US container ports and air pollution: the IMO challenge

In February 2008, an Energy Futures,  Inc. report, U.S. Container Ports and Air  Pollution: A Perfect Storm, found that  local environmental damage caused by  international shipping at US container ports  is bad - and is getting worse.  The report examined the air pollution  control efforts underway at the 10 largest  container ports to reduce the environmental  damage. Although air pollution at most ports  is getting worse as cargo handling increases,  the report identified important environmental  protection programs underway at every  port, including several innovative pollution  control programs at several involving the  use of natural gas, biodiesel or hybrid electric  vehicles that hold the promise of turning the  tide against air pollution.  Energy Futures is now completing a  progress report of new developments at US  container ports in 2008. The new research,  to be published in January 2009, shows that  2008 has been the busiest year yet for new  cleanup efforts at ports. 

Cleaner trucks – and hybrids

 Regional truck programs have been launched  at the three California ports that represent  a quantum expansion of the five natural  gas cargo handling truck demonstration  programs underway in 2007, which included  less than 30 prototype off-road vehicles.  Approximately 16,300 highly polluting  drayage trucks serve the ports of Los Angeles  and Long Beach. In March 2008, the ports  adopted clean truck programs designed to  replace these trucks with cleaner vehicles,  including trucks powered by natural gas.  The clean-up will be financed by the first  container fees ever adopted at US container  ports. Each TEU of container passing through  either port in either direction will be assessed  a $35 fee. The port of Oakland endorsed a  similar clean truck program in 2008 and  several bills are being debated in the US  Congress that would establish a national  container fee to finance port clean-ups.  Also new in 2008 were several hybrid electric  vehicle projects, including yard tractors and  rubber tire gantries at ports in New York City  and Long Beach. Meanwhile, several other  projects underway in 2007 - including use of  biodiesel in the ports of Seattle and Tacoma,  development of a hybrid electric tugboat in  Los Angeles and demonstration of a natural  gas power generator to supply electricity to  ships at berth in Oakland - continued to  make progress in 2008. 

Fuel challenges from the IMO 

Progress in promoting alternative fuel use at  container ports could pay dividends to the  shipping industry as it struggles to come to  grips with the new fuel quality requirements  adopted by the International Maritime  Organization in October. Bunker fuel could  become off limits to the shipping industry for  environmental reasons as the new IMO rules  take effect.  The industry’s first choice as a replacement  is likely to be distillate fuels similar to diesel  truck or jet fuel. This would increase the  demand for distillate fuels, however  the  supplies of which are already strained.  Additional oil production and refining  capacity would be needed to generate these  supplies.  A switch of 300 million tons of bunker fuel  per year to cleaner grades of distillate fuel  would require an increase in global oil  production of 900 million tons per year, or  6.6 million barrels of new oil per day. This is  greater than the entire oil production today  from any country except Saudi Arabia or  Russia. It would take more than a decade  to expand the global oil refining capacity to  provide distillate fuel to the shipping industry  and the cost would be horrific.  Other alternatives exist for the shipping  industry, including the use of alternative  fuels. Natural gas is already used in about  50 ferries operating in Europe and the boil off  from some liquefied natural gas tankers is  burned as a propulsion fuel. Even so, natural  gas or other alternative fuel use onboard ships  would be new to most shipping companies.  One of the first steps shipping companies  should take in response to the IMO rules is  to participate in expanded portside pollution  control programs to gain vital experience in  the use of these fuels. This would leave them  better informed several years from now when  tough choices will have to be made about  how to power transoceanic ships. In the  meantime, port communities benefit from  improved air quality. 

James Cannon is President of Energy  Futures, Inc., a company founded  in 1979 to study the environmental  consequences of energy use. He is the  author of U.S. Container Ports and  Air Pollution: A Perfect Storm. Visit:  www.energy-futures.com for further  information.