Comparison of the Economic Performances of Three Sulphur Oxides Emissions Abatement Solutions for a Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC)

Abstract

Ship-source air pollutants, especially sulphur oxides (SOx), have a major impact on human health, the marine environment and the natural resources. Therefore, control of SOx emissions has become a main concern in the maritime industry. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has set a global limit on sulphur content of 0.50% m/m (mass by mass) in marine fuels which has entered into effect on 1 January 2020.To comply with the sulphur limits, ship owners are facing the need to select suitable abatement solutions. The choice of a suitable solution is a compromise among many issues, but the economic performance offers the basis for which ones are attractive to ship owners. Currently, there are three technologically feasible SOx abatement solutions that could be used by ships, namely, liquified natural gas (LNG) as a fuel (Solution A), scrubbers (Solution B) and low-sulphur fuel oil (LSFO) (Solution C). To compare the economic performances of the mentioned three solutions for a newbuilding very large crude carrier (VLCC), this paper proposes a voyage expenses-based method (VEM). It was found that, within the initial target payback period of 6 years, Solution A and C are more expensive than Solution B, while Solution C is more competitive than Solution A. Five scenarios of target payback years were assumed to compare the trends of the three proposed solutions. The results show that Solution B maintains its comparative advantage. As the assumed target payback years becomes longer, the economy of Solution A gradually improves and the economics of Solution B and C gradually decline. A comparison between Solution A and C shows 6.5 years is a turning point. The advantage of Solution A is prominent after this payback period. In addition, the performance of a certain solution in terms of adaptability to the IMO greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations is also a factor that ship owner need to consider when making decisions. In conclusion, when the IMO air pollutant regulations and GHG regulations are considered simultaneously, the advantages of using LNG are obvious.

Selecting Appropriate Energy Source Options for an Arctic Research Ship

“…In combination with fuel cells methanol-powered missions longer than 7 days offer better suitability than LH 2 for medium-sized ships [94,113,119].…”

Incorporating Sulfur and CO2 Emission Reduction Options into the Container Fleet Capacity Renewal Alternatives for a Shipping Operator in the Post-COVID-19 Era

“…From 1 January 2019, ships entering the ECA should use marine fuels with a sulfur content of no more than 0.5% m/m. From 1 January 2022, marine vessels entering Hainan's coastal control zone should use marine fuel oil with a sulfur content of no more than 0.1% m/m [41].…”

1D–3D Coupling Algorithm of Gas Flow for the Valve System in a Compression Ignition Engine

“…The low-sulfur fuel oil was used or the scrubbers were installed to respond to sulfur content regulations [2], and the number of ships using liquefied natural gas (LNG) as fuel is increasing [3]. In particular, ships sailing on the emission control areas (ECAs) must use fuel oil with a sulfur content of 0.1% (m/m) or less, and due to this sulfur content regulation, it is inevitable for ship owners to increase their operating costs [4]. Therefore, ship owners are operating ships by comparing the cost aspect of using the low-sulfur fuel oil and installing a scrubber [5].…”