Optimized selection of vessel air emission controls—moving beyond cost-efficiency

Shipping currently has an unexploited potential for improved energy efficiency and reduced emissions to air. Many existing air emission controls have been proved to be cost-efficient but are still not commonly installed on board vessels. This paper discusses the so-called ‘energy paradox’ in maritime transportation, presenting barriers to overcome and criteria to consider when selecting cost-efficient air emission controls. Current approaches typically select available controls based on their cost-effectiveness. While this is an important aid in the decision-making process, and, in relative terms, easy to quantify, it is not a sufficient criterion to capture the true preferences of the decision-maker. We present in this paper a multi-criteria optimization model for the selection of air emission controls. This decision framework can also incorporate subjective and qualitative factors, and is applied to the shipping company Grieg Shipping. A survey among internal Grieg Shipping stakeholders identifies the important criteria to consider, their relative importance, and the scoring of the controls. This empirical data is used as parameters in the model and the model is then applied on a vessel of the Grieg Shipping fleet. The results show that nonfinancial factors play an important role in the selection of air emission controls in shipping.

[1]  Vir V. Phoha,et al.  Viewpoint , 1999, CACM.

[2]  Veronika Eyring,et al.  Prevention of air pollution from ships. Second IMO GHG Study 2009: Final report covering Phase 1 and Phase 2 , 2009 .

[3]  Ø. Endresen,et al.  Cost-effectiveness assessment of CO2 reducing measures in shipping , 2009 .

[4]  Barriers to energy conservation , 1975 .

[5]  Cecilia Girard Exploring a decision framework for evaluating cost-effectiveness and utility of CO2 abatement measures in shipping: A methodology applied to the cast fleet of Grieg Shipping Group , 2010 .

[6]  H. Allcott,et al.  Is There an Energy Efficiency Gap? , 2012 .

[7]  Kjetil Fagerholt,et al.  Planning vessel air emission regulations compliance under uncertainty , 2013 .

[8]  Markus Amann,et al.  Cost-effective Sulphur Emission Reduction under Uncertainty , 1996 .

[9]  L. Schipper,et al.  Overcoming social and institutional barriers to energy conservation , 1980 .

[10]  A. Jaffe,et al.  The energy-efficiency gap What does it mean? , 1994 .

[11]  Stephen J. DeCanio,et al.  The efficiency paradox: bureaucratic and organizational barriers to profitable energy-saving investments , 1998 .

[12]  Magnus S. Eide,et al.  Effect of proposed CO2 emission reduction scenarios on capital expenditure , 2012 .

[13]  Ioannis N. Lagoudis,et al.  Ranking of factors contributing to higher performance in the ocean transportation industry: a multi-attribute utility theory approach , 2006 .

[14]  B. Lee,et al.  Multicriteria analysis in shipping investment evaluation , 2012 .

[15]  Lukas Weber,et al.  Some reflections on barriers to the efficient use of energy , 1997 .

[16]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multicriteria Optimization , 2005 .

[17]  Stephen J. DeCanio,et al.  Barriers within firms to energy-efficient investments , 1993 .

[18]  W. E. Watkins,et al.  Investment in Energy Efficiency: Do the Characteristics of Firms Matter? , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[19]  J. Krozer,et al.  Demonstration of environmentally sound and cost-effective shipping , 2003 .

[20]  Catherine Cooremans Make it strategic! Financial investment logic is not enough , 2011 .

[21]  James J. Corbett,et al.  An assessment of technologies for reducing regional short-lived climate forcers emitted by ships with implications for Arctic shipping , 2010 .

[22]  Kjetil Fagerholt,et al.  Optimized selection of air emission controls for vessels , 2012 .