[Coral-List] [Coral List] Two news stories about coral reefs (in Coral-List Digest, Vol 96, Issue 22)

[Rob Hilliard, imco]

Re. the current and future GHG 'statistics' for international shipping - 
which is roughly 50,000 internationally registered ships over 1000 GT 
that burn fossil fuel on voyages between countries (domestic ships 
moving between ports within their countries are not included), and 
remains outside the Paris agreement.

This sector currently accounts for about 3.5% of total global GHG 
output.   If the emissions from the international shipping and the 
international aviation sectors were each reported as from a 'country', 
then last year T&E reckoned that the ships were roughly similar to South 
Korea (which was ranked ~8th highest country in 2011 with a total CO2 
output of 611 million metric tonnes), while the airliners were similar 
to Germany (ranked ~6th highest country in 2011 with a total CO2 output 
of 748M mT)

(that country data was from 
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.V78ahzWqm3o
for T&E, it was 
https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/paris-could-leave-aviation-and-shipping-fuel-tax-free-and-climate-target-free

The current proportional share from int. shipping may rise to over 10% 
by 2050 (there's a range of scenarios, by IMO, LR, CSC, T&E etc).  One 
IMO study forecasts that shipping could represent 10% of global GHG 
emissions by 2050 under a 'business-as-usual' scenario;  not all of this 
due to projected shipping growth, but also because the fossil fuel 
emissions from the nationally controlled sectors (power, construction, 
manufacturing, agriculture, land transport etc) will be falling over 
this period. (LR, T&E, CSC etc have more multiple 'what if' scenarios 
re. shipping emission projections).

Both int. aviation and shipping were left out of the Paris agreement, 
with ICAO (aviation) and IMO (maritime) remaining responsible for 
getting some acceptable GHG reduction targets, measures and mechanism/s 
formally adopted in their respective sectors.  If they fail, then the 
measures will most probably get imposed from the 'outside',  building on 
the MRV that has already been imposed for shipping in the EU region 
(both global shipping and aviation hate regional differences in key 
rules and regulations, so hopefully this threat will help ICAO and IMO 
achieve internally agreed resolutions).   The EU's MRV will enter into 
force in 2018 across European seas, and has been predicted to save some 
320 million tonnes GHG (said to be similar to the total output of the 
8th ranked country within the EU).

Smoother, less fouled hulls (by improved antifouling coatings, hull 
performance monitoring and hull cleaning management) is just one facet 
within a wide range of measures that can improve shipping efficiency and 
reduce fuel burn per tonne of cargo carried per nautical mile.  This 
includes improvements and/or more radical changes to hull forms & block 
coefficient ('shape'), ship and engine sizes, propulsion systems (e.g 
thrusters fed by generators & inverters), fuel choices (also linked to 
SOX/NOX), trim management, and better thrust/propeller/wake field 
matching, speed/voyage/weather/currents/arrival time management, deck 
gear and HVAC efficiency improvements, and the option of 'wind-assist' 
gadgets that look promising for certain ship types (rotor sails, kites 
etc). Even streamlining the superstructure, or installing a 
forward-located fairing around topsides containers, can yield measurable 
reductions to forward resistance. While the basic physics dictates that 
large cargo ships are inherently more fuel efficient than small ones, 
there are ceilings imposed by the hub route/feeder model and the big 
costs and impacts from having to deepen and/or widen port berths, 
navigation channels etc.  The whole topic of improving ship efficiency 
is evolving - under studies, modelling and trials by a very wide range 
of firms and organisations. There will be no single, 'best set' of 
cost-effective, practical winners appropriate for every ship. The best 
options will vary according to its type and planned duties and routes, 
and also for new-builds versus modifying/retrofitting to existing 
'young' or 'old' ships.

As for ship lifespan and replacement, this is not fixed but depends on 
the particular market conditions and the financing deal behind each 
ship.  Expensive-to-build cruise liners, LNG carriers, military 
platforms and other specialist vessels get designed and built with steel 
and scantling specs to provide 35-45 years (assuming reasonable 
maintenance), while many dry and liquid bulkers are built quickly and 
cheaply with scantlings that provide a 20-25 year lifespan.   A ship's 
lifespan also rises and falls according to demand and supply.  During 
boom periods, high rates allow many old ships to continue operating at a 
profit despite their higher, age-related operating and maintenance 
expenses.  In the current major slump, ships as 'young' as 18 years are 
starting to be sold off to the breaking yards, or more often to 
specialist companies who re-flag them and arrange their ultimate fate at 
a south Asian beach.

Finally, the huge differences between the ways in which international 
ships and airliners are designed, built, purchased/leased, regulated, 
operated and serviced, make the IMO's job of achieving broadly 
acceptable GHG measures substantially harder than for the ICAO.   For 
example, there are only 2 major airliner builders and a handful of 
'second tier' builders (Bombadier, Embraer, ATS etc).  Contrast that to 
the multitudinous & multifarious ways in which ships get designed, 
built, equipped and ultimately operated.   The number of airliner 
design, construction and aero-engine companies shrank drastically 
between 1945 and 1985.   Will the next ~40 years see a similar result 
for the ship-building and maritime propulsion industry?

____________________
Rob Hilliard
Intermarine Consulting Pty Ltd
Western Australia 6070
Mob:   +61 427 855 485
rhilliard at imco.com.au

===========================================================================

On 25-Aug-16 3:26 PM, coral-list-request at coral.aoml.noaa.gov wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:48:46 +0000
> From: Sarah Frias-Torres<sfrias_torres at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Two news stories about coral reefs
> To:       Ruben van Hooidonk<ruben.van.hooidonk at noaa.gov>,
> 	"psammarco at lumcon.edu"	<psammarco at lumcon.edu>
> Cc:"coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov"  <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID:<DM3PR20MB08437C2A4E8F8E3CCBFEDADD81EA0 at DM3PR20MB0843.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
> 	
> What is the contribution of the shipping industry to global CO2 emissions? I mean cargo ships, oil tankers, and cruise ships. Didn't they get excluded from the regulations to reduce CO2?
>
> Sarah Frias-Torres, Ph.D.
> Twitter: @GrouperDoc
> Blog:http://grouperluna.wordpress.com
> http://independent.academia.edu/SarahFriasTorres
>
> ------------------------------
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 18:59:39 +0000
> From: "Jordan-Sellers, Terri  SAJ"
> 	<Terri.Jordan-Sellers at usace.army.mil>
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Two news stories about coral reefs
> To: Sarah Frias-Torres<sfrias_torres at hotmail.com>, Ruben van Hooidonk
> 	<ruben.van.hooidonk at noaa.gov>,	"psammarco at lumcon.edu"
> 	<psammarco at lumcon.edu>
> Cc:"coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov"  <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> Message-ID:<14C95266CE393F488145762C7C5631DF668D489E at EIS-MB0101WPC.eis.ds.usace.army.mil>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> There are emissions regulations drafted by the IMO (International Maritime Organization). They recently (last 3 yrs?) put out a new standard for SOx emissions for new ships under MARPOL Annex VI. The problem is that the life of a ship can be quite long. It is built for one company/purpose and when it is done, then it is often sold to other companies, until it finally gets to a point where it is so old and inefficient that it too expensive to run and then scrapped.  That may take 30-40 years.... so the ships that are being pulled out of service today, in many cases, had keels laid in the 1970-1980 timeframe.
>
> http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Air-Pollution.aspx
>
> >From the IMO website - "In 2012, international shipping was estimated to have contributed about 2.2% to the global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)."
>
> The issue w ships is the type of fuel they burn. Bunker fuel (diesel). Very dirty, very thick fuel... some shipping lines/cruise lines have modified their hulls via design/paints to make ships more efficient moving through the water to burn less fuel (this is done for $$ purposes), but at this point, the real limiting factor is the fuel. Unless we want commercial shipping to go the way of many military ships with small nuclear reactors.
>