DEMONSTRATING AIR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS THROUGH ENERGY EFFICIENCY RETROFITS ON MAERSK LINE G-CLASS VESSELS by Geoffrey R. Cooper, Julia Lewis, Benjamin Lozier Dr. Jay Golden, Adviser April 28, 2017 Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University Without their support this project would not have been possible, so the authors want to especially thank: • Lee Kindberg, Director of Environment & Sustainability North America, Maersk Line • Andrew Beath, Project Manager, Maersk Line • Bruce Anderson, Principal, Starcrest Consulting This report is intended to provide support to Maersk Line and its efforts on the San Pedro Bay Ports Technology Advancement Program. However, all recommendations and conclusions in this report are the author’s own work and do not represent any views or statements from Maersk Line. Photo Courtesy of Maersk Line 2 Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................................... 4 Abbreviations........................................................................................................................ 5 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 6 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Background Information ..................................................................................... 11 1.1.1 Maersk Line and the Radical Retrofit Program .............................................. 13 1.1.2 The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach: San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) and Technology Advancement Program (TAP) ....................................... 15 2 Defining the Project Scope and Gathering Baseline Information .......................... 18 2.1 Sources of Data ................................................................................................... 18 2.1.1 Maersk Ship Performance System (MSPS) ................................................... 18 2.1.2 Control, Alarm, and Monitoring System (CAMS) and Flow Meters ................ 19 2.1.3 Vessel Schedule ............................................................................................ 20 2.2 Estimating Emissions Reductions using MSPS Reports ................................ 21 2.2.1 Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................... 24 2.2.2 Regression Analysis Results ......................................................................... 25 2.2.3 Emissions Reductions .................................................................................... 27 2.3 Using Post-RR Data to Understand Uncertainty of MSPS Reports using CAMS Data ...................................................................................................................... 31 2.4 Internal and External Validity ............................................................................. 35 3 Vessel Performance Platform: Incentivizing Environmental Performance through Behavior .............................................................................................................................. 37 3.1 Recommendation 1: Emissions Reduction Contest ........................................ 38 3.2 Recommendation 2: Social Comparisons ........................................................ 40 3.3 Recommendation 3: Environmental Notifications ........................................... 41 3.4 Voluntary and Mandatory Reporting Standards ............................................... 43 3.4.1 Upcoming IMO Actions .................................................................................. 44 3.4.2 Clean Cargo Working Group (CCWG) & Clean Shipping Index (CSI) ........... 47 4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 48 Appendix A: Additional Comparison of Manual vs. Auto Logged Data ........................ 50 Appendix B: Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................... 55 Appendix C: Regression Results ...................................................................................... 59 Appendix D. Performance Platform Comparisons .......................................................... 68 3 List of Tables and Figures Table 1. Characteristics of the different sources of data. ........................................................................... 20 Table 2. Timespan/availability for each source of data by vessel. ............................................................. 20 Table 3. Percent of Time and Distance Spent at Constant ME Load/Normal Cruising (2014-2016) ......... 23 Table 4. Statistical significance of pre- and post-retrofit MSPS variables. ................................................. 24 Table 5. Erroneous RPM data removed from analysis. .............................................................................. 25 Table 6. Regression results for Retrofit Coefficient .................................................................................... 26 Table 7. Fixed Effects Regression Results for the Class. .......................................................................... 27 Table 8. Comparison of TAP Estimates and Calculated Values in Contants ME Load/Normal Cruising (tonnes/year/vessel). .................................................................................................................................. 29 Table 9. Estimated emissions reductions from Radical Retrofit. ................................................................ 30 Table 10.Paired t-test comparison of Guthorm MSPS and CAMS data from consecutive normal cruising reports (2-19-17 to 2-24-17) ....................................................................................................................... 34 Table 11. Paired t-test comparison of Guthorm MSPS and CAMS data from all normal cruising periods (12-7-16 to 2-24-17) ................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 12. Descriptive statistics of MSPS reports pre- and post-retrofit. ..................................................... 55 Figure 1. Timeline of Radical Retrofit and sensor installations overlaid with vessel calls to the ports of LA and Long Beach. ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 2. G-Class Port Calls from December 2013-February 2017. .......................................................... 21 Figure 3. Distribution of Fuel Consumption and Log (Fuel Consumption). ................................................ 24 Figure 4. % Decrease in Fuel Consumption ............................................................................................... 26 Figure 5. Guthorm MSPS and CAMS main engine power (kW) data from consecutive constant ME load/normal cruising reports (2-19-17 to 2-24-17). Vessel departed Singapore on 2-18-17 and arrived at Suez Canal on 3-01-17. (Y-axis: 0kW – 44,000kW) ................................................................................... 32 Figure 6. Guthorm MSPS and CAMS main engine RPM data from consecutive constant ME load/normal cruising reports (2-19-17 to 2-24-17). Vessel departed Singapore on 2-18-17 and arrived at Suez Canal on 3-01-17. ................................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 7. Guthorm MSPS and CAMS speed (knots) data from consecutive constant ME load/normal cruising reports (2-19-17 to 2-24-17). Vessel departed Singapore on 2-18-17 and arrived at Suez Canal on 3-01-17. ................................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 8. Example push notification environmental notification from Performance Platform. .................... 42 Figure 9. Example push notification environmental notification from Performance Platform. .................... 43 Figure 10. Gerner MSPS and CAMS main engine RPM data from Port of Long Beach to Port of Oakland (1-11-17 to 1-12-17) ................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 11. Gerner MSPS and CAMS main engine power (kW) data from Port of Long Beach to Port of Oakland (1-11-17 to 1-12-17). (Y-axis: 0kW – 44,000kW) ......................................................................... 51 Figure 12. Gerner MSPS and CAMS speed (knots) data from Port of Long Beach to Port of Oakland (1- 11-17 to 1-12-17). ....................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 13. Gerner MSPS and CAMS main engine power (kW) data from consecutive constant ME load/normal cruising reports (2-11-17 to 2-15-17). Vessel departed Singapore on 2-10-17 and arrived at Suez Canal on 2-21-17. Smaller range of values shows more detail on CAMS data. ............................... 52 Figure 14. Gerner MSPS and CAMS main engine RPM data from consecutive constant ME load/normal cruising reports (2-11-17