Loading...

Carbon dioxide emissions of the container transport from Far East into the European hinterland through Jade-Weser-Port compared to other European deepwater ports

Master's Thesis 2011 129 Pages

Business economics - Supply, Production, Logistics

Excerpt

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMNENT

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF DIAGRAMS

LIST OF FORMULAS

ABBREVIATIONS

1. CHAPTER – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem statement
1.2 Introduction of the considered deepwater ports
1.3 Objectives and Research questions
1.4 Dissertation Structure

2. CHAPTER – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Research Background
2.3 Green logistics related terms
2.3.1 Environmental impacts of logistics
2.3.2 Global warming potential and conversion factors
2.4 Maritime related Terms
2.4.1 Maritime Supply Chain
2.4.2 Hinterland
2.4.3 Port competitiveness
2.4.4 Intermodal transport
2.5 Carbon auditing / Carbon footprinting
2.5.1 Carbon auditing of ocean going vessels
2.5.2 Carbon auditing of port related emissions
2.5.3 Carbon auditing of road freight transport
2.5.4 Carbon auditing of rail freight transport
2.5.5 Carbon auditing of inland waterway transport
2.6 Measures for CO2reduction of maritime supply chain
2.7 Conclusion

3. CHAPTER – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research philosophy
3.3 Research approach
3.4 Data collection
3.4.1 Secondary data
3.4.2 Primary data
3.5 Applied methods and tools for calculation of CO2emissions
3.5.1 Ocean transport
3.5.2 Road transport
3.5.3 Rail intermodal transport
3.5.4 Inland waterway intermodal transport
3.5.5 Average hinterland emissions
3.5.6 Port related emissions
3.6 Investigation of port characteristics and hinterland connectivity
3.7 CO2reduction measures for JWP’s Maritime Supply Chain
3.8 Research reliability
3.9 Research validity
3.10 Conclusion

4. CHAPTER – FINDINGS AND RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Research Question 1
4.2.1 CO2emissions from ocean transport
4.2.2 CO2emissions from road transport
4.2.3 CO2emissions from rail transport
4.2.4 CO2emissions from barge transport
4.2.5 Average hinterland emissions
4.2.6 Total maritime supply chain emissions
4.3 Research Question 2
4.3.1 Jade-Weser-Port
4.3.2 Port of Rotterdam
4.3.3 Port of Antwerp
4.3.4 Port of Zeebrugge
4.3.5 Port of Trieste
4.4 Research Question 3
4.5 Summary

5. CHAPTER – ANALYSIS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Research question 1
5.2.1 CO2emissions from ocean transport
5.2.2 CO2emissions from road transport
5.2.3 CO2emissions from rail transport
5.2.4 CO2emissions from barge transport
5.2.5 Average hinterland emissions
5.2.6 Total maritime supply chain emissions
5.3 Research question 2
5.4 Research question 3
5.4.1 Analysis of measures for reduction of ocean emissions
5.4.2 Analysis of measures for reduction of port emissions
5.4.3 Analysis of measures for reduction of hinterland emissions
5.5 Summary

6. CHAPTER – CONCLUSION
6.1 Limitations of the research and further research possibilities

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Generations of container vessels .

Figure 1.2 European container ports that compete for the same hinterland as

Jade-Weser-Port .

Figure 1.3 Current status of construction from Jade-Weser-Port .

Figure 2.1 Extraordinary growth in CO2 emissions through the 20thcentury .

Figure 2.2 Emissions share per logistics activity

Figure 2.3 Contributors to SOx emissions in ports by source category .

Figure 2.4 Demarcation of the North and Baltic Sea SOx Emission Control Areas

Figure 2.5 Simplified Maritime Supply Chain with research boundary .

Figure 2.6 Port foreland and hinterland

Figure 2.7 Overlapping of port hinterlands .

Figure 2.8 Typical land-side sources of air pollution in port .

Figure 2.9 Road and rail network connection by EcoTransIT’s routing algorithm

Figure 2.10 Inland waterway ship-classes .

Figure 3.1 Types of secondary data .

Figure 3.2 Defined Asia-Europe sea route in the “Distance Table” tool .

Figure 3.3 Numerical example for calculation of CO2emissions from sea transport

Figure 3.4 Map containing considered deepwater ports and hinterland locations

Figure 3.5 EcoTransIT tool settings for inland waterway intermodal transport .

Figure 3.6 Connection of sea and inland ports to different inland waterway classes

Figure 3.7 Numerical example for calculation of average hinterland emissions

Figure 4.1 Corridor that represents the overlapping of hinterlands from considered deepwater ports

Figure 4.2 Simulated picture from completed Jade-Weser-Port

Figure 4.3 Layout from Jade-Weser-Port

Figure 4.4 Deepwater Terminals from Port of Rotterdam at Maasvlakte 1

Figure 4.5 Simulated picture showing Maasvlakte 1 and 2

Figure 4.6 Deepwater Terminals from Port of Antwerp

Figure 4.7 Tunnels that connect Antwerp’s deepwater terminals with motorway A12

Figure 4.8 Deepwater Terminals from Port of Zeebrugge

Figure 4.9 PSA’s container terminal data from first and final construction phase

Figure 4.10 Rotterdam’s, Antwerp’s and Zeebrugge’s connection to the European inland waterway network .

Figure 4.11 Trieste Marine Terminal

Figure 4.12 Measures for reduction of ship emissions

Figure 4.13 Measures for reduction of port emissions

Figure 4.14 Measures for reduction of hinterland emissions

Figure 5.1 Deviation from main shipping route in order to achieve Port of Trieste

Figure 5.2 Extension of motorway A29 up to Jade-Weser-Port

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Global warming potential (GWP) of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases

Table 2.2 Characteristics of 8,000 and 13,000 TEU ships

Table 2.3 Load Factors for Ship’s Main Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery

Table 2.4 Power emission factors used by Port of Seattle

Table 2.5 CO2emissions from container terminals of Rotterdam Port

Table 2.6 Conversion factors for diesel, LPG and petrol

Table 2.7 Emission factors for averagely loaded diesel powered trucks

Table 2.8 Published Emission Factors for Rail Freight Movement (gCO2/tkm)

Table 3.1 Features from positivist and phenomenological paradigm

Table 3.2 Key words for secondary data search

Table 3.3 Organizations whose websites served for secondary data collection

Table 3.4 Applied tools for calculation of distances and CO2emissions

Table 3.5 Assumptions for carbon auditing of ocean transport

Table 3.6 Defra’s average conversion factor for an articulated truck (>33t) .

Table 3.7 Modal split data from the investigated deepwater ports

Table 4.1 Distances between Shanghai and the investigated deepwater ports

Table 4.2 Modal slit from each deepwater port

Table 4.3 General port characteristics from the investigated ports

Table 4.4 Hinterland transport mode connections from the investigated ports .

Table 5.1 Emission factors for EURO I–V vehicles (>34-40 tonnes) .

LIST OF DIAGRAMS

Diagram 4.1 CO2emissions from 8,000 and 13,000 TEU ships operating at a speed of 19 knots (kg CO2e/TEU)

Diagram 4.2 Comparison of CO2emissions from a 13,000 TEU ship operating at speeds of 19 and 24 knots (kg CO2e/TEU)

Diagram 4.3 CO2emissions from road transport (in kg CO2e/TEU)

Diagram 4.4 CO2emissions from rail transport (in kg CO2e/TEU)

Diagram 4.5 CO2emissions from barge transport (in kg CO2e/TEU)

Diagram 4.6 Comparison of rail and barge emissions (kg CO2e/TEU) on the example of Dortmund

Diagram 4.7 Average CO2emissions from hinterland transport (in kg CO2e/TEU)

Diagram 4.8 Total average maritime supply chain emissions (in kg CO2e/TEU) .

Diagram 4.9 Hinterland locations that can be reached most environmentally through Jade-Weser-Port .

Diagram 5.1 Increase of engine load factor with rising vessel speed

LIST OF FORMULAS

Formula 2.1 Calculation of CO2emissions from container vessels

Formula 2.2 Calculation of the engine load factor

Formula 2.3 Calculation of CO2 emissions using fuel-based approach

Formula 2.4 Calculation of CO2 emissions using activity-based approach

ABBREVIATIONS

illustration not visible in this excerpt

1. CHAPTER – INTRODUCTION

Global container transport is by far the most important factor in international trade. Approximately 90 percent of global trade volume moves in sea containers (Lam, 2011 and Kaluza et al., 2010). In order to accommodate the expected growth in container shipping and to reduce unit costs by exploiting economies of scale, shipping lines utilize ever growing container-vessels (Cullinane and Khanna, 1999). The “sixth” generation or “E-class” container vessel (figure 1.1), with “Emma Maersk” as the world’s largest container ship, has also particular geographical requirements on container ports such as the draft or draught of 15.5 meters (Maersk Line, 2011). Maersk’s Triple-E class vessels with 18,000 TEU will probably set new challenges for container ports. The predicted growth in global container movements leads one to expect that the number of mega container vessels will probably increase significantly in the medium- and long-term. The emerging Jade-Weser-Port (JWP) in Wilhelmshaven, with a tide-independent draft of 16.5 meters, will be able to accommodate the currently largest container vessels. In this dissertation a “deepwater port” is defined as a port which provides a minimum draught of 15.5 meters.

Besides the pressure on container ports to deal with the current and future generation of container ships, there is also a growing public interest in environmental issues. Thus, some ports have begun to implement carbon auditing to figure out their contribution to air pollution. In conjunction with global container transport, carbon auditing can be used to estimate CO2emissions of maritime supply chains. McKinnon et al. (2010a) define maritime supply chain as the transportation of goods from one particular point to another including at least one sea link.

This dissertation is aiming to examine CO2emissions from maritime container transport chains passing through the Jade-Weser-Port and other European deepwater ports.

Figure 1.1 Generations of container vessels

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Container Transportation, 2011

1.1 Problem statement

The strongly developing trade relations between Asia and Europe lead to an increasing flow of goods between these continents. Thereby China is by far the most important European trade partner. Statistically, the EU imports (€215 billion) more than twice as much from, than it exports (€81.7 billion) to China (European Commission, 2010). For this reason, the dissertation will concentrate only on container flows from China to Europe using Shanghai as the port of origin, since this is the largest Chinese port and an important regional hub. The term “hub” is related to the hub and spoke system. Most shipping lines operate their largest container vessels between hub ports which serve as transhipment points for onward sea shipping and/or transit gateways for hinterland distribution (Rodrigue and Notteboom, 2010 and Rodrigue et al., 2009). Since Jade-Weser-Port (JWP) is the only deepwater port in Germany and the most easterly one in the European North Range (Eurogate, 2011), it is aiming to be both a gateway port for the German and Eastern European hinterland, and a transhipment hub for feeder traffic into the Baltic Sea. European North Range includes all container ports between Le Havre and Hamburg (Vernimmen et al, 2007).

The ability to accommodate fully loaded ultra-large container vessels with a draught of 15.5 meters indicates a potential niche market in the European region (Kleinsteuber, 2002). Figure 1.2 illustrates all those European ports competing for the same hinterland as JWP, whereby Le Havre has been excluded from consideration due to its far distance. However, only the ports of Rotterdam, Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Trieste provide sufficient draft to be categorised as deepwater ports in this dissertation.

Since JWP’s aims are to become a part of global supply chains and to establish a “green port” image, there is particular interest in figuring out JWP’s competitiveness towards above mentioned deepwater ports particularly in terms of CO2emissions of maritime supply chains (Mueller, 2011).

Figure 1.2 European container ports that compete for the same hinterland as Jade-Weser-Port

illustration not visible in this excerpt

1.2 Introduction of the considered deepwater ports

Jade-Weser-Port is located in Wilhelmshaven close to the German ports of Hamburg and Bremerhaven. The terminal is expected to start its operations in August 2012 (Jade-Weser-Port, 2011). Figure 1.3 illustrates the current construction status of the container terminal.

Figure 1.3 Current status of construction from Jade-Weser-Port

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Jade-Weser-Port, 2011

Rotterdam, Antwerp and Zeebrugge are located close to each other in the approximate middle of the North-Range. Thereby, Antwerp is situated little further in the inland along the river Scheldt between Rotterdam and Zeebrugge. Rotterdam is the largest European port and is directly connected to the Rhine river system. However, also Zeebrugge and Antwerp are situated at the entrance to the European inland waterway network, so that all three ports can serve the industrialised German Ruhr Area by barge.

Trieste is situated in the North Adriatic Sea on the Italian coast. The port provides advantageous location towards other deepwater ports since Trieste is located at the shortest distance to Shanghai.

1.3 Objectives and Research questions

The “overall objective” of this research is to investigate carbon dioxide emissions of container transport from Shanghai into the hinterland of Central and Eastern Europe through the emerging German deepwater port in Wilhelmshaven compared to other European ports with a draft of at least 15.5 meters. Thereby, following supplementary research questions will be considered:

1. How much CO2emissions are produced by container transport passing through the investigated deepwater ports and what regions can be reached more environmentally friendly through Jade-Weser-Port rather than through Rotterdam, Zeebrugge, Antwerp and Trieste?
2. What are the general port characteristics and the quality of hinterland connections?
In this context, “general port characteristics” are competitive criteria such as maritime accessibility, availability of a logistics zone, expanding capacity and others. “Quality” can be understood as connectivity to different inland transport modes and the features of these transport modes, such as distance to the nearest motorway including the number of motorway lanes, connection of railway track to electricity and inland waterway classes
3. What are the possible measures for reduction of CO2emissions of maritime supply chain or door-to-door container transport passing through Jade-Weser-Port?

It is not the aim of this paper to implement new carbon estimation methods, but rather to find and to use straightforward carbon auditing approaches or tools that are most appropriate to achieve the overall objective. Furthermore, the emphasis is not on CO2emissions from the different ports but rather on the maritime supply chains passing through the investigated ports.

1.4 Dissertation Structure

The dissertation is structured as follows. Firstly there will be a review of literature elucidating the research background and particular terms which are relevant for the three research questions. The greater part of literature review will focus on approaches for estimation of CO2emissions. Secondly, the research methodology will describe secondary and primary data collection, and explain applied methods, tools and assumptions for calculation of carbon emissions. Thirdly, findings will be presented for each research question, followed by analysis of the results in chapter 5. The dissertation will end with a conclusion including limitations of the research and recommendations for further research.

2. CHAPTER – LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The literature review will start with the research background addressing historical developments and research gaps. Subsequently, some important green logistics and maritime related terms will be addressed which are of particular relevance for the three research questions. In order to address the overall objective of this thesis, the greater part of this chapter will focus on literature concerning methods for estimation of CO2emissions from container ports and all transport modes evolved in maritime transport chain.

2.2 Research Background

According to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN ESCAP) (2011), global container traffic has grown between 1980 and 2010 from 13.5 to 138.9 million TEU. This corresponds to an increase by 930 percent over a span of 30 years, having its peak in 2008 with 152.0 million TEU (Port Economics, 2011). Containerized trade is predicted to increase to 177.6 million TEU by 2015 (UN ESCAP, 2011) and to 211 to 265 million TEU by 2020, already involving the economic downturn in 2008 (European Parliament, 2009). The European Parliament’s Committee on Transport and Tourism has indicated that there will be a strong growth in the fleet of “+10,000 TEU” container vessels and that especially the Asia-Europe trade lane will be served mainly by these ultra-large container vessels. As a matter of fact, just recently Maersk Line ordered 10 new gigantic “Triple-E” container ships with a capacity of 18,000 TEU and has set an option for further 20 vessels. This trend of ever growing container ships might create a niche market and competitive advantage (Kleinsteuber, 2002; Zondag, et al., 2010; Tongzon and Oum, 2007) for ports that provide maritime access for the largest container ships today and in the future (Hesse, 2006; Zondag, et al., 2010).

In the literature review there have been some publications comparing the competitiveness of North Italian towards North-Range ports, especially because the former have advantageous geographical location along the container flows from Asia (Zondag, et al., 2010; Pohnert, 2010; Cazzaniga Francesetti, 2005). Other papers occupy with the competition between North Range Ports in terms of short sea shipping (Ng, 2009), container rail freight services (Gouvernal and Daydou, 2005), port services (Parola and Musso, 2007), hinterland connections, maritime access, and port performance factors such as capacity and efficiency (Zondag, et al., 2010). However, during the literature review it became apparent that there is a lack of research with regard to the comparison of European “deep-water ports” that can accommodate E-class container ships with its particular dimensions (figure 1.1).

For ports there is also a growing interest in environmental issues as a consequence of public and governmental concerns associated with increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the resulting global warming. Especially in the last two centuries the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased significantly. Figure 2.1 illustrates the dramatic increase of CO2emissions over the last 200 year compared to a time span of 10,000 years.

Figure 2.1 Extraordinary growth in CO2emissions through the 20thcentury

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Freight Best Practice, 2010

The climate changes have become visible through major environmental disasters such as drought and floods. Especially the present hunger catastrophe in East Africa is a result of increasing drought (BBC News, 2011). McKinnon (2010a) indicated that environmental sustainability has become ‘a new priority for logistics managers’ (p.3). Thereby the greatest attention is currently paid to the environment (Kanji and Chopra, 2010).

In recent times there has been growing awareness of ports as elements in global supply chains (Panayides and Song, 2008; Bichou and Grey, 2004; Rodrigue and Notteboom, 2009; Notteboom, 2008). It can be assumed that the linkage of maritime logistics with the supply chain concept resulted in the development of the term “maritime supply chain” (Song and Lee, 2009; Banomyong, 2005). However, although there is a wide range of publications dealing with CO2emissions from supply chains, there are hardly papers addressing emissions from maritime container transport chains. Port of Seattle (2009) conducted a study examining the carbon footprint of a container moving from several Asian ports through different U.S. container terminals into the North American hinterland. However, there is no one comparable work at the European level. This underpins a gap in research.

2.3 Green logistics related terms

Section 2.3 will explain environment related terms which are of particular importance for the first research question. It will start with environmental impacts of freight transport and will then explain the terms conversion factors and global warming potential which are relevant for calculation of CO2emissions.

2.3.1 Environmental impacts of logistics

Logistics has numerous effects on the environment, whereby the most widely reported impact is air pollution. According to the World Economic Forum (2009), logistics activities account for approximately 5.5 percent of overall global CO2emissions, whereby road and ocean freight are the main contributors to air pollution as illustrated in figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Emissions share per logistics activity

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: World Economic Forum, 2009

Especially in terms of ocean transport, numerous publications have addressed the fact that ocean going vessels emit by far more air pollutants, such as sulphur oxide (SOx), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), than other transport modes (McKinnon et al., 2010b; ISL, 2010; Miller et al., 2009; Eyring et al., 2005). According to Moon (2011) ocean going vessels are the main contributors to SOx emissions in ports as highlighted in figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3 Contributors to SOx emissions in ports by source category

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Moon, 2011

This is because ships burn dirty heavy fuel oil (HFO) or residual oil, which contains around 27,000 parts per million (ppm) of sulphur, where for example truck diesel fuel comprises 10-15 ppm (McKinnon et al., 2010b). Cannon (2009) mentions an even higher sulphur content figure of 45,000 ppm. For this reason IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) defined so-called “SOx Emission Control Areas” (SECAs) in the North and Baltic Sea (figure 2.4) within which the sulphur content in ship fuels must be reduced to 0.1% by 2015 (ISL, 2010).

Figure 2.4 Demarcation of the North and Baltic Sea SOx Emission Control Areas

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: IFEU, 2010

2.3.2 Global warming potential and conversion factors

Atmospheric emissions consist of a large number of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are combined into six main GHGs in the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC, 2008). Each of these GHGs has a particular global warming potential (GWP) (table 2.1) measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). For example, to estimate the pollution impact of nitrous oxide (N2O), the emitted amount of N2O must be multiplied by the GWP 310. This is done to express air emissions by means of a common denominator, namely CO2e because carbon dioxide accounts for more than 85 percent of total atmospheric pollutions (Cullinane and Edwards, 2010). Therefore, a large proportion of publications often only relate to CO2when addressing air emissions.

Table 2.1 Global warming potential (GWP) of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Cullinane and Edwards, 2010

Conversion or emission factors are used to calculate GHG emissions from activities and processes associated with energy consumption (EPA, 2010; DEFA, 2009). Typical energy sources are fuels, gases, coal, and grid electricity.

2.4 Maritime related Terms

This section will provide some important maritime related terms, which are of particular relevance for the second research question. The terminology comprises maritime supply chain, hinterland, port competitiveness and intermodal transport. Thereby the former is also important for the first research question.

2.4.1 Maritime Supply Chain

McKinnon et al. (2010a) define maritime supply chain as ‘door-to-door freight delivery containing at least one sea movement’ (p.1). Berle et al. (2011) used the expression “maritime transportation system” consisting of five components, namely, sea operations, navigable waterways, ports, terminals and intermodal connection. The authors also distinguish between tramp and liner shipping, whereby the first is based on the principle of random shipping services, and the later is a network of scheduled services including land-side container movement (World Shipping Council, 2011). However, above definitions do not describe the single steps or elements of a maritime supply chain which are important to be understood in the context of the overall objective. Under the expressions “liner shipping operations” or “work flow of liner shipping logistics” Ting (2011) and Song (2011) addressed typical container maritime movement patterns. Also Port of Los Angeles (2010) outlined an extended description of maritime supply chain, that can be describes as a sequence of following steps. Firstly, the empty container is delivered to the point of origin for stuffing. The full container is then hauled to the port of discharge (e.g. Shanghai) where the box is loaded on a container vessel for the onward ocean freight to the port of destination (e.g. Rotterdam). Subsequently, port handling at the import side, on-carriage to the final destination and the replacement of empty container take place. However, in this dissertation only ocean transport, terminal handling and hinterland delivery to particular locations are considered as emphasised by the red border in figure 2.5. Thus, empty container movements in pre- and post-carriage are excluded from estimation of CO2emissions.

Figure 2.5 Simplified Maritime Supply Chain with research boundary

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: adapted from Fraunhofer IML, 2011.

2.4.2 Hinterland

In the maritime industry there is a distinction between foreland and hinterland. Thereby hinterland lies behind the port on the land-side, and ‘foreland is the ocean-ward mirror of the hinterland’ (Rodrigue and Notteboom, 2010 p.5) as exemplified in figure 2.6. In order to address the second research question, more detailed description of the term hinterland is required.

Figure 2.6 Port foreland and hinterland

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Rodrigue and Notteboom, 2006

The hinterland of a port generates goods for outbound and demand for inbound movements (Rodrigue and Notteboom 2006; Venus Lun et al., 2009). Thereby each container port serves a particular hinterland consisting of main hinterland and so-called competition margin (Rodrigue and Notteboom, 2006). Figure 2.7 illustrates these two areas from port A and B. Thereby, “main hinterland” represents that region where a port plays a predominant role. The “competition margin” area of port A can overlap with that of port B. In this overlapping area container terminals do compete for the same customers. For example, Ferrari et al. (2007), Cazzaniga Francesetti (2005) and Pohnert (2010) argue that container ports from the North-Range and from North Italian/North Adriatic Sea (figure 1.1) compete for the same hinterland region, namely, Central and Eastern Europe.

Figure 2.7 Overlapping of port hinterlands

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Rodrigue and Notteboom, 2006.

Theoretically, the concept of main hinterland and competition margin could be transferred to port competition in terms of carbon emissions. Thus, one could argue that the main hinterland of Jade-Weser-Port is that area which can be reached most environmentally friendly through Wilhelmshaven. In regions where maritime supply chain emissions from particular ports are similar, there is an overlapping of competition margin areas from these ports.

2.4.3 Port competitiveness

In order to address the second research question it is important to figure out characteristics that make a port competitive. Common competitive factors are geographical location, maritime access, port terminal performance, port charges, terminal capacity, dedicated berths, free trade zone, value added services, ability to handle different cargo types (e.g. general cargo/containers, roll-on/roll-off and bulk cargo) and inland connectivity (Ferrari et al., 2011; Pohnert, 2010; Leggate et al., 2005; Ng, 2009; Notteboom, 2009; Bichou and Gray, 2004). Song and Panayides (2008) argue that nowadays port supply chain integration is major competitive factor. If one transfers the supply chain competition concept from Christopher (2005) to the maritime industry one can state that competition no longer occurs between single ports but rather between maritime supply chains, within which ports are integral parts (Ferrari et al., 2011). Bichou and Gray (2009) differentiated between “organisational” and “intermodalism” port supply chain integration. The former means the linkage of nodes and different transport modes, whereas the latter is described as the prior cooperation between organizations in order to achieve intermodalism. Panayides and Song (2009), on the other hand, describe organizational integration as the ability of ports to provide value added services to companies. Notteboom (2008a; 2008b), argues that connection to advanced hinterland networks is a major prerequisite for successful supply chain integration, and that further development of hinterland links is indispensable in order to remain competitive.

2.4.4 Intermodal transport

“Intermodal transport” or “multimodal transport” is the movement of goods in a loading unit, such as ISO container or trailer, by at least two different transport modes (Branch, 2007; Rowbotham, 2008; Bauer et al., 2010; Winebrake et al. 2008). According to Venus Lun et al. (2009) in containerized movement intermodalism is an inherent part and enables worldwide door-to-door transport. Thus, in order to address the overall objective, following section will review the literature concerning estimation of carbon emissions from maritime door-to-door container transport.

2.5 Carbon auditing / Carbon footprinting

A carbon footprint is the amount of emitted green house gases from individuals, organisations, products, supply chains and activities. Carbon footprinting or carbon auditing is the CO2estimation process (Carbon Trust, 2007; Piecyk, 2010; McKinnon, 2009).

For carbon auditing of freight transport operations there are two basic approaches, namely, energy-based and activity-based method (Piecyk, 2010). According to Piecyk (2010) the former is quite simple to apply due to standardised energy or fuel conversion factors. However one need access to accurate fuel consumption figures (McKinnon, 2007). The latter is based on transport activity data expressed typically in tonne kilometres (tkm). For calculation if activity data the weight of carried goods (in tonnes) and distance travelled (in kilometres) is needed. Distance data can be obtained by using online distance calculation tools. However, McKinnon and Piecyk (2010) argue that it might be difficult to get distance data from rail and barge or inland waterway transport. Furthermore, the authors argue that activity based approach might be more difficult to apply since there is a wide range of various emission factors that are based on numerous assumptions from different organizations.

This dissertation will use both activity and energy based methods. Following subsections will review the literature concerning various carbon auditing methods and tools for ocean freight, port handling, and hinterland transport by road, rail and inland waterway.

2.5.1 Carbon auditing of ocean going vessels

The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2010) proposes an activity-based approach by multiplying the tonne kilometre (tkm) value by the appropriate conversion factor, expressed in “kg CO2e/tkm”. However, according to Leonardi and Browne (2010) fuel consumption of container vessels is less determined by the distance but rather by the time in particular operating mode. Therefore the authors suggest a fuel-based approach by estimating the average duration at sea and in ports, and multiplying the number of days from each operating mode by the appropriate daily fuel consumption. It should also be mentioned that Leonardi and Browne considered only container vessels with a maximum nominal capacity of 6000 TEU. However, ultra large container vessels with a nominal capacity of more than 11,000 TEU are assumed to produce less CO2emissions per TEU (Tozer, 2003). The Port of Seattle (2009) considered different sizes of container ships including vessels with a capacity of 12,500 TEU which are more relevant for deepwater ports. Port of Los Angeles (2010), Port of Seattle (2009) and the World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI) (2010) propose also an activity based approach but additionally include the “maneuvering” mode besides cruising at sea and idling in port. Maneuvering occurs in a particular distance between the open sea and a port, and can vary significantly from port to port. Emissions from maneuvering mode are of particular importance for ports that examine both shore-side and water-side GHG emissions such as done by the Port of Los Angeles (2010). However, if one considers the whole distance between Asian and northern European ports, than the proportion of maneuvering is vanishingly small. Thus, IFEU (2010) and Leonardi and Browne (2010) suggest to consider ship emissions only at sea and in port.

Most papers differentiate between propulsion and auxiliary power systems. The propulsion engine is responsible for driving the propeller and auxiliary engine provides electricity for various ship operations and serves as emergency power system in case of main engine breakdown (WPCI, 2010). These two engine types work at different engine loads depending on the operating mode. In order to estimate CO2emissions from ocean going vessels, Port of Seattle (2009), WPCI (2010) and Port of Los Angeles (2010) use the following equation.

Formula 2.1 Calculation of CO2emissions from container vessels

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Port of Seattle, 2009

I. Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR)

Maximum continuous rating (MCR) is the installed engine power and is usually measured in kilowatt (kW). Typically, maximum 80 percent of that power is used (De Meyer et al., 2008; IFEU, 2010 and Port of Seattle, 2009) due to fuel consumption and engine maintenance reasons (WPCI, 2010). The rated power from propulsion and auxiliary engines from different organizations are illustrated in table 2.2. According to Port of Seattle (2009) the MCR of a 12,500 TEU vessel is 80,080 kW. However, E.R. Shiffahrt (2011) illustrates smaller value of 74,760 kW for its 13,100 TEU vessels. Also WPCI (2010) provides lower average figure of 72,027 kW for 13,000 TEU ships. WPCI’s MCR data seem to be more appropriate, since they represent average values.

Table 2.2 Characteristics of 8,000 and 13,000 TEU ships

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Port of Seattle, 2009; E.R. Shiffahrt, 2011; WPCI, 2010

II. Load Factor (LF)

The engine load factor is determined by dividing the actual cruising speed by the maximum vessel speed and taking the cube from the outcome (formula 2.2) (WPCI, 2010, Port of Los Angeles, 2010). Table 2.3 summarizes the average load factors from propulsion and auxiliary engines applied by Port of Seattle (2009).

Formula 2.2 Calculation of the engine load factor

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: WPCI, 2010

Table 2.3 Load Factors for Ship’s Main Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: adapted from Port of Seattle, 2009

III. Activity time (AT)

The activity time is calculated by dividing travelled distance by average speed. According to WPCI (2010) and IFEU (2010) the average cruising speed from container ships is around 24 knots. Deniz and Durmusoglu (2008) and De Meyer et al. (2008) suggest an average value of around 19 knots. Especially after the financial crisis in 2008, shipping lines started to operate their vessels at so-called “slow steaming” mode with 19-20 knots to reduce fuel consumption (Rodrigue et al., 2009; Brick, 2011). As a matter of fact, Woodburn and Whiteing (2010) state that a vessel consumes one third less fuel when it reduces speed from 24 to 20 knots. The average hotelling time in port can vary significantly depending on factors such as port handling efficiency, number of un-/loaded containers, tide dependence, terminal IT system, and others (Sohn and Jung, 2009).

IV. Emission factors (EF)

Cooper (2002), Miller et al. (2009), Agrawal et al. (2010), Georgakaki et al. (2005) and Dalsoren et al. (2009) provide a wide range of various GHG emission factors and fuel conversions from different ship types. The power emission factors (table 2.4) used by Port of Seattle are based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007).

Table 2.4 Power emission factors used by Port of Seattle

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: adapted from Port of Seattle, 2009

In order to allocate ship emissions to TEU one should consider the average ship capacity utilization. The Port of Seattle uses a value of 90 percent. However, Defra (2010) and IFEU (2010) suggest a figure of 70 percent. Thereby IFEU’s utilization value is based on +7,000 TEU vessels operating on the Asia-Europe trade lane. Therefore 70% seems to be more appropriate for this dissertation.

[...]

Author

Share

Previous

Title: Carbon dioxide emissions of the container transport from Far East into the European hinterland through Jade-Weser-Port compared to other European deepwater ports