MnrAq

Recommendations

Info

Inventories of CO2 emissions from international shipping 2007–2012 67 Figure 48: Activity estimate quality assurance (2012) Greater detail of the derivation of parameters from the LRIT data sets and their application in this comparative analysis is given in Annex 3, along with analysis for 2010 and 2011. Activity estimates and derived parameters (speed and draught) In addition to the analysis carried out using LRIT data, a further quality analysis of the bottom-up method’s estimate of activity (time in mode, speed estimation, draught estimation and distance covered) can be obtained using noon report data. Noon report data record information daily, including average speed during the period of the report and distance travelled. Noon reports also record the date and time a voyage begins and ends. This information was aggregated over quarters, compared with the same data calculated using the bottom-up model, and aggregated to the same quarter of each year. The results for 2012 are presented in Figure 49 and Figure 50. The red line represents an ideal match (equal values) between the bottom-up and noon report outputs, the solid black line the best fit through the data and the dotted black lines the 95% confidence bounds on the best fit. The “x” symbols represent individual ships, coloured according to the ship type category listed in the legend. The plots include all results, with no outliers removed. The activity estimation of days at sea and at port can be seen to have some scatter. This scatter is related to the fact that for some of the time the ship is not observed and an extrapolation algorithm is used to estimate activity. For any one ship, the reliability of that extrapolation is low. However, overall, the distribution is approximately even and does not represent a significant degree of bias, as the best-fit line shows. The reliability of the estimate of at-port and at-sea days appears consistent regardless of ship type. The quality of the estimation of ship speed when at sea is higher than the quality of the port- and sea-time estimation. The best-fit line shows close alignment with the red equilibrium line, albeit with a trend towards underestimating the speeds of the larger container ships. The confidence bounds are closely aligned to the best-fit line. The draught observation shows the lowest quality of fit. The observed scatter implies a bias for the bottom-up method to slightly overestimate draught. The agreement for ship types with low draught variability (e.g. container ships) is good. This implies that the overall poor reliability is likely to be due to infrequent updating of the draught data reported to the AIS receiver. In earlier years (see Annex 3 for the data), similar relative quality assurance between the variables plotted can be obtained; however, the absolute quality reduces for the earlier years, particularly 2007, 2008 and 2009. This can be seen by comparing the 2012 results with Figure 51, even accounting for the fact that in 2009 there are fewer ships in the noon reports data set. Days at sea and at-sea speed have significantly more scatter and therefore wider confidence bounds than the equivalent plots in 2012. With the exception of some outlier data in 2009, the speed agreement is moderate. However, the days-at-sea agreement implies that there is some
68 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 bias, with the bottom-up method consistently overestimating the time that the ship is at sea. This supports the findings of the activity estimate quality assurance work undertaken using LRIT data. A more detailed description of the noon report data sources, the method for assembling the data for comparison purposes and further years’ analysis results can be found in Annex 3. Figure 49: Comparison of at-sea and at-port days, calculated using both the bottom-up model output (y-axis) and noon report data (x-axis) (2012)
Page 1 and 2:
Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014
Page 3 and 4:
Published in 2015 by the internatio
Page 6 and 7:
Contents Page Preface .............
Page 8 and 9:
vii 3.1.2 Outline .............
Page 10:
ix Fleet productivity projectio
Page 13 and 14:
xii Third IMO GHG Study 2014 The re
Page 15 and 16:
xiv Third IMO GHG Study 2014 MEPC m
Page 18 and 19:
List of figures Page Figure 1: Bott
Page 20 and 21:
List of figures xix Page Figure 46:
Page 22 and 23:
List of figures xxi Annex Figures P
Page 24:
List of figures xxiii Figure 45: Ca
Page 27 and 28:
xxvi Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Page
Page 29 and 30:
xxviii Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Tab
Page 32 and 33:
Executive Summary Key findings from
Page 34 and 35:
Executive Summary 3 rigorous testin
Page 36 and 37:
Executive Summary 5 emissions than
Page 38 and 39:
Executive Summary 7 Figure 2 shows
Page 40 and 41:
Executive Summary 9 because, in con
Page 42 and 43:
Executive Summary 11 Particular car
Page 44 and 45:
Executive Summary 13 larger ship si
Page 46 and 47:
Executive Summary 15 Summary of Sec
Page 48 and 49: Executive Summary 17 a. CO 2 b. CH
Page 50 and 51: Executive Summary 19 Demand for coa
Page 52 and 53: Executive Summary 21 Figure 15 show
Page 54 and 55: Executive Summary 23 • ships obse
Page 56 and 57: Executive Summary 25 b Noon report
Page 58 and 59: 1 Inventories of CO 2 emissions fro
Page 60 and 61: Inventories of CO2 emissions from i
Page 124: Inventories of CO2 emissions from i
Page 127 and 128: 96 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Emissio
Page 129 and 130: 98 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Method
Page 131 and 132: 100 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Table
Page 133 and 134: 102 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Year T
Page 135 and 136: 104 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 2.2.7
Page 137 and 138: 106 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 This s
Page 139 and 140: 108 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 N 2 O
Page 143 and 144: 112 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Figure
Page 149 and 150:
118 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 shippi
Page 151 and 152:
120 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 • SO
Page 153 and 154:
122 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 a) CO
Page 155 and 156:
124 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Table
Page 158 and 159:
3 Scenarios for shipping emissions
Page 160 and 161:
Scenarios for shipping emissions 20
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Bibliography for Main Report and An
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182:
Page 185 and 186:
154 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 IHSF o
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
160 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Pre-pr
Page 193 and 194:
162 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 There
Page 195 and 196:
164 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Follow
Page 197 and 198:
166 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Figure
Page 199 and 200:
168 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 data s
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
172 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Ship c
Page 205 and 206:
174 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 experi
Page 207 and 208:
176 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 The mo
Page 209 and 210:
178 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 sfc =
Page 211 and 212:
180 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 2011 D
Page 213 and 214:
182 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Ship t
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
202 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Every
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
208 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 time s
Page 241 and 242:
210 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 2011
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 260 and 261:
Annex 4 Details for Section 1.5.1:
Page 262 and 263:
Annex 4 231 IEA sources of uncertai
Page 264 and 265:
Annex 4 233 Transfers category repo
Page 266 and 267:
Annex 4 235 Figure 24: Time series
Page 268 and 269:
Annex 5 Details for Section 1.5.2:
Page 270 and 271:
Annex 5 239 3 The uncertainty in es
Page 272 and 273:
Annex 5 241 data has been used. The
Page 274 and 275:
Annex 5 243 temporal coverage QA/QC
Page 276 and 277:
Annex 5 245 uncertainties (standard
Page 278 and 279:
Annex 6 Details for Section 2: othe
Page 280 and 281:
Table 22 - Baseline emissions facto
Page 282 and 283:
Annex 6 251 Table 24 - EF-related S
Page 284:
Annex 6 253 Table 31 - PM FCFs - MG
Page 287 and 288:
256 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Analys
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
260 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 that s
Page 293 and 294:
262 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Contai
Page 295 and 296:
264 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Regard
Page 297 and 298:
266 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 LNG ma
Page 299 and 300:
268 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 • Th
Page 301 and 302:
270 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 ULCCs
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
274 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 potent
Page 307 and 308:
276 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Size c
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
280 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Year o
Page 313 and 314:
282 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Johnso
Page 315 and 316:
284 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 The re
Page 317 and 318:
286 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 MGO, t
Page 319 and 320:
288 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 CH 4 M
Page 321 and 322:
290 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 • As
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
show all

MnrAq

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?