View non-flash version
a consequence of slow steaming is substan- tially reduced air emissions. e year 2010 saw an increase in cargo volumes, but high fuel prices continue to aect the protability of carriers. Slow steaming is becoming the norm, at least for the foreseeable future, rather than a short-term cost-cutting remedy. Maersk Line reports it has reduced ship speeds by 5 to 10%, reducing fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by more than 15%. Further, Maersk indicates that, although slow steam- ing increases transit time, it improves delivery reliability, since vessel speed can be continually adjusted in order to deliver cargo exactly on time. us, slow steaming could become an important carbon foot- print reduction strategy over time. Comparison of emissions from Asian cargo A 2008 Port of Los Angeles study prepared by Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC and entitled Greenhouse Gas Emissions from International Ship Transit Presentation , examined the CO 2 emissions associated with various routing options for a container from Shanghai to Kansas City, Kansas. e routings compared delivery with dif- ferent ship sizes from the East Coast Port of Jacksonville, Florida, using both the Panama and Suez Canal routes and from the West Coast ports of Manzanillo, Mexico and Los Angeles. e analysis considered emis- sions generated during the ocean voyage as well as the rail transport from the port to the nal inland destination. Inland rail movements from all ports to Kansas City were assumed to be made by the same intermodal train config- uration, which consisted of four 4,400 horsepower locomotives carrying 368 con- tainers per train, with a train speed of 50 miles per hour. All vessels were assumed to use bunker fuel except within 40 nauti- cal miles of the Port of Los Angeles, where local requirements require the use of 0.5% sulfur marine gas oil or marine diesel oil. Further, the vessel scenario assumed that vessels would reduce their speed to 12 knots when within 40 nautical miles of the harbor entrance, reective of the Port of Los Angeles and Long BeachÂs Vessel Speed Reduction Program CAAP requirements. Cargo drayage emissions, as well as truck and cargo handling equipment used to move containers from ship to rail, were not included in the Los Angeles analysis because of their extremely low greenhouse gas contribution compared to the ship and rail emissions associated with each route. e subsequent 2009 Port of Seattle study, entitled Carbon Footprint Study for the Asia to North America Intermodal Trade and prepared by Herbert Engineering Corporation, confirmed this assumption. e study also estimated that CO2 emissions from cargo drayage and the California requirement for shore-side power for vessels at berth?also known as alterna- tive maritime power (AMP) or high voltage shore connection (HVSC)?were negligible in the global cargo movement, with both factors Container vessel unloading at the Port of Los Angeles, connected to shore-side power. July 2011 www.sname.org/sname/mt