No abstract

No abstract

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 1990's was not strict and could easily be met. However the present requirement (2015) for reduction of Sulphur 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.

No abstract

No abstract

Emission regulations for Sulphur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are motivated by health-and other environmental objectives in local and regional settings, while global warming concerns motivate policies for carbon dioxide (CO2). We point out that the direction chosen by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) -to tighten SOx and NOx limits globally -carries important risks. First, extending to a global setting the present regulations in coastal emission control areas (ECAs, in North America and Northern Europe)gives negligible or negative environmental benefits, and raises global warming impacts.Second, 'end-of-pipe' solutions, such as scrubbing and tuning, become dominant responses, and they reduce energy efficiency. Third, the adoption of these end-of-pipe solutions carry risks of deflecting attention from development of cleaner fuels and improving energy efficiency. Distinguishing local environmental benefits from global ones is important in general, and our research concludes that in the case of shipping, this distinction better serves the needs of the local environment, the global climate, and conserves on abatement costs.

Current Greenhous gas emissions (GHG) from maritime transport represent around 3% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions and will have to be cut in half by 2050 to meet Paris agreement goals. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is by many seen as a potential transition fuel for decarbonizing shipping. Its favorable hydrogen to carbon ratio compared to diesel (marine gas oil, MGO) or bunker fuel (heavy fuel oil, HFO) translates directly into lower carbon emissions per kilowatt produced. However, these gains may be nullified once one includes the higher Well-to-tank emissions (WTT) of the LNG supply chain and the vessel’s un-combusted methane slip (CH4) from its combustion engine. Previous studies have tended to focus either on greenhouse gas emissions from LNG in a Well-to-wake (WTW) perspective, or on alternative engine technologies and their impact on the vessel's Tank-to-wake emissions (TTW). This study investigates under what conditions LNG can serve as a transition fuel in the decarbonization of maritime transport, while ensuring the lowest possible additional global warming impact. Transition refers to the process of moving away from fossil fuels towards new and low carbon fuels and engine technologies. Our results show: First, the importance of applying appropriate engine technologies to maximize GHG reductions; Second, that applying best engine technologies is not economically profitable; Third, how regulations could be amended to reward best engine technologies. Importantly, while the GHG reduction of LNG even with best engine technology (dual fuel diesel engine) are limited, ships with these engines can with economically modest modification switch to ammonia produced with renewable energy when it becomes available in sufficient amounts.

This paper assesses costs, emissions, and climate impact by freight shipping in the Arctic with main focus on the Northern Sea Route. The entire route lies in Arctic waters, which due to global warming, has become ice free during summer and autumn. The route goes from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean along the Russian Arctic coast and reduces voyage distance by 40 % between Northern Europe and Japan. Traditionally, comparisons of the climate impact of transport solutions have been based on fuel consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2), while other trace emissions in the exhaust gas have been ignored. It is becoming increasingly well-known however, that aerosols, and their precursors emitted from shipping are strong climate forcers, with a magnitude that is intimately connected to the specific region of emission. Taking into account these considerations, we apply region-specific Global Warming Potential (GWP) characterization factors to estimate the relative magnitude of the short-lived climate forcers in the Arctic compared to traditional shipping regions and to the impact of CO2 emissions in light of reduced overall fuel consumption. The results indicate that there are no general climate benefits of utilizing the Northern Sea Route, even with cleaner fuels, since the additional impact of emissions in the Arctic more than offsets the effect of shorter voyages. In terms of climate change mitigation, managing this trade-off will be challenging, as the Northern Sea Route offers cost savings per ton of freight transported. Corresponding author: Haakon@marintek.sintef.no 2