Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014

xx Third IMO GHG Study 2014
Page
Figure 68: Crossplots for days at sea, average engine load (% MCR) and auxiliary engine
fuel use for the year 2007, as reported by the Second IMO GHG
Study 2009 (x-axis) and the Third IMO GHG Study 2014 (y-axis) ................ 92
Figure 69: Crossplots for average main engine daily fuel consumption and total vessel
daily fuel consumption for 2007, as reported by the Second IMO GHG Study
2009 (x-axis) and the Third IMO GHG Study 2014 (y-axis) .................... 92
Figure 70: Crossplots for main engine annual fuel consumption, total vessel annual fuel
consumption, aggregated vessel type annual fuel consumption and CO 2
for the year 2007, as reported by the Second IMO GHG Study
2009 (x-axis) and the Third IMO GHG Study 2014 (y-axis) .................... 93
Figure 71: Estimated refrigerant emissions of the global fleet 2007–2012 .................. 101
Figure 72: Impact of engine control tuning (ECT) to specific fuel oil consumption
during low load operation of MAN 6S80ME-C8.2. Standard tuning is shown by
the solid black line, part load optimization by the solid blue line
and low load tuning by the broken line (from MAN, 2012) .................... 109
Figure 73: Impact of engine load on brake-specific fuel consumption of various
selected SSD, MSD and HSD engines (emissions factors by engine type) .......... 110
Figure 74: Comparison of PM emissions factors reported in Second IMO GHG Study 2009
[blue diamond](Figure 7.7, based on data from Germanischer Lloyd)
with values from Jalkanen et al. (2012) [red square]
and Starcrest (2013) [green triangle] ..................................... 112
Figure 75: Time series of top-down results for a) CO 2 , b) CH 4 , c) N 2 O, d) SO x , e) NO x ,
f) PM, g) CO, and h) NMVOC, delineated by international shipping,
domestic navigation and fishing ........................................ 121
Figure 76: Time series of bottom-up results for a) CO 2 , b) CH 4 , c) N 2 O, d) SO x , e) NO x ,
f) PM, g) CO, and h) NMVOC, delineated by international shipping,
domestic navigation and fishing ........................................ 122
Figure 77: Time series of bottom-up results for a) CO 2 , b) CH 4 , c) N 2 O, d) SO x , e) NO x ,
f) PM, g) CO, and h) NMVOC. The green bar represents the Second IMO GHG
Study 2009 estimate for comparison ..................................... 125
Figure 78: Schematic presentation of the emissions projection model .................... 129
Figure 79: Historical data on world coal and oil consumption, coal and oil transported
(upper panel), total (non-coal) bulk dry goods, other dry cargoes
and global GDP (lower panel). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Figure 80: Historical data to 2012 on global GDP (constant 2005 US$ billion/yr)
coupled with projections of GDP from SSP1 through to SSP5 by 2050 ........... 137
Figure 81: Historical data to 2012 on global consumption of coals and oil (EJ/yr)
coupled with projections from RCP2.6 through to RCP8.5 by 2050 .............. 138
Figure 82: Historical data to 2012 on global transport work for non-coal combined
bulk dry cargoes and other dry cargoes (billion tonne-miles)
coupled with projections driven by GDPs from SSP1
through to SSP5 by 2050 ............................................. 138
Figure 83: Historical data to 2012 on global transport work for ship-transported coal
and liquid fossil fuels (billion tonne-miles) coupled with projections of coal
and energy demand driven by RCPs 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 by 2050 .............. 139
Figure 84: CO 2 emissions projections ............................................ 141
Figure 85: Emissions projections for the BAU transport demand scenarios ................. 142
Figure 86: Output for demand scenarios under conditions of high LNG/extra ECA
and high efficiency .................................................. 142
Figure 87: Specific output for scenario 15 (RCP4.5, SSP3, low LNG/no additional ECA,
low efficiency) ..................................................... 143
Figure 88: Impact of productivity assumptions on emissions projections .................. 145