Abstract
Policy 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.
Highlights
The main source of emissions from sea-going vessels is the exhaust gas from burning fuel in the ship's combustion engines
The first column shows engine setup, the second building year of the vessel, the third fuel type, the fourth operational region, the fifth fuel consumption per voyage outside and inside Emission Control Areas (ECA), the sixth annual fuel cost based on 2015 prices, the seventh fuel cost increase compared to only HFO (2.7%) and no nitrogen oxides (NOx) regulations, follows Global warming impact per ton transported with a 20 year time horizon and annual CO2 eq emissions for one vessel, followed by the same figures with a 100 year time horizon
These results indicate: First that the climate impact was lowest for the 2000 built vessels, i.e. before any NOx or sulphur oxides (SOx) legislation was implemented; Second that continued use of HFO (2.7%) outside the ECA's and clean fuels retains a significant climate cooling effect; Third hybrid power solutions reduce fuel costs compared to standard engine setups for all investigated fuel combinations; Fourth, globally reducing maximum allowed Sulphur content to 0.5% eliminates the net cooling effects for all investigated options and the net result is a significant contribution to global warming
Summary
The main source of emissions from sea-going vessels is the exhaust gas from burning fuel in the ship's combustion engines. Upon ignition in the engine, a mix of air and fuel releases mechanical energy which is harnessed for propulsion, and produces hot exhaust gases as a byproduct Of these exhaust gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) has only climate effects, while carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), methane (CH4), black carbon (BC) and organic carbon (OC) have both climate and adverse local and regional environmental impacts, e.g. on human health. Complicating matters, emissions in one region may lead to a direct climate forcing that differs in magnitude to the same quantity emitted in another region This is due to regional differences in sea ice extent, solar radiation, and atmospheric optical conditions (Myhre and Shindell, 2013).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
