Life‐cycle energy and environmental emissions of cargo ships

Maritime shipping is under increasing pressure to alleviate its environmental impact. To this end, life‐cycle footprint accounting provides a foundation for taking targeted measures in the green transition of shipping. This study used the process‐based hybrid life‐cycle inventory (LCI) modeling approach to estimate the “cradle‐to‐propeller” footprint of ships, including primary energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and sulfur dioxide emissions. We used the input–output LCI model to calculate the embodied energy and emissions associated with the material and fuel use of ship manufacturing. We used a bottom‐up emission model and global marine traffic data to estimate the operational footprint of different types of ships. Based on 382 cargo ships (including bulk carriers, container ships, and general cargo ships) constructed in mainland China between 2011 and 2015, we estimated that the embodied footprint accounted for <10% of the cradle‐to‐propeller footprint under the pre‐2019 policy scenario. In terms of life‐cycle energy intensity (MJ/nm/1000 deadweight tonnage [DWT]), the large bulk carrier (>100,000 DWT) establishes the lowest value (46), followed by the small (0–100,000 DWT) bulk carrier (96), the large container ship (133), the small container ship (196), and the small general cargo (238). The bulk carrier was identified as the most energy efficient among the three ship types, and ships with larger capacities (i.e., DWT) had higher energy efficiencies than ships with lower capacities. Our study provides a comprehensive understanding of the life‐cycle footprints of cargo ships, thus enabling better evidence‐based policymaking to transition the global marine‐shipping industry to a future of greener energy.

[1]  D. Bernacki.  Assessing the Link between Vessel Size and Maritime Supply Chain Sustainable Performance , 2021, Energies.

[2]  Ruth M Saint,et al.  A pragmatic and industry-oriented framework for data quality assessment of environmental footprint tools , 2021, Resources, Environment and Sustainability.

[3]  Idiano D’Adamo,et al.  Zero waste approach towards a sustainable waste management , 2021, Resources, Environment and Sustainability.

[4]  Lixiao Zhang,et al.  Understanding the material efficiency of the wind power sector in China: A spatial-temporal assessment , 2020 .

[5]  Lixiao Zhang,et al.  The energy use and environmental emissions of high-speed rail transportation in China: A bottom-up modeling , 2019, Energy.

[6]  J. Fung,et al.  The significance of incorporating unidentified vessels into AIS-based ship emission inventory , 2019, Atmospheric Environment.

[7]  Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen,et al.  Global assessment of shipping emissions in 2015 on a high spatial and temporal resolution , 2017 .

[8]  Jian Gu,et al.  Inland port vessel emissions inventory based on Ship Traffic Emission Assessment Model–Automatic Identification System , 2017 .

[9]  Yuan Chang,et al.  A life-cycle comparison of the energy, environmental and economic impacts of coal versus wood pellets for generating heat in China , 2017 .

[10]  Kebin He,et al.  Health and climate impacts of ocean-going vessels in East Asia , 2016 .

[11]  J. Corbett.  Transport: Shipping emissions in East Asia , 2016 .

[12]  Nikolaos P. Ventikos,et al.  Holistic framework for studying ship air emissions in a life cycle perspective , 2015 .

[13]  T. Astrup,et al.  Systematic Evaluation of Uncertainty in Material Flow Analysis , 2014 .

[14]  Robert Ries,et al.  Shale-to-well energy use and air pollutant emissions of shale gas production in China , 2014 .

[15]  Robert Ries,et al.  The embodied energy and emissions of a high-rise education building: A quantification using process-based hybrid life cycle inventory model , 2012 .

[16]  S. Dhakal.  Urban energy use and carbon emissions from cities in China and policy implications , 2009 .

[17]  Chris Hendrickson,et al.  Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services: An Input-Output Approach , 2006 .

[18]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  The computational structure of life cycle assessment , 2002 .

[19]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Economic Input–Output Models for Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment , 1998 .

[20]  Clark W. Bullard,et al.  Net energy analysis : handbook for combining process and input-output analysis , 1976 .

[21]  S. Eastham,et al.  Global air quality and health impacts of domestic and international shipping , 2021 .

[22]  M. Brooks,et al.  50 Years of Review of Maritime Transport, 1968-2018: Reflecting on the Past, Exploring the Future , 2018 .

[23]  Anna Ringvold,et al.  Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Container Shipping , 2017 .

[24]  Michael Zwicky Hauschild,et al.  From LCC to LCA Using a Hybrid Input Output Model – A Maritime Case Study , 2015 .

[25]  M. Gauss,et al.  Model calculations of the effects of present and future emissions of air pollutants from shipping in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea , 2014 .

[26]  Tommy Hertzberg,et al.  LASS-C, Lightweight construction of a cruise vessel , 2011 .

[27]  Glen P. Peters,et al.  Construction of Chinese Energy and Emissions Inventory , 2006 .