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

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.

Environmental regulations in shipping: Policies leaning towards globalization of scrubbers deserve scrutiny

“…We need assessment of costs, emissions and fuel consumption, see Lindstad et al (2011;2015b;2016) and limit our attention to the vessels and their use, i.e. we do not include port side consequences.…”

“…0.1 % Sulphur Fuels close to coast and in ports globally, and continued use of 2.7% HFO in all other sea areas, gives the following benefits relative to the current direction of IMO rules. Reduction of the sulphur emitted to sea, with the largest reductions in the sensitive coastal areas, due to the 0.1 % limit, and the fact that scrubbers will then be the cost effective option only for vessels that trade mainly in the ECAs (Lindstad et al 2015b). This implies that ocean-going vessels will use of 0.1 % fuels in coastal areas and ports, rather than scrubbers.…”

“…Third, stricter SOx rules also tend to raise fuel consumption on a well to propeller basis, i.e. either when refineries remove sulphur from heavy fuel oils (HFO), or when scrubbers clean the exhaust gas from combustion at sea (Lindstad et al 2015b). Fourth, the current IMO legislation and testing standards (MARPOL Convention) assumes that the engines are operated at medium to high loads.…”

“…Previous studies of the of stricter fuel emission regulations have mainly focused on the ECAs and the technical options and costs of complying with the regulations from 2015 onwards (Brynjolf et al 2014;Jiang et al 2014;Acciaro, 2014;Lindstad et al, 2015b). Less attention have been on the climate impact of the 2020 global sulphur cap and the stricter NOx regulations.…”

Economic savings linked to future Arctic shipping trade are at odds with climate change mitigation

“…It should here be noted that these new-building cost and daily time charter cost are based on traditional diesel engines and the use of LFO or MGO. For LNG there will be an additional newbuilding cost of 8 -10 MUSD (Lindstad et al 2015), due to the more advanced engine and the expensive storage and handling system which is required for storage of the required amount of LNG bunker. This implies that the energy equivalent price per ton of LNG has to be lower than the price of the traditional diesel based fuels if the LNG option shall be a commercially viable option.…”