Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014

Recommendations

Info

Annex 4 231 IEA sources of uncertainties that can be quantified for this work As mentioned in Section 1.5.1 of the main report, IEA energy balance statistics represent the best available top-down numbers that include marine bunker fuels estimates on a global basis. We assess the quality of IEA by looking at possible sources of uncertainties, and by estimating the potential correction when it is feasible. We identify four important sources of top-down marine fuel uncertainties: 1 Maritime sector reporting: fuel sales distinguish between international and domestic navigation categories with uncertainty. Errors can be made when fuels reported under different categories are combined. This type of error can be spilt in two cases: a b Misallocations: Fuels that should be attributed to national navigation are allocated in international navigation or vice versa. In this case, only the total (sum) of sales per type of fuel is correct, while the allocation is uncertain. Duplications: Fuel sales could be allocated in both categories, double-counting the amount of fuel sold. In this case, the allocation and fuel totals can contain errors contributing to uncertainty. 2 Other sector misallocation: marine fuels might be allocated to other non-shipping categories, e.g. export, agriculture, etc. In this case, marine fuels would be under-reported and other sectors may have their fuels over-reported. 3 Transfers category reporting: in accordance with IEA, this category comprises inter-product transfers, which result from reclassification of products either because their specification has changed or because they are blended into another product. The net balance of inter-product transfers should be zero; however, “National stocks” can be used in blending residual bunkers to specification. This could increase the volume of fuel delivered to ships sometimes without statistical documentation (IEA, 2013), resulting in under-reporting. 4 Data accuracy: IEA data may suffer a lack of intrinsic accuracy because of the ways in which the data are collected. These sources of discrepancy are not mutually exclusive, and not all of them can be identified and quantified given available data at the national levels. Estimates of potential adjustment to top-down statistics Potential adjustments are evaluated by considering world energy statistical balances, and quantifying discrepancies in quantities most related to known top-down uncertainty. We quantify sector misallocation specifically for cumulative volumes that could be misallocated marine bunkers, in whole or in part. Export-import misallocation Some of energy allocation discrepancies can be identified through analysing IEA data in world balance format. We use these discrepancies to estimate potential corrections due to uncertainties that are under the category “other sector misallocation”. As acknowledged by IEA, the difference between total exports and imports (net difference at world scale) indicates a possible misallocation of bunkers into exports for some countries. By collecting IEA data in world balance format, this net difference at world scale can be used to identify an upper bound of potential correction. Given evidence that at least part of this discrepancy could be from a misallocation of marine fuels, we expect that the best estimation of this uncertainty would adjust the fuel sale data. In other words, if excess exports are not recorded as imports, then excess fuel deducted as exports could be sold as marine bunkers without record. The net discrepancies reported by IEA as “Statistical differences” are calculated as total consumption minus total supply. Figure 20, Figure 21 and Figure 22 show the marine fuel sales data and both discrepancies over the period 1971–2011. The net statistical difference should be expected to be smaller than any single contributor to the net differences. This is because net statistic difference includes the export-import discrepancy, and all other discrepancies that may be additive or offsetting, including unquantified discrepancies (uncertainties) in marine bunker statistics.
232 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 The export-import discrepancies represent a larger fraction of marine fuel oil bunkers than distillate bunkers. Conversely, statistical differences are larger for distillate fuels than for fuel oil. These findings could be expected, given the larger presence of fuel oil in the maritime sector. For example, allocation of bunker sales as exports, if occurring equally frequently for all marine fuels, would produce a greater discrepancy for marine fuel oil. Moreover, given the greater world demand for distillate fuels (e.g. small statistical uncertainties in a larger fuel sector), statistical uncertainty could represent a larger fraction of distillate marine bunkers than import-export differences. Natural gas discrepancies vary around the zero value, and no international gas sales statistics exist; therefore, we will not quantify uncertainty for natural gas data. Figure 20: Fuel oil shipping sales, export-import discrepancy and statistical difference at world balance Figure 21: Gas/diesel shipping sales, export-import discrepancy and statistical difference at world balance
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 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124:
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 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
112 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Figure
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
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:
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 227 and 228: 196 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Figure
Page 233 and 234: 202 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Every
Page 237 and 238: 206 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Table
Page 239 and 240: 208 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 time s
Page 241 and 242: 210 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 2011
Page 260 and 261: Annex 4 Details for Section 1.5.1:
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 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 305 and 306: 274 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 potent
Page 307 and 308: 276 Third IMO GHG Study 2014 Size c
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

Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014

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

Delete template?

Save as template?