Marine Transportation System

Posts Tagged ‘energy’

, , , , , , ,

Europe is Breaking the Egg

In Efficiency, Energy/Environ, Infrastructure, MTS Policy, Ports on October 5, 2014 at 11:16 pm

Before we get to John Graykowski’s “Europe is Breaking the Egg” I would like to pose my own chicken-and-the-egg question as one might ask it here in Wonkington, D.C. Which comes first: the policy or the strategy? One might also ponder how good is a forward looking strategy when the policy is of the past century. The Maritime Administration is preparing a “National Maritime Strategy.” It is a principal objective of Administrator Chip Jaenichen and probably has been encouraged by congressional supporters of the U.S. flag industry who, like most of us, have not liked seeing the merchant fleet decline but who, unlike us, are in a position to redefine U.S. maritime policy. The piece below begs the question whether a new national maritime strategy would benefit by first fixing the national maritime policy that for the most part has been in place while the United States lost its prominent role in world shipping. Certainly it would make it easier on Mr. Jaenichen and the Secretary of Transportation to have an updated national policy framework as a basis for new strategies to get to where we need to be. John Graykowski’s article first appeared in Pacific Maritime Magazine on September 1, 2014. You can find it here. He poses the policy question in the context of a growing American supply of natural gas and the multiple benefits to be realized by fostering a bunker switch to LNG. This is the third in his series for MTS Matters on the subject of developing LNG distribution infrastructure to advance the adoption of LNG as a marine fuel. It also is a recurring theme in these pages.  Pbea

We may soon be able to retire the tiresome “chicken and egg” cliché to describe LNG development, since there has been movement in the last year in Europe and the United States that indicates the circle may be breaking; but it’s too soon to tell whether the movement is temporary or permanent. What is apparent, however, it that Europe has moved forward in a more focused and strategic way, to create LNG infrastructure and markets, which is yielding results. By 2016, permanent LNG bunkering facilities will be in operation in Rotterdam and Antwerp – both among the largest ports in the world – thereby signaling that the supply uncertainties have been resolved. It bears asking, therefore, how Europe has done this, and whether we should consider similar measures here if the goal is to expand LNG as a marine and transportation fuel throughout the United States.

In 2008, Norway effectively made LNG the preferred fuel choice for marine operators through a combination of regulatory mandates relating to Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and financial incentives covering up to 80 percent of the capital cost of the LNG-related components. Following these actions, the number of Norwegian vessels using LNG as a primary fuel went from 3 to 12 vessels in five years, with more than 50 vessels of various types now under construction along with the supporting LNG infrastructure. Concurrent with this, Norway is addressing the regulatory and operational issues, and is now seen as a leader in marine LNG development.

The European Union (EU) is also pursuing a comprehensive effort to increase LNG as a marine fuel with the goal of developing LNG infrastructure in every major seaport by 2020, and every inland terminal by 2025; a total of 139 ports across Europe. This goal coincides with estimates that by 2020, 1,700 dual fuel vessels will be built or converted worldwide, with many of these operating in, or calling on, the EU.

By 2020, the United Arab Shipping Corporation (USAC) dual fuel container vessels will be operating between the Far East and Europe. This activity will spawn additional interest and movement in Europe and among its global trading partners leading to a rapid transition from diesel to LNG as a major transportation fuel.

The EU is employing a “carrot and stick” approach combining financial support for the conversion and construction of vessels and infrastructure with increased regulation. Projects such as the Trans-European Network for Transport (Ten-T) and the Rhine-Main-Danube initiatives have produced significant results. $139 million has already been allocated to 7 Ten-T projects to support vessel conversion and LNG infrastructure development, with more funding promised. Support of up to 50 percent of project costs is available for vessel conversion, construction and infrastructure, and just recently the first inland dual fuel barge was delivered and will shortly begin operations.

The EU adopted an approach that combines: (1) clear and defined goals that LNG will displace traditional marine fuels; (2) increased environmental regulations; (3) financial incentives to spur the initial transition; and (4) coordination among ports, governments; regulatory agencies and stakeholders to create uniform regulatory structures. Given the intrinsic advantages of LNG, there is recognition that the market would likely drive toward greater adoption of LNG without assistance. However, many vessel owners and gas suppliers are reluctant to be the first to make the investments in LNG vessels and infrastructure regardless of the advantages. The EU has determined that these measures are necessary in order to reduce perceived risks, accelerate market decisions, and attain the stated goals for LNG deployment.

In contrast, the United States does not have a national policy to support LNG as a marine and transportation fuel. Instead, our LNG market is developing project-by-project, driven by first-adopters such as Harvey Gulf, Tote, Matson, and Crowley with no federal support or strategy; despite the tremendous benefits LNG offers to the country. While we have seen some movement in disparate locations, there is not so much as a policy statement that commits this country to the development of LNG as a transportation fuel; and there are certainly no programs to support the construction of vessels and infrastructure to make this possible nor to address regulatory uncertainties and enhance public acceptance of LNG.

The challenges and obstacles that exist here are no different from those in Europe, and LNG is new to everyone. It appears, however, that the EU has tackled this question in a more coherent, direct, and proactive way that is rapidly producing results. To be sure, there are major differences between the US and the EU in terms of governmental structures and processes. The EU can promulgate Europe-wide regulations and implement promotional programs, and has a history of doing so. Here, that role would be shared between Congress and the Executive Branch, and that is yet another challenge given the continuing dysfunction between both branches of government.

A policy declaring that LNG as a transportation fuel is in the national interest, and committing to the support, promotion and encouragement of its development would have several immediate effects:

  • It would be a clear signal to all potential stakeholders that LNG is “real” and has the backing of Congress and Administration;
  • It would put federal agencies on notice – and could require them– to collaborate with industry on practical and uniform regulation, reduced delays and greater certainty; and
  • It could include limited and temporary financial incentives such as loan guarantees or tax incentives to accelerate LNG conversion, because early adopters should be encouraged in order to build a sustaining market that benefits the entire country.

Federal resources are constrained, but without a national commitment, LNG may not gain the critical mass and momentum to create a long-term viable market. Regulatory direction is important, and does not involve direct costs, but if combined with properly structured and managed loan guarantees or tax incentives they would have a greater likelihood of jump-starting this industry at low risk and large benefit to the whole nation in emissions reductions, energy independence, economic activity in shipyards and elsewhere. The promise of LNG is so great it deserves this sort of recognition, attention, and effort. Clearly the EU sees it that way, and we should as well and the risk if we don’t address it in this way is diminished potential for LNG to transform this country and the lost opportunity to lead the world in LNG development and utilization.   John Graykowski

, , ,

Shipping The T. Boone Way

In Efficiency, Energy/Environ, Green Transportation, Marine Highway on November 2, 2010 at 10:43 am

T. Boone Pickens and I have something in common.  You probably do, too.

The uber-capitalist wants to end our nation’s dependence on foreign fuel sources.  Especially those nation sources that love to take our money and use it to cut US off at the knees.

No doubt T. Boone has an uber-financial interest in domestically produced energy through wind turbines and natural gas.  But let’s give the guy great credit for hitting the road and taking what is an urgent policy campaign to folks around the nation.

Although he doesn’t mention it in his plan, I think T. Boone would give a thumbs-up to LNG fueled ships.   Here are a few notes to add to an earlier post at this address.

With IMO limits on emissions facing the sector, and a tougher emission control area (ECA) regime adopted for the US and Canada starting 2012, natural gas powered ships should be in the mix.

Heavy fuel oil is not an option for future shipping within ECAs. Alternatives have to be introduced. A DNV study concludes that LNG is the obvious alternative to satisfy future ECA requirements, particularly for the short sea shipping.  (DNV item and link to a presentation are here.)

MARINTEK  – the Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute – does research, development and technical consulting in the maritime sector.  A 2009 presentation on the Norwegian experience with LNG fueled ships is interesting reading.

In China (of course)…

The company succeeded in fueling a tugboat weighing over 300 tons with LNG for Wuhan Ferry Company. The ship now runs on a fuel formula of 30% diesel and 70% natural gas, representing significant energy and cost savings.  The Chairman of the board & CEO of the company, Qinan Ji, said. “This achievement is a big step in the history of China’s new energy industry and will contribute to environmental protection and reduce energy consumption. The marketing of LNG-powered ships will be implemented on a full scale in the forthcoming years.“ (Marine Link, August 8, 2010)

And from the pens of college students…

DNV CEO Henrik O. Madsen, said: “I was very impressed to see what the students presented here today. At times I have found it difficult to understand why the shipping industry has not switched to LNG – given the great commercial and environmental advantages. Today, with their presentation the students have provided ship owners with a blueprint, showing us all that it is 100% realistic to overcome the challenges with regard to LNG as fuel.”  (Ship Management)

I would rather not add LNG powered ships to the long list of things on which America ranks twenty-something—or last—in the world.  And as a matter of law we can’t buy Chinese vessels to work the American coastline.  So, what say, gang, let’s build them here!

LNG is a natural for coastwise shipping, less so for trans-oceanic vessels.  American start-ups including Coastal Connect, American Feeder Lines, and Intermodal Marine Lines see a role for natural gas in powering the modern vessels planned for marine highway service.  They intend to provide prospective customers with cleaner and highly efficient transportation options.

A few months ago the natural gas industry focused their monthly Washington roundtable luncheon on LNG and the maritime sector.  It was well-attended with a few of us maritime folks also in the room to hear John Hatley of Wartsila North America.  Now there are obvious regulatory and distribution issues to be addressed.  But sitting there, surrounded by a US industry group that knows little of shipping and a lot about natural gas, I realized that comparatively smaller US maritime shipping sector could have a major lobbying partner to advance innovative US-flag shipping if we only were willing to engage.  What do you say, Mr. Pickens?  What do you say, Washington?   Pbea

, , , ,

An Opportunity, Not Just An Optimist’s Musing

In Green Transportation, Marine Highway, Surface Transportation Policy on July 6, 2010 at 11:22 pm

I couldn’t pass up this tease question in an emailed promotion for a conference (in Marseille, if anyone has a spare ticket on the QM2 to offer a humble blogger).

Is Climate Change a challenge or an excellent incentive to facilitate the renaissance of the shipping and maritime industries?

Okay, I’ll bite.  My answer is yes.  It’s a challenge and it presents a generational opportunity that the maritime sector can’t afford to pass up.

Can climate change actions revitalize the shipping and maritime industries?  (Another question posed by the conference organizers.)   That not only is a timely question but it is the right question along with some others:

Will the American maritime sector will take proper advantage of the persistent national environmental and energy imperatives?  Will the U.S. industry only tinker around the edges of design and technology?  Or will it aggressively leverage global climate policy concerns to transform marine transport and services into  a new market opportunity?  Moreover, will the industry actually try to engage the interest of the US government in such a major transformation?

Marine transportation has some natural advantages.  It tends to avoid little things like 10-mile backups on the turnpike.  Its carrying capacity makes it the most efficient on a ton mile basis.  That efficiency can also mean some comparative environmental benefits, along with some less pleasing emissions.

But as we have seen those pluses are not sufficient to move UPS to adopt coastal water routes or to convince government to integrate marine highways into surface transportation policy.  Nor have various studies as to those benefits convinced shippers and other skeptics of Jones Act shipping.

After all, notwithstanding some attractive plans for new marine highway service, the industry has been slow to present concrete evidence that it has the will to leverage climate and energy policy drivers in order to bring about its own “renaissance.”  I reach once again for a convenient contrast: the railroads.

The Class Ones could see the time was ripe.   They have advertised the public benefits of  rail freight , they have  leveraged Federal support for the building of “green” locomotives, and they came up with a major bid to Congress,  anyone who would listen, for a 25 percent investment tax credit for infrastructure improvements to their systems.

I know none of this is simple stuff for the maritime sector.  And of course the economics are daunting to companies that operate on thin margins.  But does the industry–especially the US flag stakeholders–have a vision as to what it can be?   What the vessels can look like?  What cleaner fuels can be burned to make the environmental benefits of marine transport undeniable?   What visible improvements can be made to demonstrate that change is taking place to transform 20th century operations into 21st century wow!

As I have noted elsewhere in this blog, give the Sailor and the Secretary good reason to say “cutting edge” when talking about a vessel or a major advance in maritime goods movement.

We are handed an opportunity when Congress debates climate action measures and major reforms to energy policy.  Pbea

, , ,

CAFE for Ships?

In Efficiency, Environment on January 20, 2010 at 11:06 pm

The liner shipping industry, through its World Shipping Council, has proposed a regime for improving ocean-going vessel emissions worldwide.  It’s a good move.  The WSC considered what proposals were already on the table–fuel tax and emissions trading system–and offered something different and credible.

The Vessel Efficiency System (VES) takes a cue from regulatory regimes like American CAFE standards for vehicles.  Reduce fuel consumption and increase efficiency to reduce carbon emissions.

An international standard is a must for such a borderless, multinational industry.  The industry knows that at least one proposal on the table has in mind using ocean shipping as a revenue source for the broader GHG reduction strategy discussed at COP15 in December.   (Simply a tax on bunker also would not address enviro complaints that emission reduction is not directly addressed.)  WSC doesn’t want GHG tax revenues raised on ships to stray far and so proposes “that some significant portion of the funds be dedicated” to R&D ‘targeted at increasing the energy efficiency of the world’s fleet.”

Presumably the proposal will have some support among major flag nations.  Undoubtedly the proposal will be picked apart in some quarters.  But then WSC President Chris Koch and environmental VP Bryan Wood-Thomas know that.   Better to have your own proposal in the mix.  “The Committee is invited to consider the information in this document and take action as appropriate.”

Below are some excerpts from the VES proposal; the full document is here; a JoC story is here.   Pbea

~ ~ ~

World Shipping Council – Vessel Efficiency System (VES)

  • Establish efficiency design standards or targets for new and existing vessels where calculation of an Energy Efficiency Design Index baseline is feasible,
  • Establish mandatory efficiency standards applicable to new builds, with subsequent standards established through successive tiers,
  • Establish different (less stringent) efficiency standards that apply to the existing fleet after a given year,
  • Assess charges on fuel consumption for existing vessels failing to meet the standard for existing vessels, and
  • Establish a fund populated by the revenue.

The purpose of combining vessel design efficiency with the fund concept is to:

  • Produce an enhanced environmental result;
  • Address criticisms that the other proposal to establish a fund through fees on bunker sales would be a commodity tax with limited impact on improving carbon efficiency across the world’s fleet;
  • Provide greater incentive to vessel operators to invest in efficiency improvement; and
  • Discourage the long-term operation of the most inefficient vessels.

For those ships subject to the charge…the relative cost per ton is less for those ships that miss the standard by a smaller margin.  The least efficient ships of a given class and size would pay the highest charge.

Like the Danish proposal, such a system would generate funds for an IMO administered “fund;” however, this approach would also financially reward those ships that meet the specified efficiency standards and create an incentive to improve or retire the least efficient vessels within a given class and size grouping.

, , , , ,

Will Ports Be Ready? (Part 2)

In Environment, Ports on September 15, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Will U.S. ports, especially those on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, be ready to operate in the changing domestic and international commercial environment? With major shifts on the way the ports that adequately prepare will be the ones to maintain and gain market share.  The change in environment—at local, national and global levels—will be a constant factor not easily addressed.

Environmental Concerns
From 2002 to 2007 many ports found it necessary to have a proactive environmental policy to get community approval to operate and expand.  Most major ports experienced double digit volume increases that resulted in problems with surrounding communities over increasing road congestion, noxious air emissions, and safety concerns.  In the San Pedro Bay ports communities voiced their anger to local politicians and in short order port projects were put on hold.

With the collapse of global trade, the pressure subsided as the number of containers and trucks decreased.  However, all indications suggest that world trade will rebound and cargo volumes will double by 2040.  Community concerns and political problems will re-emerge as well.  Other environmental issues may also emerge to affect port business practices—consumption of non-renewable resources, bio-hazards, and concerns about species redistribution that may persist even with ballast water regulation.  A proactive policy may again be a necessity for certain major ports if their environmental performance is seen as problematic for their neighbors.

Green house gases (GHG) are probably going to be the biggest environmental game changer for businesses as climate change policy is put in place and businesses calculate the added expense.  The U.S. contributes 20 percent of the world’s emissions from burning fossil fuels; India contributes 4 percent.  Will there be a carbon tax or cap and trade policy established worldwide?  What will be the cost penalty for oceanborne cargo here or worldwide?  How fast will engine room and terminal equipment technology adapt?  Those questions await answers and clarification.

As climate change concerns and political acceptance addressing those concerns increase, the pressures to aggressively address GHG will be enormous.  (That is likely notwithstanding the relative environmental and energy per-ton/mile efficiency of the marine and rail elements of MTS related transportation.)  These issues will have even greater impacts on the cost of ports, particularly if dealt with retroactively.

Next: Consumer demand and the bottom line.

T. H. Wakeman