with our strategic intent to become a cleaner and greener port, Jurong Port embarked on a
concerted effort to identify measures and initiatives to realise this aspiration with measuring and
setting a baseline of our carbon footprint as one of the key initiatives.
Establishing Jurong Port’s carbon footprint necessitated the gathering, extraction and collation
of a huge amount of operational data and information, which often were not readily available,
were difficult to interpret and inevitably had to come from a wide spectrum of sources. Knowing
what type of information to extract and how to analyse them did not come intuitively to us.
Fortunately, we did not have to start from scratch as we were able to adopt the methodologies
of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol – Carbon Footprinting for Ports, the International Association of
Ports and Harbours (IAPH) Toolbox for Greenhouse Gases and the World Ports Climate Initiatives
(WPCI) Carbon Footprinting Guidance Document for guidance. These allowed us to leverage
the combined knowledge and experiences of many reputable ports worldwide that have already
successfully established their carbon footprint inventories.
The next step of our journey required significant efforts in collating important operational-related
data, without which the calculation and analysis of our carbon footprint would have been more
difficult. There were many contributors but we would like to acknowledge the few esteemed
colleagues that deserve special attention:
Operations
Alan Eng Ganesh Raj Sanjar Tan Yih Kuen Jack Ng
Eric Foo Bernard Koh Rahman Hashim Ivan Tan
Stanley Tham Edmund Fong Teo Kee Kiat
Engineering Human Resources IT Finance
Lim Kian Giap Wendy Teo Ho Kong Meng Shirley Gomes
Lim Gek Ngoh Frances Tan Jacky Choong
3. We are grateful to Professor Ang Beng Wah (Energy Studies Institute), Calvin Tan and Li Juxin
(Centre for Maritime Studies) from the National University of Singapore for their support and inputs
to this project. We are also grateful to Satyanarayan Ramamurthy, Rahul Kar, Catherine Yeo and
Soekendro Harjono from the Carbon Advisory team, KPMG for their commitment and contribution
pertaining to the entire carbon footprinting exercise.
This endeavour would not have been possible without the dedicated project management support
of Teo Kai Kee and Vincent Fu from the Corporate Development team. Their combined ability to
marry the rigour of fact-finding with oftentimes difficult-to-manage data sources, and subsequently
presenting all of it in a coherent manner, was a definitive key success factor.
Lastly, on behalf of Jurong Port’s Board of Directors and management, we would like to
acknowledge our ever-expanding community of partners, customers and stakeholders as they
openly shared with us their achievements and challenges in being environmentally sustainable
in their own distinct ways, both from the private as well as public sectors. Their lessons helped
to shape our choices and create new opportunities for closer collaboration as we embark on
this journey of becoming a cleaner and greener port.
Matthew Chan Royston Lek
Chief Executive Officer Vice President, Corporate Development
6. 1 Executive Summary
This report sets out Jurong Port’s carbon footprint for the calendar year 2009 (year of assessment:
2010) with a starting baseline of 130,601 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e). This is
the first carbon footprint assessment conducted by Jurong Port.
Employing the methodology developed by the World Ports Climate Initiative, we assessed our
operations and determined carbon emissions for the three different “scopes” as defined under
the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.
Our assessment shows that Scope 3 accounts for 88.3 percent (115,267 tCO2e) of the total
emission with the rest split almost equally between Scope 1 (7,020 tCO2e) and Scope 2
(8,314 tCO2e). In Scope 1, 97 percent of the emissions are from RTGs. The cement terminal
was the largest single source of Scope 2 emissions (22.4%). Emissions from the use of electricity
in warehouses and yards (23.9%), area lightings (21.9%) as well as cargo handling equipment,
inclusive of the aforementioned cement terminal, owned by Jurong Port (43.1%) are also major
contributors in Scope 2. In Scope 3, emissions from vessel and tug operations account for
more than 93 percent and cargo handling equipment owned by the stevedoring companies
accounted for 4.6 percent.
From our assessment, it is evident that in order to effectively reduce overall port emissions,
abatement strategies should centre on levers that reduce emissions relating to shipping as
well as from cargo handling equipment. Notwithstanding, initiatives that can improve the overall
management and efficiency of energy as well as reduce carbon footprint that are within Jurong
Port’s operational control span will be a strategic priority moving forward.
4
7. Scope 1 Emissions
– Port Direct Sources. Refers to the direct
GHG emissions occurring from sources
which are owned or controlled by the port
(e.g. emissions from use of generators
and vehicles).
Scope 2 Emissions
– Port Indirect Sources. Refers to the
indirect GHG emissions from generating
electricity by sources which are not
owned by the port, but such electricity
is used by the port.
Scope 3 Emissions
– Other Indirect Sources. Refers to the
indirect GHG emissions which are
a consequence of port activities,
but occur from sources not owned
or controlled by the port.
8. 2 Introduction
Global climate change is now widely regarded as one of, if not the most significant environmental
threat the modern world is facing. As global average temperatures rise, the impact to our way of
life can potentially be catastrophic – extreme temperatures, rising sea levels, flooding leading to
loss of land, crops and fresh water supply.
The science of climate change is simple. Greenhouse gases (GHG) trap heat within our
atmosphere warming the Earth. As industrial activities increase, human introduce anthropogenic
(or man-made) emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere, primarily through the use of fossil fuels.
This has led to an increase in concentration of GHGs in our atmosphere which has in turn led
to rising average global temperatures.
Consequently, there has been an increasing focus on climate change mitigation. At an international
level, representatives from close to 200 nations were at Copenhagen in 2009 and at Cancun in
2010 trying to forge an international climate deal to battle climate change. The latter, just recently
concluded, produced a non-binding agreement which aims to limit global warming to less than
2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels1.
In Singapore, the Government is committed to reduce emissions by 7 to 11 percent below 2020
Business-As-Usual levels. This target will be increased to 16 percent if a legally binding global
agreement is reached; something that still eludes global leaders even after the end of the Cancun
talks. Singapore’s leaders have also publicly hinted at the possibility of rolling out a carbon tax
if a global deal is reached2.
Shipping, as an industry, accounts for 3.9 percent of the global output of carbon dioxide (or
1,260 million tonnes of CO2) and is one of the single largest sources of anthropogenic carbon
emissions. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is also under pressure to self-regulate
and implement measures to cut carbon emissions or to face external regulations3.
In the face of greater regulatory pressures and demand for greater accountability in the near future,
Jurong Port recognises the need to measure and identify ways to reduce its carbon footprint
while remaining a profitable, competitive and socially responsible corporation.
1
“AWG-KP approves draft accord.” COP16 CMP6 Mexico 2010. Web. Accessed Dec 2010
2
Cheam, Jessica. “A price on carbon of climate pact is inked.” The Straits Times, 2 Nov 2010, B5
3
“Shipping under pressures to cut emissions.” Business Times, 7 Dec 2010
6
9. Shipping, as an industry, accounts for
3.9 percent of the global output of
carbon dioxide
10. Jurong Port
aims to establish itself as a
clean, green
and environmentally
sustainable port.
11. 3 Objectives
Our carbon footprinting exercise is a corporate initiative and represents the first step for our
organisation in methodically evaluating its sources of carbon emissions. In doing so, we will use
this information to help us:
• Better understand the emissions from our operations
• Make more accurate emissions forecasts
• Identify areas with the greatest potential for emissions reduction and energy efficiency
• Implement an effective carbon abatement strategy
Through this and future endeavours, Jurong Port aims to establish itself as a clean, green and
environmentally sustainable port to our customers, employees and the community.
9
12. 4 Methodology & Scope
There are several published documents that are useful for developing and managing a carbon
emissions inventory. This assessment will draw reference from three documents in particular: i) the
Greenhouse Gas Protocol; ii) the IAPH Toolbox for Greenhouse Gases; and iii) the WPCI Carbon
Footprinting Guidance Document. For a detailed description of the origins and purpose of the
literature, please refer to Appendix A.
The WPCI Carbon Footprinting Guidance Document details three different approaches that can
be used in developing carbon emissions inventories, namely i) Activity-Based; ii) Surrogate-Based;
and, iii) Hybrid. The activity-based inventories make use of the greatest levels of detail and provide
the highest level of accuracy as it uses source specific data.
For reasons that will be further elaborated in Section 4.1, this assessment adopts the activity-based
approach and uses the emissions inventory development methodology that is illustrated in Figure 2.
This methodology closely follows that of the WPCI Carbon Footprinting Guidance Document and
adapted for application in Jurong Port’s context.
FIG.1: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXISTING LITERATURES ON MANAGING A CARBON EMISSIONS INVENTORY
General corporate guide for World Resources Institute
greenhouse gas emissions
accounting and reporting World Business Council for
Sustainable Development
International standards for
greenhouse gas accounting ISO
and verification
Technical guidance and best
practices for implementing
a carbon emissions
WPCI IAPH
management system
Employed by Ports worldwide,
including Jurong Port, in their
carbon emissions management system
10
13. FIG.2: EMISSIONS INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY
7 Emissions Estimation
6 Define Assumptions
5 Gather Port Specific Data
4 Assess Availability of Data
3 Determine Inventory
Boundaries
2 Identify Source
Categories Required
1 Determine Purpose for
Developing Inventory
14. Methodology & Scope
4.1 Determine Purpose For Developing Inventory
The purpose of developing an emissions inventory is a key policy decision that must be established
at the onset. It will guide subsequent decisions regarding the level of detail, accuracy and the
boundaries of the inventory.
For Jurong Port, the aim of the emissions inventory is to develop strategies to set up a carbon
emissions management system for the accurate tracking and reporting of carbon emissions and
reduce carbon emissions. In view of these requirements, the level of detail required then necessarily
precludes the use of a surrogate based approach, an approach more suited for creating an
indicative emissions inventory.
The preference would be to adopt an activity-based approach in developing the carbon emissions
inventory which is based on source specific data as and when possible. However, due to a lack
in the availability of data, certain assumptions were made in order to fill in the data gaps.
Section 4.4 elaborates on the data gaps that were encountered.
12
15. Methodology & Scope
4.2 Identify Source Categories Required
According to the Greenhouse Gas Protocols, emissions-producing activities for ports should be
grouped into Scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions. Based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate
Standard, companies are required to report as a minimum Scope 1 and 2 emissions, with Scope
3 reporting being optional. However, for the purpose of this assessment, Scope 1, 2 and 3
emissions will be reported under Jurong Port’s emissions inventory. The definition of emission scopes
are as follows:
Scope 1 - Port Direct Sources. Refers to the direct GHG emissions occurring from sources which
are owned or controlled by the port (e.g. emissions from use of generators and vehicles).
Scope 2 - Port Indirect Sources. Refers to the indirect GHG emissions from generating electricity
by sources which are not owned by the port, but such electricity is used by the port.
Scope 3 - Other Indirect Sources. Refers to the indirect GHG emissions which are a consequence
of port activities, but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the port.
FIG.3: SCOPE 1, 2 AND 3 EMISSIONS
CO2 CH4 N2O
SCOPE 1
Port Direct
SCOPE 3
Port Tenants
Indirect
SCOPE 2
Port Indirect
Purchased Electricity for Port - Owned Port -Owned Fleet Ships, Trucks, Cargo Handling
Buildings and Operations Vehicles, Buildings Equipment, Rail, Harbor Craft,
Buildings and Purchased Electricity
Source: IAPH Toolbox for Port Clean Air Programs
13
16. Methodology & Scope
4.3 Determine Inventory Boundaries
In defining the boundaries of the emissions inventory, there are three boundaries that determine
and classify the scope of emissions that are included in the assessment. They are i) Physical;
ii) Organisational; and, iii) Operational Boundaries4. Physical and Organisational boundaries
define the emission sources that are included in the inventory. Operational boundaries define
the scope classification of the emission sources. The physical and organisational boundaries used
in this assessment include the Jurong Port Facility as well as the waterways in and around the port
to the vessel anchorage points.
FIG.4: BOUNDARIES OF JURONG PORT FACILITY
Out of Scope Jurong Port Boundaries
4
Please refer to Appendix B for a detailed explanation on determining inventory boundaries in Jurong Port’s context
14
17. FIG.5: SCOPE 1, 2 AND 3 EMISSIONS IN JURONG PORT
S/N Emission Sources Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Out of Scope
1 Warehouse and Yard
2 Buildings
• Jurong Port Admin Building
• General Cargo Office Building
• Bulk Cargo Site Office
• West Gate
• Immigration & Checkpoints Authority Station
• Penjuru Terminal
• Jalan Buroh
3 Area Lighting
• Mainland Area Lighting
• Pulau Damar Laut Area Lighting
4 Cargo Handling Equipment
• Mainland Bulk Unloader
• Cement Terminal
• Quay Cranes
• Rubber Tyred Gantry Cranes
• Mobile Harbour Cranes
• Ro-Ro Ramp
• Forklifts, Reach-Stackers Mobile Cranes etc
5 Port Vehicles
6 Trucking and Haulage
7 Refrigerant Loss (Reefer)
8 Shipping Emissions
• Waiting, Hotelling and Manoeuvring
9 Harbour Craft Operations
• Tugboat Piloting Activities
10 Tenants5
• SIS Sugar Operations
• Mainland Cement Operations
• Lube Oil Operations
• Pulau Damar Laut Cement Storage
11 Staff Travel 6
5
The emissions from the list of tenants were deemed out of scope as Jurong Port has very little or no operational control,
direct or indirect, over the activities of the said tenants; hence its inclusion would provide no value add in forming
carbon abatement strategies.
6
Staff Travel was initially accounted for but its emissions were so small as to be considered insignificant to the overall
scope of port emissions and thus considered as out of scope.
15
18. Methodology & Scope
4.4 Assess Availability Of Data
An activity-based approach requires the energy usage of the emission sources. While such data
for Scope 1 and 2 were readily available from Jurong Port’s records, this was not always the case
for Scope 3 emission sources. Specifically, there were some data gaps for i) vessels calling and
operating in Jurong Port; ii) the cargo handling equipment owned by tenants in Jurong Port; and,
iii) trucks and other heavy goods vehicles travelling within port premises. Thus, assumptions had to
be made to bridge the data gaps for Scope 3 emissions.
This was done by using existing data in Jurong Port’s records to develop an approximation for
energy and fuel consumption of these emission sources.
Please see Appendix C for the indicators that were employed to address the specific data gaps.
Methodology & Scope
4.5 Gather Port Specific Data And Define Assumptions
Fuel consumption and energy usage data, as well as the data for the indicators, were collected for
the calendar year 2009. The most recent full year data was selected in order to produce the most
meaningful baseline.
Using the indicators for the identified data gaps, assumptions were made for the following:
• Shipping and Tug Boat Operations
• Tenant Cargo Handling Operations
• Trucking and Haulage
Please refer to Appendix D for details on the assumptions made.
16
19. Methodology & Scope
4.6 Emissions Estimation
Emissions are generally estimated using the following equation:
Emissions = Energy or Fuel Consumption x Emissions Factor
where,
Energy or Fuel Consumption
– is the combination of activity data (actual or derived); typically expressed as kWh, litre or
tonnes in this assessment
Emissions Factor
– represents the emission producing characteristics which, vary by source types per unit
of energy consumption; typically expressed as kg CO2e /kWh, kg CO2e /litre or kg CO2e /
tonnes in this assessment
In instances where energy consumption data was not available, alternative methods were used.
For example, to measure emissions of vehicles, the emissions per distance travelled by vehicle
was used. Please refer to Appendix D for a detailed description of the emissions estimation
methodology that was used for the various emissions sources in this assessment.
FIG.6: CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
Emission
Electricity CO2 grid
from electricity
consumption X emission factor = consumption
Simple operating margin emission factor
from National Environmental Agency +
(NEA) Singapore
Fuel CO2 Emission from
Fuel consumption
X emission factor = fuel combustion
Using published emission factor from DEFRA
Total CO2e
and EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory +
Guidebook for Shipping Activities tonnes
Vehicle CO2 Emission from
Distance travelled X =
emission factor vehicle transport
Using published emission
factor from DEFRA +
Refrigerant Emission GWP of Emission from
charge X factor (%) X refrigerant = refrigerant loss
Using data from IPCC 2006
DEFRA – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK
EMEP – European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme
CORINAIR – CORe INventory AIR emissions
GWP – Global Warming Potential
17
20. Abatement levers that
reduce emissions from
vessels and cargo
handling equipments
will have greatest impact
on overall emissions.
21. 5 Jurong Port’s Carbon Footprint
The following table summarises the results of the carbon footprinting exercise for Jurong Port for the
2010 year of assessment.
Total emissions % of total
S/N Emission Sources Scope Methodology 7
(tCO2e) emissions
1 Shipping (Vessel) and Tug Operation 3 Shipping 107,840 82.6%
2 Cargo Handling Equipment – Diesel (JP) 1 Fuel 6,822 5.2%
3 Cargo Handling Equipment (Tenant) 3 Fuel 5,337 4.1%
4 Cargo Handling Equipment – Electricity (JP) 2 Electricity 3,582 2.7%
5 Warehouse and Yard (JP) 2 Electricity 1,987 1.5%
6 Area Lighting 2 Electricity 1,817 1.4%
7 Trucking and Haulage 3 Trucking 1,580 1.2%
8 Building 2 Electricity 928 0.7%
9 Refrigerant Loss (Reefer) 3 Refrigerant 274 0.2%
10 Port Vehicle 1 Fuel 199 0.2%
11 Building (Tenant usage) 3 Electricity 163 0.1%
12 Warehouse (Tenant usage) 3 Electricity 72 0.1%
Total 130,601 100%
7
Please refer to Appendix D for details on methodology
Jurong Port’s Carbon Footprint
5.1 Scope 1, 2 And 3 Emissions
Jurong Port’s emissions are primarily Scope 3 emissions. Scope FIG.7: BREAKDOWN BY SCOPE
3 emissions account for 88.3% of all port related emissions or
115,267 tCO2e.
Scope 3
88.3%
Scope 1 emissions are mainly resulting from cargo handling
activities by Jurong Port. Scope 2 emissions come from
port-related infrastructure and equipment such as warehouses,
area lighting, buildings and cargo handling equipment.
Scope 3 emissions mainly result from shipping activities.
FIG.8: BREAKDOWN OF SCOPE 1, 2 & 3
Scope 1
Sc Shipping 5.3%
op
e
3 Scope 2
93.6%
Cargo Handling 6.4%
43.1%
Area Lighting
Sc
op 21.9%
e
2
Building
11.1%
Warehouse
and Yard Cargo Handling
Sc 97.2%
23.9% op
e
1
19
23. Jurong Port’s Carbon Footprint
5.2 Scope 3 Emissions
Consistent with emission inventories of other ports, vessel operation related emissions at Jurong Port
are the largest source of carbon emissions at 93.6%. (or 82.6% of all port emissions) The second
largest source of carbon emissions are from cargo handling equipments of port users representing
5% of all emissions. Shipping and land side fuel combustion related emissions make up almost all
of Scope 3 emissions.
FIG.9: BREAKDOWN OF SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS Shipping (Vessel)
and Tug Operation
93.6%
Cargo Handling
Others Equipment
0.4% Trucking 4.6%
and Haulage
1.4%
Others: Refrigerant Loss, Building & Warehouse
Total emissions % of total
S/N Emission Sources Type
(tCO2e) emissions
1 Shipping (Vessel) and Tug Operation Shipping 107,840 93.6%
2 Cargo Handling Equipment Fuel Combustion 5,337 4.6%
3 Trucking and Haulage Fuel Combustion 1,580 1.4%
4 Refrigerant Loss Refrigerant 274 0.2%
5 Building Electricity 163 0.1%
6 Warehouse and Yard Electricity 72 0.1%
Total 115,266 100%
21
24. Jurong Port’s Carbon Footprint
5.3 Scope 2 Emissions
Scope 2 emissions, which account for 6.4% of all port Warehouse
and Yard
emissions (8,314 tCO2e), are primarily from cargo handling
23.9%
equipments. Warehouses and Yards, inclusive of the reefer
points, constitutes the second largest source of emissions.
Area
Lighting
FIG.10: BREAKDOWN OF SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS 21.9%
Cargo Handling
Equipment
43.1%
Buildings
FIG.11: SCOPE 2 CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT 11.1%
Quay
Cranes
19.1%
Mainland Bulk
Cement Unloader
Terminal
1.6%
22.4%
CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT
A further breakdown showed that the cement terminal was the primary source of cargo handling
equipment emissions and is also the largest single source of Scope 2 emissions at Jurong Port
(1,862 tCO2e).
Quay cranes also constitute a significant portion of cargo handling equipment emissions. These
findings are consistent with the degree of activity in container port operations.
22
25. AREA LIGHTING AND WAREHOUSES
Area lighting for the Mainland and Pulau Damar Laut (PDL) are the second largest source of
emissions. As adequate lighting during night operations is a safety requirement, the level of energy
use for area lighting is significant. However there are opportunities for energy reductions through
the use of energy efficient lighting solutions which have the potential to reduce energy usage by
as much as 50%.
Warehouses are the third largest source of emissions. Likewise, there are opportunities for use of
more energy efficient lighting solutions to reduce emissions. The roofs of warehouses are also ideal
locations for installation of solar panels which can potentially reduce overall Scope 2 emissions.
Total emissions % of total
S/N Emission Sources Details
(tCO2e) emissions
1 Cargo Handling Equipment Cement Terminal 1,862 22.4%
2 Area Lighting Area Lighting 1,817 21.9%
3 Warehouse and Yard Warehouses 1,627 19.6%
4 Cargo Handling Equipment Quay Crane 1,589 19.1%
5 Building Jurong Port Admin Building 571 6.9%
6 Warehouse and Yard Reefer Yard 360 4.3%
7 Building General Cargo Office Building 212 2.6%
8 Cargo Handling Equipment Mainland Bulk Unloader 131 1.6%
9 Building West Gate 130 1.5%
10 Building Bulk Cargo Site Office 15 0.1%
Total 8,314 100%
23
26. Jurong Port’s Carbon Footprint
5.4 Scope 1 Emissions
Scope 1 emissions mostly originate from the diesel powered Rubber Tyre Gantry Cranes (RTG)
operated by the port. This represents 96.7% of Scope 1 emissions.
At the time of assessment, Jurong Port owned and operated 34 RTGs. However, due to the scaling
down of our container business, the number of RTGs owned by Jurong Port, and its consequent
emissions, is expected to be reduced from 2010 onwards.
Total emissions % of total
S/N Emission Sources Details
(tCO2e) emissions
1 Cargo Handling Equipment Rubber Tyre Gantry Crane 6,788 96.7%
2 Port Vehicle Port Vehicle 199 2.8%
3 Cargo Handling Equipment Mobile Harbour Crane 33 0.5%
Total 7,020 100%
Jurong Port’s Carbon Footprint
5.5 Cargo Handling Equipment
Combined cargo handling equipment emissions, with the exception of shipping emissions, account
for the largest port related emissions at 12.1% or 15,741 tCO2e.
Of these emission sources, tenant equipment (forklifts, reach-stackers, mobile cranes etc) used for
general cargo operations account for approximately 34% of cargo handling equipment emissions.
However, due to insufficient breakdown of data, tenant equipment emissions cannot be analysed
in greater detail.
The remaining cargo handling equipment emissions are Scope 1 and 2
emissions which fall within Jurong Port’s operational control. These emissions
make up 67.8% of all Scope 1 and 2 emissions. The implication of this 3
pe
is that measures that reduce these emission sources will have the Sco
largest impact on Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
2
1&
pe
Sco Tenant
FIG.12: BREAKDOWN OF CARGO HANDLING Equipment
EQUIPMENT EMISSION SOURCES
Quay 33.9%
Crane
Cement 10.1%
Terminal
Others
11.8%
1.1%
Rubber Tyre
Gantry Crane
43.1%
24
27. 67.8% of scope 1 and 2
emissions come from cargo
handling equipments.
29. Next Steps
6.1 Some Potential Abatement Levers
The emissions inventory provides insights on potential areas where abatement levers can be
implemented in order to reduce its carbon footprint. The following are just some of the potential
abatement levers.
Potential
Emission
S/N Abatement Description Scope Impact
Source
Levers
Implementing shore-to-ship power can help
1 Cold Ironing to reduce carbon emissions and other ship Shipping 3 High
related emissions.
Slowing vessel speeds when they are within
Vessel Speed coastal waters of a port is considered to
2 Shipping 3 High
Reduction be one of the most cost effective ways of
lowering emissions.
Purchase of newer equipment with cleaner
Equipment
engines or replacing engines of old equipment
Replacement with 1, 2
3 will reduce emissions. This can be coupled Cargo Handling Med
Engines Meeting &3
with technologies like regenerative breaking
Cleaner Standards
for greater effect.
Use of cleaner fuels such as biodiesel, Cargo Handling
4 Cleaner Fuels 1&3 Med
oxygenated fuels, CNG, LNG etc. & Trucking
Adoption of electric powered or hybrid
Electrification of RTGs, (diesel-electric) vehicles and cargo handling Cargo Handling
5 1&3 Med
Forklifts and Vehicles equipments as opposed to pure fuel powered & Trucking
ones.
Cargo handling equipments can be retrofitted
Emissions Control with emission control technologies like diesel
6 Cargo Handling 1&3 Med
Technologies particulate filters and selective catalytic
reduction.
Replacing older trucks with cleaner and
7 Cleaner Trucks newer trucks will reduce emissions from Trucking 3 Low
inefficient combustion.
High operational efficiencies will reduce Shipping,
Operational 1, 2
8 emissions resulting from idling vehicles or Cargo Handling High
Improvements &3
reduced travelling distances. & Trucking
LED or Energy Efficient Energy efficient solutions will lower
9 Lighting Systems for emissions resulting from port lighting energy Port Facility 2 Low
Port Lighting consumption.
Use of renewable energy sources may be
Renewable/
used. E.g. installation of solar panels on
10 Alternative Energy Buildings 2 Low
warehouse roofs allows port to generate zero
Sources
emissions electricity and lower emissions.
General improvements to the office building
such as efficient air condition systems, double
11 Building Improvements Buildings 2 Low
glazed glass and energy saving lightings will
reduce overall building energy consumption.
27
30. Next Steps
6.2 Limitations And Improvements
Given that the largest emission sources are vessel emissions, the lack of accurate and reliable
source specific data of these emissions has made our assessment difficult. Nonetheless, the
indicators used to derive the assumptions for this assessment was useful in establishing a baseline
from which abatement strategies can be devised. Moving forward, the details and accuracy of the
data will improve and enable Jurong Port to better track and monitor the success of its abatement
levers. This is particularly important as these shipping emissions related levers are expected to have
the greatest impact on overall port carbon emissions.
Jurong Port needs to implement a system to gather source specific data on shipping and trucking
activities within the port. Jurong Port is already collecting detailed vessel data via JP-Online, our
proprietary IT system. Therefore, the broad infrastructure for data collection is already in place.
Notwithstanding, our operational systems can be expanded to include data mining for information
to aid in measuring emissions. Likewise, Jurong Port also tracks the entry into and exit of all vehicles
from the port. So vehicle specific data can be mined to construct a more complete picture of the
types of vehicles operating within the port.
Next Steps
6.3 Conclusion
For Jurong Port, the development of an emissions inventory is an important first step in developing
future action plans to reduce our carbon footprint as we ensure that, as a company, we are
growing in a manner that is sustainable and environmentally responsible.
Jurong Port will continually improve our carbon footprinting process to reflect shifting operational
and business scopes; for example with the planned expansion of our business operations into new
areas both in and outside of our current port facility. This will necessitate a firm commitment by the
company to enhance the accuracy of our emissions tracking system, set targets as well as to report
our carbon footprint annually.
Jurong Port’s emphasis will continue to be on reducing the carbon footprint within our
immediate span of control, including improving our energy efficiency. At the same time, we
will still take steps to reduce the largest source of carbon emissions in our port i.e. shipping-related
emissions, despite practical limitations that restrict our ability as a port operator to address this
in a comprehensive manner. Notwithstanding, we are committed to working collaboratively with
our community of partners and stakeholders to identify and implement measures that can further
this cause.
28
31. Jurong Port is committed to managing
our carbon footprint and improving our
energy efficiency
32. Appendix A
GREENHOUSE GAS PROTOCOL8
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is the most widely used international accounting tool for government and
business leaders to understand, quantify, and manage GHGs emissions. This is achieved by providing a
general corporate guideline for carbon emissions accounting and reporting.
A decade-long partnership between the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD), it serves as the foundation for nearly every GHG standard and program
in the world - from the International Standards Organization (ISO 14064) to The Climate Registry - as well as
hundreds of GHG inventories prepared by individual companies.
IAPH TOOLBOX FOR GREENHOUSE GASES9
The International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Toolbox provides
users with quick access to the tools needed to start the planning process for addressing port-related air quality
and climate change related issues. This tool Box provides information on air and climate issues and their
relationship to port and maritime activities. Based on actual port experiences, it describes strategies to reduce
emissions and guidance on how to develop a Clean Air Program and a Climate Protection Plan.
WPCI CARBON FOOTPRINTING GUIDANCE DOCUMENT10
The World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI) Carbon Footprinting Guidance Document is produced by WPCI
in collaboration with a number of Ports11. The Guidance Document is aimed at assisting ports interested
in developing their own carbon footprint by providing users a resource for technical guidance. This is
complementary with the IAPH toolbox which provides insights on best practices and emissions reduction
strategies through case studies.
8
“Greenhouse Gas Protocol.” The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. Web. Accessed Dec 2010.
(http://www.ghgprotocol.org/)
9
“IAPH Toolbox for Port Clean Air Programs” International Association of Ports and Harbors. Web. Accessed Dec 2010
(http://iaphtoolbox.wpci.nl/index.html)
10
“Carbon Footprinting for Ports Guidance Document” World Ports Climate Initiative. Web. Accessed Dec 2010.
(http://www.wpci.nl/docs/presentations/PV_DRAFT_WPCI_Carbon_Footprinting_Guidance_Doc-June-30-2010_scg.pdf)
11
Port of Amsterdam, Port of Antwerp, Finnish Port Association, International Association of Ports and Harbors,
Port of Houston Authority, Port of Long Beach, Port Authority of New York/New Jersey, Port of Oakland, Port of Oslo,
Port of Rotterdam Authority, Port of Seattle
30
33. Appendix B
In defining the boundaries of the emissions inventory, there are three boundaries that define and determine the
scope of emissions that will be included in the assessment.
1) PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES
Physical boundaries refer to the geographical area within which all of the port’s physical assets and
infrastructure are located. The physical boundaries for the port include a total land area of 152 hectares
(124 hectares of FTZ). In this particular case, since emissions from ocean going vessels are also included
in the assessment, the physical boundary defined is extended to include a maritime boundary. The
proposed maritime boundary includes the water channels in and around Jurong Port to the anchorage
points for vessels calling in Jurong Port.
BOUNDARIES OF JURONG PORT FACILITY
Out of Scope
Jurong Port Boundaries
2) ORGANISATIONAL BOUNDARIES
Organisational boundaries are used to allocate emissions in a parent company with a more complex
company structure. The boundaries are determined either by the equity approach or the control approach.
Equity approach. Company account for GHG emissions based on the company’s share of equity in the
operation.
Control approach. Companies account for 100% of emissions from operations that they have financial or
operational control over. A company has financial control over the operation if the former has the ability
to direct financial and operating policies of the latter with a view to gaining economic benefits from its
activities. A company has operational control over an operation if the former or one of its subsidiaries has
the full authority to introduce and implement its operating policies for the operation or business process.12
Together, the physical and organisational boundaries define the set of emission sources to be included
in the assessment. In Jurong Port’s case, the physical and organisational boundaries are similar since the
organisational boundaries do not extend beyond the defined physical boundaries.
12
“A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.” The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. Web. Accessed Dec 2010.
(http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf)
31
34. 3) OPERATIONAL BOUNDARIES
Operational boundaries are based on management or financial responsibility of the port, tenant and other
relevant parties. Operational boundaries can be drawn based on the equity, financial or operational control
approach. This report utilizes the operational control approach, as defined in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol13,
in classifying Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.
DETERMINING INVENTORY BOUNDARIES
Physical and organisational boundaries define set of emission sources to be included in study
Physical
boundaries
Organisational
boundaries
Port Related Emission Sources
Operational boundaries define the classification of scope1, 2 and 3 emissions
Operational
boundaries
Within operational control
Outside operational control
Scope 1 & 2 Scope 3
13
“A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.” The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. Web. Accessed Dec 2010.
(http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf)
32
35. Appendix C
Data gaps were observed for the following emission sources:
• Shipping and Tugboat Operations
• Tenant Cargo Handling Equipment
• Trucking and Haulage
Nonetheless, this assessment was able to use available data present in Jurong Port’s records to estimate the
activity level for Scope 3 emission sources. The following indicators were used as the basis of forming the
assumptions required to estimate the emissions. The details of how this data was used to form the assumptions
are elaborated upon in Appendix D.
Emissions Source Indicator
Shipping and Tugboat Operations Vessel call details at Jurong Port
Tenant Cargo Handling Equipment Records of non-JP fuel usage at diesel top-up points
Trucking & Haulage Records of vehicles entering and leaving Jurong Port
33
36. Appendix D
Methodologies: Equations And Assumptions
This document comprises the methodologies, i.e. equations and assumptions, used in estimating emissions for
Jurong Port in the calendar year 2009. The follow sections are the parameters covered in the assessment.
Electricity Consumption D�1
Fuel Consumption D�2
Trucking and Haulage D�3
Refrigerant Loss D�4
Shipping (Vessel) and Tug Boat D�5
EMISSION SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY USED
S/N Emission Sources Methodology
1 Warehouse and Yard Electricity Consumption
2 Buildings
• Jurong Port Admin Building Electricity Consumption
• General Cargo Office Building Electricity Consumption
• Bulk Cargo Site Office Electricity Consumption
• West Gate Electricity Consumption
• Immigration & Checkpoints Authority Station Electricity Consumption
• Penjuru Terminal Electricity Consumption
• Jalan Buroh Electricity Consumption
3 Area Lighting
• Mainland Area Lighting Electricity Consumption
• Pulau Damar Laut Area Lighting Electricity Consumption
4 Cargo Handling Equipment
• Mainland Bulk Unloader Electricity Consumption
• Cement Terminal Electricity Consumption
• Quay Cranes Electricity Consumption
• Rubber Tyred Gantry Cranes Fuel Consumption
• Mobile Harbour Crane Fuel Consumption
• Ro-Ro Ramp Electricity Consumption
• Forklifts, Reach Staker, Mobile Crane Fuel Consumption
5 Port Vehicles Fuel Consumption
6 Trucking and Haulage Trucking and Haulage
7 Refrigerant Loss (Reefer) Refrigerant Loss (Reefer)
8 Shipping Emissions
• Waiting, Hotelling and Manoeuvring Shipping (Vessel) and Tug Boat
9 Harbour Craft Operations
• Tugboat Piloting Activities Shipping (Vessel) and Tug Boat
34
37. Appendix D – Methodologies: Equations And Assumptions
D –1 Electricity Consumption
The calculation procedure is developed based on the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) methodology “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from
electricity consumption”14
The CO2 emission is calculated as per the following formula:
ECO2 =
( Σ E C x E F grid electricity)
i i
1,000
Where:
ECO2 : CO2 emissions from electricity consumption (tCO2e)
ECi : Total annual electricity consumption for area i (KWh)
EFgrid electricity : Singapore’s grid CO2 emissions factor (0.5016 kg CO2e /kWh)15
i : Area covered for carbon footprint estimation
EMISSION SOURCES COVERED UNDER THIS METHODOLOGY
S/N Emission Sources Details
1 Warehouse • Mainland Warehouse
(J1, J2, J3, J4, J5, J6, J7, J8, J9, J10, J11, J12, J12A, J12b,
J13, J15, J16, J17, J14(A/B), J14C, J14 Yard, W/H B)
• Pulau Damar Luat Warehouse
(B13 – incl. CTO office, W15, W16)
• Reefer Point
2 Buildings • Jurong Port Admin Building
• General Cargo Office Building
• Bulk Cargo Site Office
• West Gate
• Immigration & Checkpoints Authority Station
• Penjuru Terminal
• Jalan Buroh
3 Area Lighting • Mainland Area Lighting
• Pulau Damar Laut Area Lighting
4 Cargo Handling Equipment • Mainland Bulk Unloader
• Cement Terminal
• Quay Cranes
• Ro-Ro Ramp
14
“Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption” United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Web. Accessed Dec 2010 (http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/tools/index.html)
15
Emissions factor for electricity purchased from the grid is estimated using the simple operating margin emission factor
available from NEA. Source: “Information on Emission Factors” National Environment Agency. Web. Accessed Dec 2010.
(http://www.nccc.gov.sg/cdm/InformationOnEmissionFactors.pdf)
35
38. Appendix D – Methodologies: Equations And Assumptions
D –2 Fuel Consumption
The emissions from combustion of fuel in vehicles and equipment are calculated based on the United Nation
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) methodology “Tool to calculate project or leakage
emissions from fossil fuel combustion”16
The CO2 emission is calculated based on the following equation:
ECO2 =
( Σ F C x E F Fuel )
i i j
1,000
Where:
ECO2 : CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (tCO2e)
FCi : Total annual fuel combustion for vehicle/equipment i (litre)
EFFuel j
: CO2 emissions coefficient of the fuel used (kg CO2e /litre)17
(Diesel: 2.647kg CO2e /litre)
(Petrol: 2.318kg CO2e /litre)
i : Vehicle/equipment covered for carbon footprint estimation
j : Type of fuel used in i
EMISSION SOURCES COVERED UNDER THIS METHODOLOGY
S/N Emission Sources Details
1 Cargo Handling Equipment • Rubber Tyred Gantry Cranes
• Mobile Harbour Crane
2 Port Vehicles • Port Admin Vehicles
(GCO, BCO, CTO, EE, EPM, FSS, Admin, AETOS)
• JP Forklifts
4 Cargo Handling Equipment • Forklifts
(Tenant)
• Reach Staker
• Mobile Crane
• Mobile Harbour Crane
The assumptions made in the estimation are as follows:
i. Cargo Handling Equipment fuel usage is based on the total non-JP fuel usage captured at the fuel
top-up points located within the port. Since the majority of fuel usage for tenant cargo handling
equipment is drawn from the diesel top-up points within the port, this is considered a good
approximation. It is recognised that there are some leakages in data for diesel topped-up offsite;
however, this number is deemed to be negligible.
16
“Tool to calculate project or leakage emissions from fossil fuel combustion” United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change. Web. Accessed Dec 2010 (http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/tools/index.html)
17
Emission factor from IPCC with density value from UK Energy Statistic (2008).
36
39. Appendix D – Methodologies: Equations And Assumptions
D –3 Trucking and Haulage
The emissions from vehicle movement relating to trucking and haulage within Jurong Port premises is calculated
based on the distance travelled by each vehicle (i.e. from Jurong Port’s gate to the point of destination and vice
versa) and the respective emissions for the vehicle.
The CO2 emission is calculated based on the following equation:
ECO2 =
(Σ n
i=1 D T x N x E C vehicle )
1,000
Where:
ECO2 : CO2 emissions from vehicle movement in Jurong Port (tCO2e)
ECvehicle : CO2 emissions coefficient for the vehicle per unit distance travelled
(kg CO2/km)
DT : Average distance travelled by each vehicle (km)18
N : CO2 emissions coefficient of the fuel used (kg CO2e /litre)19
n : Total number of gates (West gate and Main gate)
The assumptions made in the estimation are as follows:
i. All the vehicles are diesel Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV), with tonnage of greater than 17 tonnes. The CO2
emission factor (EF) of this type of vehicle is 0.93362 kg CO2e/vehicle km.
ii. The number of general cargo vehicles which went through the main gate is the sum of vehicles assigned
with Unloading Advice (UA) and Delivery Note (DN).
iii. The number of vehicles for bulk cargo which went through the main gate was determined by dividing
the total cargo weight (for incoming and outgoing vehicles) with the estimated average cargo weight.
The estimated average weight of the cargo is calculated as follows:
a. Outgoing vehicles. It is estimated that 50% of the vehicles carries 30 tonnes per vehicle and the
other 50% carries 20 tonnes per vehicle, thus the average cargo weight is 25 tonnes per vehicle.
b. Incoming vehicles. It is estimated that all the vehicles carries 20 tonnes per vehicle.
iv. The distance travelled by each vehicle was estimated by measuring the round trip distance between the
gate and its destination within the port. The destination is assumed based on the type of vehicle (container
to container terminal etc). The following is the assumed distance for each type of vehicle
a. 2.4 km (Container vehicles)
b. 2.8 km (60% of general cargo vehicles)
c. 1.0 km (30% of general cargo vehicles)
d. 4.4 km (10% of general cargo vehicles)
e. 2.2 km (80% of bulk cargo vehicles)
f. 0.5 km (20% of bulk cargo vehicles)
v. All data was annualized from the available data for the period Jul 09 – Dec 09.
18
The distance travelled in this equation is based on the return trip (i.e. gate-point destination-gate), except for bulk
cargo in main gate where the vehicles are classified according to incoming and outgoing. One-way trip distance
is applicable for bulk cargo in main gate.
19
Emission factor from IPCC with density value from UK Energy Statistic (2008).
37
40. Appendix D – Methodologies: Equations And Assumptions
D –4 Refrigerant Loss
The calculation procedure for refrigerant loss due to reefer containers is based on the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 3, Chapter 720. In the case where the quantity of the
refrigerant to replace the loss amount is not available, the annual loss is estimated on a default percentage
loss provided by the IPCC.
The emission due to refrigerant loss is calculated based on the following formula:
DS
Σ i ( ARC x EF x x N i x GWPRefrigerant)
ECO2 = 365
1,000
Where:
ECO2 : CO2 emissions from refrigerant loss in reefer containers (tCO2e)
ARC : Annual refrigerant charge in reefer containers21 (5.5kg)
EF : Emissions factor or leakage of refrigerant22 (50%)
DS : Duration of stay of reefer containers in Jurong Port (days)
Ni : Annual number of reefer containers in Jurong Port for reefer size i
GWPRefrigerant : Global Warming Potential of refrigerant in reefer containers,
i.e. HFC 134a (1,300)
i : Index for size of reefer containers (i.e. 20ft and 40ft)
The assumptions made in the estimation are as follows:
i. As the refrigerant type used in the reefer containers (at Jurong Port) is not available, HFC 134a,
a common refrigerant used in typical reefer container23, is assumed to be used.
ii. As the total refrigerant charge for the reefer containers is not available, an average value of 5.5kg
from the IPCC Guideline is used.
iii. As the reefer containers are not stationed permanently at Jurong Port, the refrigerant leakage
is estimated based on refrigerant leakage percentage as per 2006 IPCC Guideline and the
duration of stay.
20
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/3_volume/v3_7_ch_7_ODS_Substitutes.pdf
21
Annual refrigerant charge is an average from the range provided in table 7.9 volume 3 chapter 7 IPCC 2006
22
Emissions factor is obtained from Table 7.9 IPCC 2006 Guideline Volume 3 Chapter 7. Reefer container is considered
as transport refrigeration
23
Type of refrigerant is assumed to be HFC 134a as per common refrigerant used in reefer container according to
http://www.energy.kth.se/index.asp?pnr=11&ID=1383&lang=0
38
41. Appendix D – Methodologies: Equations And Assumptions
D –5 Shipping (Vessel) and Tug Boat
The emission from shipping (vessel) and tug boat activities in the Jurong Port premises is calculated based
on ship movement methodology by EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook, December 2006 for
shipping activities.
SHIPPING (VESSEL) EMISSIONS
The emission from vessel activities is calculated as per the following equation:
ti
Σ i [( Σ i 24 hrs x F j ) x N j x EF ]
ECO2 =
1,000
Where:
ECO2 : CO2 emissions from shipping (vessel) activities in the port (tCO2e)
i : Index for shipping (vessel) activities (i.e. waiting berthing or hotelling
and manoeuvring
j : Index for type of ships identified (i.e. cargo, container and tug)
ti : Time spend during each vessel activity i (day)
Fj : Fuel consumption rate for each ship j as a function of gross tonnage
(tonne/day)
Nj : Total number of each type of ship j (vessel)
EF : Emissions factor of the fuel combusted in the vessel (kg CO2e /tonne)
(3,170 kg/tonnes fuel)24
The assumptions made in the estimation are as followss:
i. The ships are classified into 3 different categories which are general cargo, container and tugs.
All containers related ships are classified as “Container”. Tug boats are classified as “Tugs”,
while remaining are classified as “General Cargo”
ii. As the waiting and manoeuvring time for each ship is not availability, the following is assumed
for all ships:
a. Average waiting time is 1.17 hours as per recorded
b. Average manoeuvring time is taken as 4 hours
24
Emissions factor is based on Table 8.1 of EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook, December 2006
(http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR4/B842vs3.4.pdf)
39
42. The fuel consumption rate of each type of ship (vessel) is based on the rate corresponding to the gross tonnage
(GT) of the ship. This fuel consumption rate is given in the following table25.
Vessel Type Fuel Consumption Rate (tonne/day)
General Cargo 9.8197 + 0.00143 * GT
Container 8.0552 + 0.00235 * GT
Tugs 5.6511 + 0.01048 * GT
TUG BOAT EMISSION
The emission from tug boat activities is calculated based on the following equation:
Σ i ( N j x F j x ttug x E F )
ECO2 =
1,000
ECO2 : CO2 emissions from tug boat operations (tCO2e)
j : Tug boat size (i.e. small, medium or big)
ttug : Duration of tug boat operations (hr)
Fj : Fuel consumption rate for tug boats given size j (tonne/day)
Nj : Number of tug boats in operation for each tug boat size j (vessel)
EF : Emissions factor of the fuel combusted in tug boat (kg CO2e /tonne)
(3,170 kg/tonnes fuel)26
The assumptions made in the estimation are as follows:
i. As data for average gross tonnage (GT) for each tug boat operating in Jurong Port is unknown, the
gross tonnage (GT) of each tug boat size is assumed as either the median or the lowest value in the
range describe below. The range is derived as per MPA’s definition27.
Tug Boat Size Lower Limit Upper Limit Average
Small 10 16 13
Medium 17 25 21
Big 26 � 26
25
The fuel consumption rate is based on Table 8.6 of EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook, December 2006
26
Emissions factor is based on Table 8.1 of EMEP/CORINAIR Emission Inventory Guidebook, December 2006
(http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/EMEPCORINAIR4/B842vs3.4.pdf)
27
MPA: Maritime and Port Authority, Singapore
40
43. Glossary
Anchorage Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
The portion of a harbour or area outside a harbour suitable Substances in the atmosphere that absorb radiated heat
for anchoring or in which ships are permitted to anchor. form the earth’s surface and also radiate heat back to
the surface, causing a net retention of heat energy.
Anthropogenic Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are
Resulting from the influence of human beings. common examples.
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) Haulage
This refers to a unit for which air emissions are The transport of goods by road or rail.
standardised for comparison based on their “global
warming potential” (GWP) as greenhouse gases. Each Hotelling
greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in Refers to a ship’s operations at berth, and includes
the atmosphere so will be presented in units of carbon providing electric power for lights and loading equipment,
equivalents, which weighs each gas by its GWP relative climate control for cargo and crew as well as heating.
to carbon dioxide. For example, methane traps over
21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, Light-Emitting Diode (LED)
and nitrous oxide absorbs 310 times more heat per A semiconductor device that emits visible light and has
molecule than carbon dioxide. low energy requirements and higher efficiency compared
to incandescent and fluorescent illuminating devices.
Carbon Footprint
The amount of greenhouse gases and specifically carbon Mobile Harbour Crane
dioxide emitted by a company, household or individual See ‘Cargo Handling Equipment’.
during a given period.
Quay Crane
Cargo Handling Equipment A common piece of cargo handling equipment at marine
Equipment used to move cargo to and from marine vessels, terminals used to transfer containers from ship to shore
railcars and trucks. This includes equipment such as and vice versa.
cranes, rubber tyre gantry cranes, terminal trucks, container Reefer
handlers, bulk loaders, and forklifts
A refrigerated container.
Carbon Tax Refrigerant
An environmental tax that is levied on the carbon content A compound used in a heat cycle that undergoes a phase
of fuels used. change from gas to liquid and back. Used typically in
refrigerators and freezers.
Cement Terminal
A terminal in Jurong Port dedicated to cement operations. Regenerative Breaking
Cold Ironing An energy recovery mechanism which converts kinetic
energy into another form, which can be used immediately
Also called “Alternative Maritime Power” and more
or stored for later use.
generally referred to as “Shore Power.” This specifically
refers to an electrical connection made between the vessel Rubber Tyre Gantry Crane (RTG)
and the terminal to provide full or partial operational A common piece of cargo handling equipment at marine
power during hotelling periods. The primary motivation for terminals used to transfer containers from stacked storage
cold ironing has been as a method to reduce emissions to a vehicle.
from the exhausts of auxiliary engines that would normally
operate during hotelling. “Cold iron” is a reference to Roll-on-Roll-off (Ro-Ro)
when ships mainly used boilers to produce steam for A vessel featuring a built-in ramp for wheeled cargo to
propulsion, heat, and power. When the steam production be ‘rolled-on’ and ‘rolled-off” of the vessel. In Jurong Port’s
was shut down, the iron in the boiler housing would context it is the shore side infrastructure that support said
go cold. vessel operations.
Diesel Particulate Filter Selective Catalytic Reduction
A filter installed on the exhaust pipe of diesel engine A process where a gaseous or liquid reductant (most
to physically separate particulate matter from the commonly ammonia or urea) is added to the flue or
exhaust stream. Some filters are single use (disposable), exhaust gas stream and absorbed onto a catalyst.
while others are designed to burn off the accumulated The reductant reacts with NOX in the exhaust gas to
particulate, either through the use of a catalyst (passive), form H2O (water vapour) and N2 (nitrogen gas).
or through an active technology, such as a fuel burner
which heats the filter to soot combustion temperatures. Tugboat (Tug)
A boat that manoeuvres vessels by pushing or
Emissions Factor towing them.
A number specific to an engine or system that describes
the amount of a pollutant that is generated per unit of Waterway
activity. Any given navigable body of water.
41
44. Jurong Port aspires to be a cleaner and greener port
and is embarking on a journey to achieving greater
carbon and energy efficiency through implementation
of measures to its operations and working with its
community of stakeholders & partners.
46. About Jurong Port
Jurong Port is a leading international multi-purpose
port operator and the only multi-purpose gateway
port in Singapore. The port handles bulk, breakbulk
(general) and container cargo, with more than
40,000 vessel-calls annually.
The Port’s General Cargo Terminal is the hub for steel products, metals, heavy machinery,
conventional containers, project cargo including roll-on-roll-off cargo and more. Its Bulk Cargo
Terminal handles cement, copper slag and sugar imports through its fully-enclosed and non-pollutive
air slide conveyor systems. In addition, the port offers integrated facilities to support cargo storage,
packing, consolidation and distribution activities in its Free Trade Zone (FTZ). It is also an approved
facility by the London Metal Exchange (LME) for the storage of LME-traded metals.
Jurong Port has won numerous awards since its corporatisation in 2001, having collected some 13
awards across various categories. In 2010, Jurong Port was awarded the Multi-Purpose Terminal
Operator of the Year (Asia Pacific) Award at the Frost and Sullivan Asia Pacific Transportation &
Logistics Awards 2010.
Jurong Port aspires to be a cleaner and greener port and is embarking on a journey to achieving
greater carbon and energy efficiency through implementation of measures to its operations and
working with its community of stakeholders & partners. Jurong Port is also a founding partner of
the Energy Efficiency National Partnership in Singapore.
44
47. Disclaimer: “All rights reserved. This Carbon Footprint Report (Report) is produced for internal informational and business purposes by Jurong Port Pte Ltd
(JPPL) and may be shared with external parties, where necessary. Nothing in this Report constitute an endorsement, approval or recommendation of any
kind by any persons or organisations.
JPPL and participating persons and organisations make no warranties or representations of any kind regarding the information in this Report, including,
without limitation, accuracy, application, compliance with any law or regulation, or any other purpose. The information and related materials are provided
“as is” basis and should not be used as a substitute for seeking professional advice. In no event will JPPL /any person or any organisation be responsible
for damages of any kind resulting from the use or reliance upon the Report.
All expressed opinions, suggestions, recommendations, and conclusions in this Report are those of JPPL and not of any participating person or organisation.”
48. Jurong Port Pte Ltd 37 Jurong Port Road Singapore 619110 www.jp.com.sg
This Report is Printed with FSC 100%
Recycled Paper and FSC Credited Printer
