Assessment of cost as a function of abatement options in maritime emission control areas

This paper assesses cost as a function of abatement options in maritime emission control areas (ECA). The first regulation of air pollutions from ships which came into effect in the late 1990s was not strict and could easily be met. However the present requirement (2015) for reduction of Sulfur content for all vessels, in combination with the required reduction of nitrogen and carbon emissions for new-built vessels, is an economic and technical challenge for the shipping industry. Additional complexity is added by the fact that the strictest nitrogen regulations are applicable only for new-built vessels from 2016 onwards which shall enter US or Canadian waters. This study indicates that there is no single answer to what is the best abatement option, but rather that the best option will be a function of engine size, annual fuel consumption in the ECA and the foreseen future fuel prices. However a low oil price, favors the options with the lowest capex, i.e. Marine Gas Oil (MGO) or Light Fuel Oil (LFO), while a high oil price makes the solutions which requires higher capex (investments) more attractive.

[1]  A. Stromman,et al.  Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and cost by shipping at lower speeds , 2011 .

[2]  A. Lloyd,et al.  Seakeeping: Ship Behaviour in Rough Weather , 1998 .

[3]  Bjørn Egil Asbjørnslett,et al.  Green Maritime Logistics and Sustainability , 2012 .

[4]  Alan Caruba,et al.  THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS. , 1978 .

[5]  V. Eyring,et al.  Second IMO GHG study 2009 , 2009 .

[6]  Per Kågeson,et al.  Technical support for European action to reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from international maritime transport , 2010 .

[7]  Bjørn Egil Asbjørnslett,et al.  Assessment of profit, cost and emissions by varying speed as a function of sea conditions and freight market , 2013 .

[8]  Jacob Kronbak,et al.  The costs and benefits of sulphur reduction measures: Sulphur scrubbers versus marine gas oil , 2014 .

[9]  Inge Sandaas,et al.  Emission and Fuel Reduction for Offshore Support Vessels through Hybrid Technology , 2016 .

[10]  Harilaos N. Psaraftis,et al.  Maritime shipping and emissions: A three-layered, damage-based approach , 2015 .

[11]  J. Corbett,et al.  Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Shipping , 2010 .

[12]  M. Acciaro.  Real option analysis for environmental compliance: LNG and emission control areas , 2014 .

[13]  Sverre Steen,et al.  Assessment of profit, cost, and emissions for slender bulk vessel designs , 2014 .

[14]  Vilmar Æsøy,et al.  LNG-Fuelled Engines and Fuel Systems for Medium-Speed Engines in Maritime Applications , 2011 .

[15]  D. Hauglustaine,et al.  Multi-model simulations of the impact of international shipping on Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate in 2000 and 2030 , 2006 .

[16]  Erik Fridell,et al.  Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels , 2014 .