O seminário Transição Energética no Mar, realizado no Rio de Janeiro no final de Abril, marcou um grande avanço nos planos para descarbonizar o setor marítimo do Brasil. Os organizadores, liderados pelo Almirante de Esquadra Ilques Barbosa Júnior, apresentaram uma proposta para o Plano Nacional de Transição Energética Brasileiro (BMNAP). Espera-se que o plano oriente os investimentos em tecnologia de propulsão de navios, combustíveis marítimos alternativos e infraestruturas portuárias, assim como atraia apoio político na implementação de um roteiro para a descarbonização marítima. 

A proposta está em análise e será discutida em audiência pública no Senado Federal no dia 22 de agosto. O BMNAP finalizado será apresentado ao Comitê de Proteção do Meio Ambiente Marinho da Organização Marítima Internacional (IMO), que se reunirá no final de setembro de 2024. Esta ação ajudará a solidificar o compromisso do Brasil no cenário internacional. 

Antes do seminário, o Conselho Internacional de Transporte Limpo (ICCT) publicou um documento destacando o valor de um Plano de Ação Nacional no Brasil para orientar investimentos e fomentar políticas que apoiem uma indústria marítima limpa. A publicação destacou a importância da adoção de combustíveis renováveis e da melhoria da eficiência energética da frota existente, ambos refletidos na proposta do BMNAP. O artigo também destacou o potencial de colaborações intersetoriais, incluindo aquelas com portos. 

No seminário, o secretário-geral da IMO, Arsenio Antonio Dominguez Velasco, fez referência aosinsights do estudo do ICCT sobre as emissões de gases de efeito estufa do ciclo de vida do hidrogênio no Brasil durante seu discurso de abertura. Este e outros artigos do ICCT lançaram luz sobre a necessidade de aplicar uma metodologia robusta de avaliação do ciclo de vida ao avaliar a sustentabilidade de combustíveis marítimos alternativos. Este tipo de pesquisa ajudará a fornecer uma compreensão abrangente do potencial dos biocombustíveis, porque leva em conta as emissões associadas às mudanças indiretas do uso do solo (ILUC). 

O secretário-geral da IMO, Arsenio Antonio Dominguez Velasco, fez o discurso principal e destacou a Figura 4 de um estudo publicado pelo ICCT em 2023. Foto Francielle Carvalho.

O ICCT tem conduzido diversas análises técnico-econômicas ao nível das rotas para testar a viabilidade da adoção de diferentes tecnologias de combustível e propulsão nos navios, o que pode ajudar os líderes do setor a priorizar o investimento. Na verdade, os participantes do seminário destacaram o desafio de dar prioridade ao investimento devido às incertezas que rodeiam a tecnologia dos combustíveis e a viabilidade econômica. 

Apresenta-se aqui um breve estudo de caso do graneleiro Cape Jasmine, que transporta minério de ferro. Optou-se por analisar uma extensa e importante rota marítima que vai do Porto de Açu no Brasil (AÇU) até Qingdao na China (QDG), com demandas energéticas substanciais. Ao analisar dados de movimentos de navios de 2023 do Sistema de Identificação Automática (AIS), projetamos uma hipotética viagem futura desta embarcação, que tem capacidade de carga substancial (comprimento total: 292 m; largura: 45 m; pontal: 24,8 m; calado: 18,32 m). O modelo de Avaliação Sistemática de Emissões de Embarcações (SAVE) foi utilizado para estimar as demandas de energia da rota, o que resultou em aproximadamente 15 GWh para a viagem de ida e volta, de cerca de 20.000 milhas náuticas. Isso equivale ao consumo anual de energia elétrica residencial de 19.230 habitantes do sudeste do Brasil em 2020. 

Aproveitando a metodologia que utilizamos anteriormente, a análise mostra que a utilização de hidrogênio líquido como combustível exigiria duas paradas adicionais para reabastecimento para completar a viagem (só ida). Em contraste, a amônia e o metanol poderiam alimentar a viagem de ida sem quaisquer paragens adicionais (Tabela 1). Para explorar o custo dos combustíveis alternativos, a análise baseou-se em um estudo anterior do ICCT, que comparou quantitativamente o custo dos combustíveis marítimos por várias vias. Para esclarecimento, apenas foi comparado o custo do combustível para vias que utilizam eletricidade renovável e capturam dióxido de carbono como matéria-prima. Até 2030, o custo do fornecimento de combustíveis marítimos alternativos para transportar minério de ferro entre AÇU e QDG seria semelhante para o hidrogênio renovável, a amônia renovável e o metanol renovável e, para todos, seria mais de três vezes mais elevado do que a contrapartida dos combustíveis fósseis numa base de energia equivalente. 

Tabela 1. Volume estimado e custo do combustível necessário pelo graneleiro Cabo Jasmine ao longo do corredor AÇU – QDG para uma hipotética viagem só de ida, caso sejam utilizados combustíveis marítimos alternativos 

Observação: todos os custos estão em dólares americanos de 2021. 

Com o hidrogênio líquido, existem limitações práticas em relação ao armazenamento que exigiriam modificações no navio antes que ele pudesse ser usado como combustível principal. Além disso, embora o metanol e a amônia tenham potencial para abastecer viagens de longo curso sem a necessidade de paradas de reabastecimento mais frequentes, a sua toxicidade inerente e a necessidade de modificações significativas nos navios apresentam desafios. Tal como demonstrado no estudo de caso acima, o custo também é um desafio para todos os três tipos de combustíveis alternativos limpos. 

Um aspecto fundamental para viabilizar uma transição para a energia limpa é a sinergia em toda a indústria marítima. Isso significa colaboração entre proprietários de carga, operadores de navios, portos, fornecedores de combustível, construtores navais e outros. Com o BMNAP em fase de conclusão, o Brasil está preparado para demonstrar não apenas liderança nessa colaboração, mas também o seu compromisso com as metas internacionais de descarbonização. 

The Energy Transition in the Sea seminar held in Rio de Janeiro in late April marked a major step forward in plans to decarbonize Brazil’s maritime sector. The organizers, led by Ilques Barbosa Junior, an Admiral of the Fleet, presented a proposal for the Brazilian Maritime National Action Plan (BMNAP). The plan is expected to guide investments in ship propulsion technology, alternative marine fuels, and port infrastructure, and it also calls for supporting policy frameworks to implement a roadmap for maritime decarbonization.

The proposal is being reviewed and is set to be discussed during a public audience in the Federal Senate on August 22. When the BMNAP is finalized and presented to the International Maritime Organization (IMO)’s Marine Environment Protection Committee, which convenes in late September 2024, it will help solidify Brazil’s commitment on the international stage.

Before the seminar, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) published a paper highlighting the value of a National Action Plan in Brazil to guide investments and foster policies that support a clean maritime industry. It highlighted the importance of adopting renewable fuels and improving the fuel efficiency of the existing fleet, and both are well reflected in the BMNAP proposal. Our paper also highlighted the potential of cross-industry collaborations, including those with ports.

At the seminar, IMO General Secretary Arsenio Antonio Dominguez Velasco referenced insights from an ICCT study about the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen in Brazil during his keynote speech. This and other papers by the ICCT have illuminated the need to apply robust life-cycle assessment methodology when assessing the sustainability of alternative marine fuels. Doing so helps provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential of biofuels because it takes account of the associated indirect land-use change (ILUC) emissions.

The ICCT has been conducting various route-level techno-economic analyses to test the feasibility of adopting different fuel and propulsion technologies on ships. These can help industry leaders prioritize investment. Indeed, seminar participants highlighted the challenge of prioritizing investment due to the uncertainties surrounding fuel technology and economic viability.

Here we’ll present a brief case study of the Cape Jasmine, a bulk carrier transporting iron ore. We chose to analyze a long, vital shipping route from Porto de Açu, Brazil (AÇU) to Qingdao, China (QDG) with substantial energy demands. By analyzing satellite ship movement data from 2023, we constructed a hypothetical future voyage of this vessel, which has substantial cargo capacity (length overall: 292 m; breadth: 45 m; depth: 24.8 m; draught: 18.32 m). The Systematic Assessment of Vessel Emissions (SAVE) model was used to estimate the energy demands of the route, and that came out to approximately 15 GWh for the round trip of about 20,000 nm. That’s equivalent to the annual residential electricity power consumption of 19,230 inhabitants in southeastern Brazil in 2020.

Leveraging a methodology we’ve used before, the analysis shows that using liquid hydrogen as fuel would require two additional refueling stops to complete the voyage (one way). In contrast, ammonia and methanol could power the one-way voyage without any additional stops (Table 1). To explore the cost of the alternative fuels, we relied on a previous ICCT study that quantitatively compared the cost of marine fuels made through various pathways. To be clear, we only compared the cost of fuel for pathways that use renewable electricity and captured carbon dioxide as feedstock. By 2030, the cost of supplying alternative marine fuels to ship iron ore between AÇU and QDG would be similar for renewable hydrogen, renewable ammonia, and renewable methanol, and for all it would be more than three times higher than the fossil fuel counterpart on an energy-equivalent basis.

Table. Estimated volume and cost of fuel required by Cape Jasmine along the AÇU–QDG corridor for a hypothetical one-way voyage if using alternative marine fuels

Note: All costs are in 2021 U.S. dollars.

A key aspect of unlocking a transition to clean energy is synergy across the maritime industry. That means collaboration among cargo owners, ship operators, ports, fuel providers, shipbuilders, and others. With BMNAP nearing completion, Brazil is poised to demonstrate not only leadership in such collaboration but also its commitment to international decarbonization goals.

El seminario Transición Energética en el Mar celebrado en Río de Janeiro a finales de Abril marcó un avance importante en los planes para descarbonizar el sector marítimo de Brasil. Los organizadores, encabezados por Ilques Barbosa Junior, Almirante de Escuadra, presentaron una propuesta para el Plan Nacional Marítimo de Transición Energética de Brasil (BMNAP). Se espera que el plan oriente las inversiones en tecnología de propulsión de buques, combustibles marinos alternativos e infraestructura portuaria, y también exige marcos de políticas de apoyo para implementar una hoja de ruta para la descarbonización marítima.

La propuesta está bajo revisión y será discutida durante una audiencia pública en el Senado Federal el 22 de agosto. El BMNAP finalizado será presentado al Comité de Protección del Medio Marino de la Organización Marítima Internacional (OMI), que se reunirá a finales de septiembre de 2024, y ayudará a solidificar el compromiso de Brasil en el escenario internacional.

Antes del seminario, el Consejo Internacional de Transporte Limpio (ICCT) publicó un documento destacando el valor de un Plan de Acción Nacional en Brasil para orientar inversiones y fomentar políticas que apoyen una industria marítima limpia. Destacó la importancia de adoptar combustibles renovables y mejorar la eficiencia de combustible de la flota existente, y ambos aspectos están bien reflejados en la propuesta del BMNAP. Nuestro documento también destacó el potencial de las colaboraciones entre industrias, incluidas aquellas con puertos.

En el seminario, el Secretario General de la OMI, Arsenio Antonio Domínguez Velasco, hizo referencia a los resultados del estudio del ICCT sobre el ciclo de vida de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero del hidrógeno en Brasil durante su discurso de apertura. Este y otros artículos del ICCT han iluminado la necesidad de aplicar una metodología sólida del análisis del ciclo de vida al evaluar la sostenibilidad de los combustibles marinos alternativos. De esta manera, se puede proporcionar una comprensión integral del potencial de los biocombustibles porque se tienen en cuenta las emisiones asociadas al cambio indirecto del uso de la tierra (ILUC).

El Secretario General de la OMI, Arsenio Antonio Domínguez Velasco, pronunció el discurso de apertura y destacó la Figura 4 de un estudio publicado por el ICCT en 2023.  Foto de Francielle Carvalho

El ICCT ha estado realizando varios análisis tecnoeconómicos a nivel de ruta para probar la viabilidad de adoptar diferentes tecnologías de combustible y propulsión en los barcos. Estos estudios pueden ayudar a los líderes de la industria a priorizar la inversión. De hecho, los participantes del seminario destacaron el desafío de priorizar la inversión debido a las incertidumbres que rodean la tecnología de los combustibles y la viabilidad económica.

Aquí presentamos un breve estudio de caso del Cape Jasmine, un granelero que transporta mineral de hierro. Elegimos analizar una ruta marítima larga y vital desde el Puerto de Açu en Brasil (AÇU) hasta Qingdao en China (QDG) con demandas energéticas significativas. Al analizar los datos de 2023 del sistema de identificación automática (AIS), construimos un hipotético viaje futuro de este barco, que tiene una capacidad de carga sustancial (eslora total: 292 m; manga: 45 m; puntal: 24,8 m; calado: 18,32 m). Se utilizó el modelo de Evaluación Sistemática de Emisiones de Buques (SAVE) para estimar las demandas de energía de la ruta, que resultó en aproximadamente 15 GWh para el viaje de ida y vuelta de aproximadamente 20.000 millas náuticas. Esto equivale al consumo anual de energía eléctrica residencial de 19.230 habitantes en el sureste de Brasil en 2020.

Aprovechando una metodología que hemos utilizado anteriormente, el análisis muestra que el uso de hidrógeno líquido como combustible requeriría dos paradas adicionales para reabastecer de combustible para completar el viaje (solo de ida). Por el contrario, el amoníaco y el metanol podrían abastecer el viaje de ida sin paradas adicionales (Tabla 1). Para explorar el costo de los combustibles alternativos, nos basamos en un estudio anterior del ICCT que comparó cuantitativamente el costo de los combustibles marinos por varias vías. Para ser claros, solo comparamos el costo del combustible para las vías que utilizan electricidad renovable y capturan dióxido de carbono como materia prima. Para 2030, el costo de suministrar combustibles marinos alternativos para transportar mineral de hierro entre AÇU y QDG sería similar para el hidrógeno renovable, el amoníaco y el metanol renovables, y en total sería más de tres veces mayor que el costo de los combustibles fósiles en términos de energía equivalente.

Tabla 1. Volumen estimado y costo de combustible requerido por Cape Jasmine a lo largo del corredor AÇU-QDG para un viaje hipotético de ida si se utilizan combustibles marinos alternativos

Nota: Todos los costos están en dólares estadounidenses de 2021.

Con el hidrógeno líquido, existen limitaciones prácticas en torno al almacenamiento que requerirían modificaciones en el barco antes de que pueda usarse como combustible principal. Además, aunque el metanol y el amoníaco tienen el potencial de alimentar viajes de larga distancia sin la necesidad de paradas más frecuentes para repostar combustible, su toxicidad inherente y la necesidad de modificaciones significativas en los barcos presentan desafíos. Como se muestra en el estudio de caso anterior, el costo también es un desafío para los tres tipos de combustibles alternativos renovables.

Un aspecto clave para desbloquear una transición hacia la energía limpia es la sinergia en toda la industria marítima. Eso significa colaboración entre propietarios de carga, operadores de buques, puertos, proveedores de combustible, constructores navales y otros. Con el BMNAP a punto de finalizar, Brasil está preparado para demostrar no sólo liderazgo en dicha colaboración sino también su compromiso con los objetivos internacionales de descarbonización.

A recent report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that most U.S. ports lack an air quality monitoring program, and even fewer have emission inventories. Although ports would benefit from both, and EPA has some helpful guidance on conducting emission inventories, these types of analyses require specialized skills and resources, including equipment and expertise.

This is where we come in. With technical assistance from the ICCT, ports can identify high-emitting equipment and estimate the benefits of electrification. Let’s walk through how we work using a recent example.

The ICCT partnered with the Port of Coeymans, a small, privately owned marine terminal on the Hudson River near Albany, New York. Its fleet consists of nine diesel-powered tugs and more than 40 barges. The Port, which is under the umbrella of Carver Companies, has capacity for heavy haul transport of large components, modularization of power plants and bridges, marine construction, disaster recovery projects, and has recently pivoted toward supporting offshore wind projects. Carver Companies is equipped to build and repair ships on-site, including electric tugboats. We estimated the emission reductions and health benefits of converting to an all-battery-electric tug fleet.

The port sent us the specifications of the nine tugs and officials estimated that they burned roughly 120,000 gallons of 500 ppm sulfur marine diesel fuel annually. Using our global online Port Emissions Inventory Tool (goPEIT), we estimated the annual carbon dioxide (CO₂) and air pollutant emissions from tug operations. We then used InMAP to estimate the reduction in local air pollution and the health benefits associated with the switch to battery electric tugs. Lastly, we calculated the monetized health benefits of the switch using EPA’s value of a statistical life.

Our estimates show that the nine tugs at the Port of Coeymans emitted around 1,200 MT of CO₂, 20 MT of nitrogen oxides (NO_x), 380 kg of sulfur oxides (SO_x), and 320 kg of fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) annually. If all nine tugs were battery electric, these emissions would be eliminated and annual average local PM_2.5 air pollution concentrations in and around the port would be reduced by up to 0.043 µg/m³ (Figure 1). This would be a 1.1% reduction in PM_2.5, based on the real-world PM_2.5 background concentrations reported here. The 30-day average when we completed the analysis in March/April 2024 was 3.8 µg/m³. 

The reduction in PM_2.5 would result in monetized health benefits of approximately $278,000 per year based on the 2022 mean U.S. value of a statistical life. One air-pollution-related premature death in the surrounding community would be avoided every 41 years; this might not sound like much, but this is the impact of one single action at a small port in a town with a population of approximately 7,250. Monetized health benefits of avoided morbidity (non-fatal health effects) are not quantified by InMAP, but global estimates of the economic impacts of air pollution suggest that morbidity cost is roughly 10% of mortality cost. Thus, in this case, including avoided morbidity in our estimate could increase the monetized health benefits to more than $300,000 annually.

The Port of Coeymans included our analysis in applications for federal funding, and similar analyses can be done for other ports, including those with larger fleets, more equipment types, and higher nearby population density. Ports around the country are increasingly interested in electrification as it can reduce pollution, improve public health, and help decarbonize the U.S. freight transportation system. But of course, this requires investment. Fortunately, recent legislation, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, have made available more than $5 billion to support efforts to reduce pollution at U.S. ports.

EPA’s Clean Ports Program (CPP) was funded through the IRA and made $3 billion available, $750 million of which was for ports in areas that do not meet the EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This was a one-time funding opportunity and applications closed in late May, but ports can still apply for funding through the U.S. Maritime Administration’s Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP). The PIDP is a discretionary grant program aimed at improving the movement of goods at ports and implementing emissions-mitigation measures. It was awarded $2.25 billion from 2022 to 2026 through the BIL and a quarter of this is designated for projects at small ports.

A larger network of ports in the United States with air quality monitoring programs would make it easier to identify key areas where federal funding can most effectively be distributed. Strategic installation of port electrification technology can improve the air quality for near-port communities, many of which are lower-income and have historically been affected by poor air quality from port activity.

An upcoming ICCT report will estimate the CO₂, NO_x, SO_x, and PM emissions from at-berth vessels at 191 ports across the United States. As far as we’re aware, it’s the first high-level national port emissions inventory of its kind. Using novel criteria, we identified seven ports with high at-berth vessel emissions near a large population that could benefit significantly from installing shore power or other vessel-side electrification technologies.

Our work is ongoing. No matter how big or small the port or the surrounding population, more ports should consider implementing an air quality monitoring program and conducting an emissions inventory. We encourage port officials who are interested in learning more about collaborating with the ICCT on an analysis like the one with the Port of Coeymans to contact us through our website.

Along its 7,500 km of coastline, India has 12 ports designated as major ports (owned by the national government) and 217 non-major ports (owned by the respective state governments). Nearly 70% of air the pollution at major ports is from ships at berth or at anchor. The average time spent by ships while berthing at major Indian ports was 2.25 days in FY 2021–22, more than twice the average globally, 1.05 days in 2021.

The maritime sector is crucial for India. It carries 95% of the country’s trade volume and 65% of its trade value. Because of this, and as projections suggest a fivefold increase in seaborne tonnage by 2047, ports have been earmarked to play one of the leading roles in India’s decarbonization efforts.

Last spring, the Ministry of Ports, Shipping, and Waterways (MoPSW) released the “Harit Sagar” Green Port Guidelines, which detail a range of decarbonization initiatives at major ports. Among the land-based initiatives are electrification of port vehicles and cargo-handling machinery and phased adoption of alternative fuels by trucks that transport cargo. To reduce sea-based emissions, Harit Sagar (which is green ocean in Hindi) endorsed the use of shore power and cleaner alternative fuels to operate port crafts.

While the Harit Sagar initiatives are not legally binding, ports can earn carbon credits for use in a proposed carbon credit trading scheme. The environmental performance of the major ports will be evaluated by the MoPSW annually based on set near-term—30% by 2030—and long-term—70% by 2047—targets for reducing carbon intensity in terms of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions per ton of cargo. These targets were established with FY 2022–23 as the baseline year, and major ports were tasked with preparing the requisite greenhouse gas emissions inventory in conjunction with an expert agency.

The adoption of cleaner alternatives for port vehicles, port crafts, and trucks is still at a nascent stage, but progress has been made in shore-to-ship power supply. Harit Sagar envisions the rollout of shore power in three phases:

• Phase 1, by 2023, port crafts (tugs, pilot boats, and survey and mooring boats)
• Phase 2,  by 2024, Coast Guard/Navy and India-flagged coastal vessels
• Phase 3, by 2025, export/import foreign-flagged cargo vessels

By the end of April 2024, all major ports in India had developed adequate infrastructure for shore power supply to port crafts (Figure 1). Additionally, some ports—Mormugao, New Mangalore, Chennai, and Paradip—also had the infrastructure to supply to Indian Navy/Coast Guard vessels. Note that ships are not yet mandated to use the available grid power. This contrasts with the European Union, where certain types like container ships and passenger ships (including cruise) will be mandated to do so by 2030 via the FuelEU directive. While ships at Indian ports are only likely to switch to shore power if it’s financially beneficial, the MoPSW has raised the possibly of introducing incentives in the future such as queue priority and rebates on berth dues for vessels that have shore power receptors installed.

Figure 1. Major ports in India with shore power facilities
Sources: MoPSW (2020), Rajya Sabha (2021), and MoPSW (2023)

Shore power technology not only helps to minimize the climate impact of port operations, it also brings public health benefits by reducing the use of bunker fuels. An ICCT study estimated the air quality and health benefits of shore power in two port cities in the United States using our global online Port Emissions Inventory Tool (goPEIT). For the Port of Seattle, shore power for ocean-going vessels and harbor craft was expected to reduce direct CO₂, nitrogen oxides (NO_x), and particulate matter (PM_2.5) emissions from those vessels by 68%, 85%, and 75%, respectively. (Remaining emissions were because ships still use fuel in the port while entering, departing, and manoeuvring.) Using shore power was estimated to reduce the average PM_2.5 concentrations near the port by up to 83%, which would result in an estimated $27 million in public health benefits annually.

For the Port of New York/New Jersey, connecting ocean-going vessels and harbor craft to shore power and electrifying drayage trucks was estimated to reduce direct CO₂, NO_x, and PM_2.5 emissions from those sources by 64%, 66%, and 68%, respectively. The average PM_2.5 concentration levels in the port’s vicinity would be expected to fall by up to 65%, and that would translate to an estimated $150 million in public health benefits per year. Given that the population density of major Indian port cities (e.g., Mumbai, 73,000/mi² and Kolkata, 63,000/mi²) is far greater than that of New York (26,931/mi²) and Seattle (9,357/mi²), the public health benefits associated with shore power deployment could be higher in India.

The extent of the life-cycle reduction in ship emissions that result from use of shore power in India will be primarily dependent on the composition of the electricity grid. As of FY 2023–24, nearly 76% of grid power is generated from fossil fuel sources (primarily coal, with gas and oil); the remainder comes from renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro, and biomass) and nuclear energy. At present, India’s grid emission factor for CO₂ stands at about 710 g/kWh, slightly higher than ship auxiliary engines operating on low-sulfur fuel oil (approximately 690 g CO₂/kWh). However, it’s projected that with increasing use of renewable sources for power generation, India’s grid emission factor could be reduced to 548 g CO₂/kWh by FY 2026–27 and 430 g CO₂/kWh by FY 2030–31. Thus, while the overall carbon intensity of shore power use will be higher than that of burning marine fuel in the short term, the anticipated drop in the grid emission factor will make using shore power an increasingly attractive emissions-reduction option by later in this decade.

Because all major ports are in the exploration phase of deploying shore power technology, conducting a formal emissions inventory using tools like the ICCT’s goPEIT can be useful in supporting detailed recommendations about how to prioritize installations. Such an inventory would also allow decision-makers to identify, quantify, and compare other sources of port-based emissions and help port operators devise a plan for reducing and eliminating emissions from these sources in line with the Harit Sagar targets.

The ICCT’s goPEIT is free to use. Researchers and port representatives can obtain a username and password by clicking on “Request an account.” Additionally, the ICCT can help ports to evaluate the costs and benefits of different alternative fuel technology options and design transition pathways in line with India’s economy-wide decarbonization targets. We encourage those interested in establishing baseline emissions inventories for Indian ports and analyzing the cost-effectiveness of alternative fuel options to get in touch with us.