Green Maritime Logistics and Sustainability

Lindstad, Elizabeth; Asbjørnslett, Bjørn Egil; Pedersen, Jan Tore

doi:10.1108/9781780523415-012

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This gives annual fuel consumption of around 3 000 tons for the vessels in the 4 000 kW range and around 7 500 ton for the vessels in the 12 000 kW range. These figures are of the same magnitude as previously published by Lindstad et al (2012) and Smith et al (2014). All the proposed options can be used both on new-ships and as retrofit, however Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) is not a realistic option for retrofits due to its high investment cost, and the fact that storage of the LNG fuel on board the vessels are space demanding.…”

Section: Data Set and Abatement Optionssupporting

confidence: 81%

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

Lindstad

Sandaas²,

Strømman

2015

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Data Set and Abatement Optionssupporting

confidence: 81%

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

Lindstad

Sandaas²,

Strømman

2015

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These vessels are also smaller than those operating other deepsea trade routes, i.e., Asia-Europe, Asia-North America, or AustraliaAsia. The smaller vessel size may be attributed to a combination of smaller lot sizes, multiple port visits, transport of finished or partially fabricated goods rather than large loads of raw materials, port restrictions, and reduced cargo consolidation (Lindstad et al, 2012). The cargo-carrying capacity of these vessels ranges from 6000 to over 25,000 t. We use a general cargo vessel with 17,000 deadweight ton (dwt) as the basis for this study.…”

Section: Application and Data Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maritime shipping and emissions: A three-layered, damage-based approach

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tPolicy emphasis in ship design must be shifted away from global and idealized towards regional based and realistic vessel operating conditions. The present approach to reducing shipping emissions through technical standards tends to neglect how damages and abatement opportunities vary according to location and operational conditions. Since environmental policy originates in damages relating to ecosystems and jurisdictions, a three-layered approach to vessel emissions is intuitive and practical. Here, we suggest associating damages and policies with ports, coastal areas possibly defined as Emission Control Areas (ECA) as in the North Sea and the Baltic, and open seas globally. This approach offers important practical opportunities: in ports, clean fuels or even electrification is possible; in ECAs, cleaner fuels and penalties for damaging fuels are important, but so is vessel handling, such as speeds and utilization. Globally we argue that it may be desirable to allow burning very dirty fuels at high seas, due to the cost advantages, the climate cooling benefits, and the limited ecosystem impacts. We quantify the benefits and cost savings from reforming current IMO and other approaches towards environmental management with a three-layered approach, and argue it is feasible and worth considering.

show abstract

Current strategic planning for sustainability in international shipping

Zhang

Luo

2018

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Green Maritime Logistics and Sustainability

Cited by 10 publications

References 2 publications

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

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

Maritime shipping and emissions: A three-layered, damage-based approach

Current strategic planning for sustainability in international shipping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About