Act Now to Achieve IMO Carbon Targets – ITF

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by “at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008” aligns the shipping sector with the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Strong actions are needed. The IMO strategy relies on technological innovation and alternative energy sources for global shipping, and support of governments and shipping customers will be essential to realise this new level of ambition.

With intuitive timing, a tremendous amount of guidance has just been made available by the International Transport Forum, releasing a series of reports over the last month that provide comprehensive analysis of the options and actions needed by a host of players in the global maritime industry. They suggest a path forward based on assessments of advancing technologies and best practices in operational management and government policy being used around the world to tackle the issue.

Decarbonising Maritime Transport – Pathways to zero-carbon shipping by 2035

This report explores the full range measures to effectively reduce shipping emissions, which represent 2.6% of total global emissions, and offers recommendations on policies to incentivise decarbonisation. The business-as-usual scenario projects 23% growth in carbon emissions from international shipping by 2035, yet with maximum deployment of currently known technologies it’s possible to reach almost complete decarbonisation in that time.

Alternative fuels and renewable energy can deliver much of required reductions, combined with technological and operational measures to improve energy efficiency. Clear guidance and interventions from governments will be essential to accelerate commercial viability, technical feasibility and investment in sustainable technologies and fuels.

The associated Case of Sweden report analyses why the Swedish shipping industry are pioneers of low-carbon shipping and how other countries can learn from their success. Their remarkable progress in LNG, electric and methanol-powered vessels can be explained by stakeholder cooperation between shipping companies and large Swedish shippers dedicated to green supply chains, along with financial support and regulation from government.

ship CO2 visual

Visualisation of CO2e emission across global shipping routes in 2015. Source: ITF

Reducing Shipping Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Lessons from Port-Based Incentives

Ports have a crucial role to play in facilitating the reduction of shipping emissions. This report identifies port-based incentives currently in place, examining their features and impacts. Most common is the environmentally-differentiated port fee, applied in 28 of the 100 largest ports, yet impacts on global shipping emissions are only marginal. It argues for wider, harmonised application of green port fees, green berth-allocation policies, green procurement and carbon pricing schemes to help enforce the “polluter pays” principle.

Fuelling Maritime Shipping with Liquefied Natural Gas – The Case of Japan

Japan is positioning itself to become the Asian hub for bunkering LNG-fuelled ships on the main East-West trade lanes. Still a marginal share of the world’s fleet, 118 LNG-fuelled vessels currently operating globally will double by 2020 and CMA CGM’s order of nine LNG-enabled mega-container ships is expected to be followed by competitors. Other Asian ports are developing similar bunkering facilities, with Singapore and Japan collaborating on an Asian bunkering network.

LNG’s growth is driven by regulations to reduce SOx and NOx emissions from maritime transport. Its advantages over conventional fuels can reduce ship carbon emissions by 20% but “methane slip” releases fugitive emissions that can negate its greenhouse gas impact. Further technological development is needed to enhance LNG as a greenhouse-friendly transition fuel in shipping.

ship LNG heatmap

 Heatmap of LNG-fuelled ship positions. Source: DNV GL

Important themes for Australia

Two red spots on the above graphic represent the two dual-fuel LNG/diesel powered vessels now operating in Australia – the Siem Thiima platform support vessel services Woodside oil & gas fields on the North West Shelf, and the SeaRoad Mersey II Ro-Ro carries passengers, vehicles and freight across Bass Strait. Several vessels plying Bass Strait are due for replacement, with operators considering LNG-enabled vessels to be covered for the IMO sulphur rules coming in 2020.

Japan is the world’s biggest importer of LNG, much sourced from Australia. Woodside, Australia’s biggest LNG producer, is leading a ‘green corridor’ initiative to develop LNG as a marine fuel for iron ore carriers operating from north-west Australia to China and north Asia. The project aims to build LNG infrastructure and bunkering facilities in the Pilbara, and Woodside has partnered with key mining and shipping players to design vessels and bunkering facilities for a grand vision with a range of benefits beyond emissions reduction, including energy security, regional development and upskilling workforce capability. Yet Australia’s climate policy focus on renewable energy means there’s little government support available. The irony of Japan fuelling LNG ships coming to the Pilbara with Australia’s own gas is wasteful not just in a ‘food miles’ sense, but also the lack of value-add to our plentiful raw resources.

The ITF reports highlight the role of leading ‘green ship index’ RightShip in actions that shippers, charterers, banks and ports can take to decarbonise shipping. Their GHG Emissions Rating covers 76,000 ships, and RightShip recently announced Australia’s major ship charterer Incitec Pivot as the first customer for its new carbon neutral shipping solution built on its carbon accounting tool that measures the ship-sourced scope 3 emissions of shipping customers. While some shipping lines and freight forwarders offer a carbon offset service for containerised freight movements, the size of the environmental benefit of offsetting 73,000 tonnes of CO2e each year from 200 bulk ship charters is a game-changer for supply chain emissions reduction.

Global Shippers Forum

It’s timely also then that next week Australia hosts the world’s most senior gathering of shippers, trade logistics providers and government representatives at the Global Shippers Forum in Melbourne. There’s keen interest in the Global Reform session tackling the issue of carbon emissions in the international supply chain, touching on the work of the Global Logistics Emissions Council who’ve developed a universal method for calculating logistics emissions from road, rail, air, sea and transhipment centres to help control greenhouse gas emissions across whole logistics supply chains.

As part of the global multi-modal supply chain that will keep growing with international trade, shipping’s carbon reduction target fills another piece of the puzzle in a world now aiming for net zero emissions, and we must act now.

#GLECFramework

@smartfreightctr

Advertisements

“Run on Less” proves more is possible, now

The “Run on Less” truck fuel efficiency experiment achieved outstanding results over 10 miles per gallon, crediting its’ success to conscientious drivers taking advantage of the best fuel-saving technologies available today.

Trucks from 6 fleets and an owner-operator traversed a range of cross-country USA routes, duty cycles and truck profiles over 17 days in the experiment backed by the US EPA Smartway program.

Despite enduring two major hurricanes and their operational consequences, the vehicles carrying real customer loads smashed the US national average of 6.4 mpg to show transport operators around the world what’s possible in fuel-efficient trucking.

Interestingly for Australian operators, aerodynamic technologies played a big role in lowering fuel consumption, especially trailer tails which aren’t legal in this country. Solar technology is also becoming viable, with 3 trailers using solar power for hotel loads, charging batteries or assisting auxiliary systems.

A collection of learnings about fuel-saving technologies and practices are available at the Run On Less website, where a webinar on the experiment will soon be available. Find detailed Confidence Reports on particular technologies with indicative paybacks at www.truckingefficiency.org, where operators can assess the pro’s and con’s of a range of fuel-saving techniques to suit their business needs.

Fuel is a linehaul truck’s biggest variable cost, so what would a 50% improvement do for your competitive position and bottom line?

How to lift energy productivity in Freight Transport

A Roadmap to double energy productivity in Freight Transport by 2030” is now released for comment, and yours will be most welcome.

Urgent action is needed to generate more economic value from the energy used to move freight in Australia, as congested cities increasingly constrain productivity across the economy. Decisions made today can lock-in energy-intensive freight transport activities for decades.

Published by the Australian Alliance for Energy Productivity using extensive consultation with leading transport businesses, industry associations and government stakeholders, the roadmap aims to agree actions and priorities for both industry and government under the National Energy Productivity Plan (NEPP).

Transport is now Australia’s largest energy user, and with the freight task to grow 25% over the next decade, it will have ever-greater influence on congestion, climate change, air pollution and economic productivity across all sectors. The transport sector has some of the most cost-effective opportunities for energy and emissions savings, yet as the NEPP 2016 annual report notes, raising energy productivity in freight and commercial transport relies largely on voluntary action, and little progress is being made.

The Roadmap considers trends that will shape future energy use in the sector, including increasing urbanisation, a shift to renewable energy, vehicle electrification, connectivity and intelligent transport systems, automation and business model transformation. It gauges the extent of improvements possible via known technologies; it highlights the uncertainty expected from various levels of disruption that is coming; and it identifies measures to help the transition to a much more energy-productive freight sector.

Key suggestions will be incorporated into its final version, so please check it out and contribute your ideas.

 

Shipping’s Growing Carbon Gap

sinking_container_ship

On the face of it, Shipping is the most efficient of freight transport modes. Intermodal shipping containers kick-started rapid growth in trade globalisation 60 years ago, and container ships, tankers and bulk carriers have been getting bigger ever since. Carrying more freight with less fuel on a tonne-mile basis, shipping has the highest energy productivity of all transport modes.

Yet looks can be deceiving. While international shipping contributes 2.4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, business-as-usual could see this explode to a whopping 18% by 2050. As trade growth increases demand, today’s fleet burns the dirtiest transport fuels, and a new report shows the market doesn’t reward ship owners who invest in the latest fuel- and carbon-efficient technologies.

When you consider the scale of the sector’s emission reductions that need to start now to contribute to the COP 21 Paris Agreement target of 1.5°C to 2°C global warming, there’s clearly an enormous decarbonisation gap that threatens to strand shipping assets in a nightmare of devaluations if potential regulatory policies come into play. Current freight flow stoppages due to Hanjin Shipping’s bankruptcy show the disruption shipping company failures can cause.

Markets don’t reward efficiency

The UCL Energy Institute report paints a sad 10-year picture of free-market myopia that finds the latest fuel efficient ships have no better market performance in terms of revenue or usage than vessels with decades-old technologies.

So why wouldn’t cheaper-to-run ships be used more than old ones? Well, today’s record-high shipping capacity drives a low freight rate market, so owners of highly efficient ships must match reduced market rates while passing on fuel savings to charterers, who get the win-win all to themselves.

OK, with fuel prices low the past few years I can understand fuel efficiency has less profile now, but back when capacity was less, charter rates higher and fuel through the roof the report shows it still didn’t seem to get much consideration from charterers. And operating speeds were found to be slower for the more efficient ships, when I would’ve thought the opposite. If fuel cost is barely being considered, maybe its significance in vessel operating cost structures isn’t as big as you’d think, especially in the charterers’ or cargo-owners’ total end-to-end cargo delivery costs.

Market inaction breeds future risks

Shipping customers doom themselves to higher costs over the long term by not incentivising efficient newbuilds and retrofits now.

Current regulation such as the Energy Efficiency Design Index will take forever to have much effect, so if the International Maritime Organisation can’t show improvement in the industry then a UN/State/regional-level carbon price may be forced upon it.

The RightShip GHG Emissions Rating system aims to fix information barriers but the information’s importance needs to influence charterers so they demand GHG ratings or validated fuel efficiency numbers from owners before contracting. Charterers and brokers need to understand the value/net benefit in whole-of-contract-life cost terms, and clearly now only Cargill, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and others who use the RightShip ratings system do.

But do these customers actually pay a premium for the good GHG Rating ships they’re using? Their market power allows them to screw rates down as well as anybody. Given GHG Rating users handle 20% of world trade, the report shows no benefit is flowing through to ship owners in better rates or utilisation, leaving little incentive for new fuel efficiency investments or substandard vessels to leave the market.

Who will lead change?

Community expectations to close the decarbonisation gap will come to bear on shipping from governments, investors and from within.

While further regulation may be justified, a mandatory efficiency standard will be difficult to apply to old vessels. Ultimately it might take a carbon price passed directly to charterers supported by voluntary Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator and Existing Vessel Design Index measures with in-service validation and benchmarking to force and help charterers change their decision-making.

Investors increasingly vote with their wallets to make boards respond to green preferences that are rationally based on financial sustainability and managing risks in a zero carbon future.

Owners of efficient ships must better promote their value proposition that reduces costs, positions for green demand and lowers regulatory risk for customers and the industry. Cargo owners, charterers, brokers, ports, banks, industry associations, suppliers and employees can all influence fuel efficiency improvements in the shipping fleet.

The oversupply of ships that helped take down industry giant Hanjin Shipping can only be fixed by scrapping old inefficient vessels, and the shipping market must take the lead now for its long term benefit.

What does a COP21 goal of net zero emissions mean for Freight Transport?

Business leaders are calling for a goal of net zero emissions to be set at the UN Climate Change Conference COP21 in Paris this week. With 7% of global emissions coming from international freight transport, and growth in globalisation expected to increase such emissions nearly fourfold by 2050, the response from the logistics industry will be fundamental to meeting that goal. Yet for Freight Transport to achieve zero carbon, a key constraint is having good information all supply chain players can trust.

The Volkswagen saga shows how gaps in emission measurement standards or their application can shatter our faith in claims regarding emissions or fuel performance. Transport operators make a variety of statements about their environmental credentials, but how can freight buyers compare options with confidence?

A new non-profit, the Smart Freight Centre, is leading a collaboration of the world’s biggest shippers and transport companies to create a transparent, universal method of calculating logistics emissions along supply chains so people can make better decisions on how to move freight in the greenest way.

Data Drives Emissions Down

Transporters act in various ways to reduce energy use and emissions intensity across all logistics sectors to save money, reduce risk and meet growing customer demands for green transport services.

Good information is crucial for transporters to understand the real costs and benefits of potential emissions savings opportunities. It can be difficult to isolate gains produced by a single initiative given the amount of variables that affect fuel economy. Uncertainty about the environmental performance of alternative fuels and engine technologies is compounded by the lack of reliable case study information on their effectiveness for each transport mode. The integrity of external information sources relies on what exactly was measured, how and by who, and how the data applies to a specific task, the equipment configurations and local conditions.

In response, a growing number of collaborative groups are assessing technologies and practices that enable low carbon transport and share information on what works and what doesn’t.

Measuring the Whole Supply Chain

At a broader level we must consider a supply chain’s end-to-end profile. Measuring emissions from a train, truck, plane or ship is one thing, but allocating shares of those emissions to each freight item carried gets complicated across all legs of multi-modal freight movements criss-crossing the globe.

Online retail is creating exponential growth in single-item deliveries direct to homes and workplaces from worldwide sources. Growing consumer demand takes priority over the efficiencies of traditional logistics models, where bulk shipments via distribution centres to retail stores provide economies of scale for more energy- and emissions-efficient freight. Light commercial vans are the fastest growing traffic category in many countries, yet vans are second only to aircraft in energy consumed per tonne kilometre and generate over four times more CO2 per tonne-km than the average 44 tonne truck. This restructuring of supply chains affects the environmental footprint differently across geographies and logistics sectors.

Increasingly, freight buyers need to better understand the sources of logistics emissions along their supply chains, where freight can account for 25% or more of a product’s lifecycle emissions.

One Common Standard

The Smart Freight Centre hosts a collaboration of business and associated stakeholders creating a global framework for logistics emissions accounting. In 2014 they established the Global Logistics Emissions Council (GLEC) to develop a universal and transparent way of calculating logistics emissions across global multi-modal supply chains so that shippers and logistics providers can include carbon footprints in business decisions, alongside costs, time and reliability when selecting modes, routes and carriers.

GLEC will harmonise existing methods and address gaps to devise an assurance standard in freight logistics emissions that enables more accurate and reliable benchmarking and realistic emission reduction strategies. Its’ framework builds on:

To better understand how it will operate for both shippers and logistics service providers in real world supply chains, a series of case studies is underway to gauge the practical availability of data and how it can be used to optimise low carbon freight movements. By simplifying a complex business with a common standard everyone can use to compare green logistics options, people can confidently use good information to reduce both environmental impact and cost.

Towards Zero Carbon Transport

Achieving net zero transport emissions requires using less fuel in tonne-kilometre terms (a key energy productivity metric) and using the cleanest fuels that suit particular freight tasks. The unavoidable residual emissions can then be neutralised by purchasing carbon offsets based on precise and trustworthy emissions measurement.

As global freight emissions rise, a harmonised method for emissions accounting becomes increasingly necessary. Supply chain players large and small must have good emissions information to maintain competitiveness and prepare for the complexity of a carbon-constrained world.

Consultation workshops in the USA, Latin America, Europe and Asia are inviting public comment on the GLEC Framework, so download it to learn more. If you think about how this tool can improve your freight decision-making, you can help develop a logistics emissions methodology that assists Freight Transport to realise the net zero emissions goal.

Think the emissions scandal is all about Volkswagen? Think again.

The Volkswagen emission scandal is rocking the corporate world and it’s just the beginning. The CEO is gone, the workforce shamed and Germany’s flagship industry is a national embarrassment. But if you think it’s all about Volkswagen, think again, because it seems the system has been open to gaming by vehicle manufacturers for years.

Dodgy Test Regime

A new article from the The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) exposes systemic flaws in the European vehicle testing regime. Poor regulatory oversight allows vehicle manufacturers to exploit tolerances in vehicle test procedures with impunity. By showing better fuel consumption and emissions ratings, the market rewards them as consumers vote with their wallets to save fuel costs and reduce environmental impacts. It results in a perverse incentive for manufacturers to spend as much of their efforts perfecting the test as they do improving efficiency of the vehicle itself.

Vehicles are tested in laboratories and on special test tracks to assess their various performance characteristics, including fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, to show the vehicle meets legislated minimum performance standards and support marketing claims. Volkswagen vehicles are now found to be compliant under test conditions but not in ordinary use, with software installed to let the vehicle pass the test yet operate in service with much higher emissions.

Clearly illegal and unethical, Volkswagen is deservedly copping the brunt right now, but the scandal reveals a culture among vehicle manufacturers who can potentially ‘game’ a system that has holes in it so great you could drive a B-Double truck through, completely legally of course. The integrity of all European vehicle fuel consumption and emissions claims are now in doubt because benchmarks can be set on test tracks with downhill slopes with favourable cambers to improve performance and specially-prepared tyres hardened in an oven beforehand to provide the least rolling resistance during the test. Hardly real-world driving conditions. You can’t blame manufacturers for using the most economical drivers, tuning vehicles to suit a track of their choosing and any other methods to give the best test score, because the score influences sales. The point is, however, vehicles cannot repeat these high standards when used by you and me on public roads.

We don’t accept wind-assisted track and field times for world athletics records because it’s a not a true measure of human capability. Likewise, we shouldn’t accept these vehicle performance figures.

The ICCT found the gap between test figures and real-world in service performance is ‘ever-growing’ – from 10% in 2002, to 35% in 2014 and is on track to be 49% by 2020. What confidence can the public – private consumers and businesses alike – have in a score that could be 50% out?

Implications for Australia

Australians are vehicle technology takers, relying on the standards of Europe, USA and Japan to drive fuel and emissions efficiency improvements. Without our own minimum fuel efficiency standards we become a dumping ground for the world’s noncompliant vehicles. With Canada, China, Brazil and Mexico implementing their own minimum fuel efficiency standards, this gap is growing too. As an island continent there’s no secondary market for used vehicles, so the impacts of inferior fuel and emissions performance of “hand-me-down” technology will be felt in Australia for years.

Data is the key constraint in this aspect of the road vehicle industry. People rely on the integrity of performance claims in sales brochures, and expect the protection of regulatory oversight. Buyers of passenger cars can check the Green Vehicle Guide to compare vehicles, yet the ICCT suggests green vehicle ratings are based on desktop review of now dubious test calculations.

Trucking companies already have difficulty believing the fuel efficiency claims of manufacturers because Australian conditions are so different to the test tracks of Europe and America, so large transporters invest in their own R&D by testing trucks themselves before purchase because they know the value of getting their fuel figures right before committing to substantial investments with huge running costs over a truck’s life driven by fuel usage and volatile fuel prices.

Small and medium transport companies may not have the resources or skills to test new vehicles properly before buying. There’s no green vehicle guide for heavy vehicles. The closest offering is the NSW government’s Green Trucks Partnership which brings together vehicle users and manufacturers to test various fuel saving technologies in real-life Australian applications with independent reporting on benefits achieved against claims made by technology proponents. The information is shared in case studies on the Green Trucks website.

Australia needs its own standards

Transport is the second largest user of energy in the Australian economy after electricity and is growing faster. Introducing minimum fuel efficiency standards is one of the easiest, cheapest and most effective ways we can save energy costs, reduce carbon and air pollution emissions, and improve fuel security. Australia must take charge of its destiny and develop its own minimum fuel efficiency standards for light and heavy road vehicles. We can learn from Europe’s woes and stringently test vehicles prior to service then follow the USA’s lead and actually test each vehicle type once in service to validate real world performance. Regulation without enforcement provides only a false sense of security and blind faith in marketing claims which, as Volkswagen has shown, fail under scrutiny.

Transport Energy Audit Standard : seeking your views

Implementing energy audit recommendations usually achieves significant cost savings. However the current Australian Standard for energy audits is based on auditing commercial buildings and is not practical for transport.

Transport operations have characteristics that produce variability in energy performance and make fleet energy use difficult to model:

–          Very high variation in routes, loading and traffic conditions;

–          Vehicle operators strongly influence energy performance;

–          Regulations, such as noise or load limits, provide constraints.

A new transport-specific standard, AS/NZS 3598.3 Energy Audits-Transport Sector, will be the first of its kind internationally. It is intended to help transport operators find the approach best suited to their business for assessing energy efficiency and reducing costs .

To develop a standard of practical value, the consultation process seeks additional expertise to address the specific data measurement and analysis needs of the road, rail, aviation and maritime industries.

You can contribute at the Standards Hub Website as referenced in the inside cover of the draft standard, available here.

Comments close on 10 April 2014.