The document summarizes information from a presentation on measuring and modeling the environmental impacts of low emission shipping. It discusses several key points: 1) Measurements have found that SECA restrictions did not dramatically increase scrubber installations due to low fuel prices and high scrubber costs. Compliance monitoring found good compliance rates but some non-compliance by specific ship owners. 2) Measurements of emissions from LNG-powered vessels and those using scrubbers to reduce sulfur emissions are ongoing to better understand their impacts. 3) An investment calculator is under construction to help analyze risks, costs, and returns of different fuel and technology options for reducing emissions from shipping.

1. Environmental impact of low
emission shipping: measurements
and modelling strategies
Passenger Ship Sustainability
Southampton | Nov 14-15, 2017
Sari Repka

4. Source: Rolls Royce
Photo: Anna Reunamo
Photo: Jörg Beecken
Sulphur Emission Control Area impact categories: The big picture of EnviSum
Environmental impacts Benefits of clean nature and biodiversity as
valued by citizens and society
Costs: potential inefficiency
Health impacts Benefits of reduced mortality and illness for
citizens and society
Costs: potential inefficiency
Business impacts: ecological
goods
Benefits of enhanced commercial ecological
resources (e.g. fish, crops, forest) for
businesses and society
Business impacts: compliance Costs of compliance for the maritime industry,
its customers, and society
Business impacts: innovation Benefits for cleantech industries and on
innovation inducement in cleaner shipping
Administrative impacts Costs of administration, including direct and
indirect administration costs
Macro-economic impacts The macroeconomic perspective: e.g. national
competitiveness
Lähteenmäki-Uutela A., Repka S., Haukioja, T., Pohjola T. 2017. How to recognize and
measure the economic impacts of an environmental regulation: case SECA. Journal of Cleaner
154:553-565.

5. Air pollution avoided due to SECA (2015)
SO2
SO4
SIA PM2.5

6. Tri-city 2014
NO2 [g/m3]
Tri-city 2014
SO2 [g/m3]
Tri-city 2014
PM10 [g/m3]
Tri-city 2014
PM2.5 [g/m3]
Local model
calculation
results
Tri-City pollutant
total concentrations

7. Tri-city 2014
Ships – berthing NO2
[g/m3]
Tri-city 2014
Ships – manouevring NO2
[g/m3]
Tri-city 2014
Ships – berthing SO2
[g/m3]
Tri-city 2014
Ships – manouevring SO2
[g/m3]
Local model
calculation
results
Tri-City pollutant
concentrations
resulted from port
operation

8. • SECA restrictions did not result in a dramatic increase in scrubber
installations
• Low fuel prices and high investments cost of EGCS on ships has
pushed owners to low sulphur fuel oil option
• Global SOx emissions reductions in 2020 may contribute to the
increased interest and cost-effectiveness of EGCS
• Black carbon not decreased with scrubbers
• The results of the surveys conducted on ships equipped with
EGCS indicate a number of technical aspects requiring
modification and improvement
Efficiency of scrubbers and particle emissions

9. Measurements on LNG-powered vessels ongoing
• Two LNG carriers with main propulsion: Dual-Fuel Diesel-Electric
(DFDE)
and Fuel LNG/HFO/MDO have been investigated
• Further attempts are made to organize survey on ships propelled with
LNG
• Difficulty in getting access to additional ships, methane slip detected

10. Example of ship measurements
CO2
SO2_5s, SO2, CH4
NOx

11. • The sniffer method is fully operational, for fixed sites and airborne
measurements
• English Channel: 13 % of the ships were doing fuel switching too early
starting at 4W when leaving the SECA
• Around Denmark and southern Baltic and North sea there is in general good
compliance rate, 96 % at great Belt bridge, 94 % from airborne.
• Some specific ship owners/lines are often encountered with high emissions
(flag less important)
• Several ferry lines have been operating with malfunctioning scrubbers.
• Some cruiser lines makes long term tests with permission from non SECA
flagtest
• Enforcement still insufficient
Results on compliance with SECA regulation

12. First empirical Results:
Economic Impacts of SECA in BSR
• Again: No high SECA impact in BSR due to low bunker prices
• Survey revealed highest impact on “innovation” & “branding”
• #scrubber installations in BSR stagnating (ca. 85)
• Danish participants were 6 times more positive about overall impact of SECA
compared to Estonians
• Ports feared a negative change of modal split and of cargo flows while the ship-
owners were relaxed
• Also: No clear direction for future fuel
• Eastern BSR-EU countries are more positive towards LNG
• BSR ships and ferry lines use LS fuel/MGO, scrubber or LNG
• LS fuel/MGO: majority of the ships in BSR
• LNG ferries: Tallink Silja and Viking Line
• Scrubber: Color Line, Scandlines, Stena
• LNG driven ships use parallel MGO for auxiliary engines
• Supply of LS fuels is expected to grow but MGO cheaper than ULSFO
• BSR is on the forefront of clean shipping campaigns, but
• Ports delayed in building infrastructure and offering alternative fuels
• NECA regulations in BSR from 2021
• No parallel use of scrubber and Selective Catalytic Reduction SCR
• Problem: scrubber residual treatments

13. Under construction:
EnviSuM Investment Calculator
Web Application Prototype
• Risk management and times series
analysis for spread of different fuel types
• Portfolio management analysis
• Asset allocation management
• Creating a dashboard based on available
and future possible solutions

14. FURTHER INFORMATION
Project Manager, PhD Sari Repka
Project Manager
University of Turku, Finland
Tel. +358-40-8019206
E-mail: sari.repka@utu.fi
@EnviSuMproject
https://blogit.utu.fi/envisum/
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q9yByQdixQ&t=11s

15. PROJECT PARTNERSHIP