Abstract
The main aim of this chapter is to develop a decision framework for ship owners to comply with emission regulations; various measures that are available to ship owners are analysed. A comparison between technical, operational, and other abatement measures for averting air emissions of carbon equivalent is made. A case study of Methanol as a marine fuel to comply with the air emission regulations is demonstrated. The environmental and economic benefits are evaluated to find the feasibility of alternative fuel technology. The externality will be assessed for the vessel before and after fuel switching. Ranking of different measures available to ship-owners is made by using a Multi Criteria Decision Making Technique. Gaps in the decision framework are analysed and evaluated. In conclusion, a holistic view of the decision framework for ship-owners is given with some recommendations. The case study will prove that, in the long term, by complying with abatement measures or alternative fuel technology, ship owners will avoid carbon tax and will have social and financial benefits. Methanol is a step towards zero emissions and complying with sustainability goals of the United Nations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
International Code of the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code).
- 2.
The IBC Code provides an international standard for the safe carriage in bulk by sea of dangerous chemicals and noxious liquid substances.
- 3.
Discount rate is chosen as 10%.
- 4.
Tax rate is taken from tax yearbook of Sweden 2014 http://www.skatteverket.se/.
- 5.
Useful asset life is taken from STENA AB 2015 financial report.
- 6.
Exchange rate is taken from Sveriges Riksbank.
- 7.
The Riksbank’s target is to maintain inflation at a rate of 2% when measured by CPI.
References
Andersson, K., Brynolf, S., Lindgren, J. F., & Wilewska-Bien, M. (Eds.). (2016). Energy efficiency and fuel changes to reduce environmental impacts in shipping and the environment: Improving environmental performance in marine transportation (pp. 295–339. Web. 9 Jan. 2017). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49045-7_10.
Banawan, A. A., Gohary, M. M., & Sadek, I. S. (2010). Environmental and economical benefits of changing from marine diesel oil to natural-gas fuel for short-voyage high-power passenger ships. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 224(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1243/14750902jeme181.
Brynolf, S. (2014). Environmental assessment of present and future marine fuels. Thesis. Chalmers University of Technology, N.p.: n.p., n.d. Doktorsavhandlingar Vid Chalmers Tekniska Högskola. Ny Serie. 2014. Web. 18 June 2016. <https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1367598>.
Clarkson Intelligence network. (2015). Retrieved July 07, 2016. Clarkson Research Services Limited, Commodity Quay, St Katharine Docks, London. https://sin.clarksons.net/.
Corbett, J. J., & Fischbeck, P. S. (2000). Emissions from waterborne commerce vessels in the United States continental and inland waterways. Environmental Science & Technology, 34(15), 3254–3260.
Elgohary, M. M., Seddiek, I. S., & Salem, A. M. (2014). Overview of alternative fuels with emphasis on the potential of liquefied natural gas as future marine fuel. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 229(4), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475090214522778.
Financial Report Stena AB. (2016). Stena Raderi AB, Gothenburg. http://www.stena.com/en/Documents/ENG_STAB_%C3%85R_2016_Del2_.pdf.
Freudendahl, U. (2015). Methanol as ship fuel. Handling and safety matters. In MOT-2030 Workshop, Lund. http://www.lth.se/fileadmin/mot2030/filer/7._Freudendahl_-_Methanol_as_ship_fuel.pdf.
Han, C. (2010). Strategies to reduce air pollution in shipping industry. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 26(1), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2092-5212(10)80009-4.
Haraldson, L. (2015). Methanol as marine fuel. Retrieved July 7, 2016, from http://www.sintef.no/globalassets/marintek/cimac2015/f5-Methanol-as-marine-fuel---lennart-haraldsson---Wärtsila.pdf.
IMO Secretary-General Welcomes Adoption of Sustainable Development Goals. N.p., 27 Sept. 2015. Web. 18 June 2017. http://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/41-sdgs.aspx.
ISO 8217: 2012 “Petroleum products-Fuels (class F)-Specifications of Marine Fuels”.
Jiang, L., Kronbak, J., & Chridtensen, L. P. (2010). External costs of maritime shipping: A voyage-based methodology. Maritime Research, Department of Environmental and Business Economics. Retrieved June 21, 2016.
Juhász, L. (2011). Net present value versus internal rate of return. Economics & Sociology E&S, 4(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789x.2011/4-1/5.
Lack, D. A., Thuesen, J., & Elliot, R. (2012). Investigation of appropriate control measures (abatement technologies) to reduce black carbon emissions from international shipping. Study report and prepared by Litehauz, ERRIAZ. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/Air%20pollution/Black%20Carbon.pdf.
Lasselle, S. (2015). Use of methanol as fuel. Methanol as marine fuel: Environmental benefits, technology readiness, and economic feasibility (Rep. No.2015-1197, Rev. 2).DNVGLdistribution. http://www.imo.org/fr/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/Report%20Methanol%2021.01.2016.pdflimit-1/exceedance-of-air-quality-limit-5 (last accessed 06.03.14).
Maibach, M., Schreyer, C., Sutter, D., Van Essen, H. P., Boon, B. H., Smokers, R., et al. (2008). Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector. Delft: CE Delft. http://www.euskalyvasca.com/pdf/estudios/2008/20080314_costes_externos_.pdf.
Matzen, M., Alhajji, M, & Demirel, Y. (2015). Technoeconomics and sustainability of renewable methanol and ammonia productions using wind power-based hydrogen. OMICS International. OMICS International, 06 July. Web. 18 Nov. 2016. https://doi.org/10.4172/2090-4568.1000128.
Methanex. (2015a). Methanex monthly average regional posted contract price history. https://www.methanex.com/sites/default/files/.
Methanex. (2015b). Methanex posts regional contract methanol prices for North America, Europe and Asia [Online]. Available: https://www.methanex.com/our-business/pricing. Accessed 27 July 2016.
Oecd Council Working Party On Shipbuilding (Wp6). (2010). Environmental and climate change issues in the shipbuilding industry. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from https://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/46370308.pdf.
Ölçer, A., & Ballini, F. (2015). The development of a decision making framework for evaluating the trade-off solutions of cleaner seaborne transportation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 37, 150–170.
Rozmarynowska, M. (2012). LNG jako alternatywne paliwo dla statków-aspekty techniczne, ekologiczne, ekonomiczne i regulacyjne. Logistyka, 5.
Seddiek, I. S., & Elgohary, M. M. (2014). Eco-friendly selection of ship emissions reduction strategies with emphasis on SOx and NOx emissions. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 6(3), 737–748. https://doi.org/10.2478/ijnaoe-2013-0209.
Srivastava, A. (2016). Compliant strategy for shipowners towards sustainable maritime transport: A decision framework for air emission reduction measures. http://commons.wmu.se/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1518&context=all_dissertations.
Stefenson, P. (2014). The use of biofuel in the marine sector or Methanol, the marine fuel of the future. European Biofuels Technology Platform Brussels 15 October 2014. Brussels. http://www.marinemethanol.com/publications/category/4-methanol-as-a-marine-fuel.
Stefenson, P. (2015). Email correspondence. Stena Raderi AB, Gothenburg.
Tinnerberg, H. (2015). Methanol as a fuel exposure and possible health risks. In MOT 2030 Workshop. Lund. transport/shipping/index_en.htm.
Further Reading
Franc, P., & Sutto, L. (2013). Impact analysis on shipping lines and European ports of a cap-and-trade system on CO2 emissions in maritime transport. Maritime Policy & Management, 41(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013.782440.
Nielsen, C., & Chess, C. (2012). Vessel emission study: Comparison of various abatement technologies to meet emission levels for ECA’s. In 9th Annual Green Ship Technology Conference (p. 13). http://www.finaval.com/site/images/documenti/news/2014/articoloNOV14paper.pdf.
Stott, P. (2013). A retrospective review of the average period of ship ownership with implications for the potential payback period for retrofitted equipment. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 228(3), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475090213486096.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our very sincere gratitude to Stena lines and Stena officials especially to Ms. Catherine Lee who is Business Development Director of Stena Lines Group and Mr. Per Stefenson who is Marine Standards Advisor for Stena Rederi AB Technical Division for their valuable input and providing the first author with data for successful completion of the paper. Every result described in this paper was accomplished with the help and support of fellow colleagues and collaborators. We would like to thank all the people who contributed in some way to the work described in this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1: Measures available for air emission reduction through TOPSIS
Measures | Si+ | Si− |
|---|---|---|
Technical (Waste Heat Recovery) | 0.442 | 0.060 |
Operational (Scrubber) | 0.407 | 0.226 |
Alternative fuel (Methanol) | 0.224 | 0.407 |
Appendix 2: Machinery particulars and emissions for M.V. Stena Germanica
Machinery particulars | Emission in tonnes | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MGO | 85% MeOH + 15% MGO | Gases | MGO | 85% MeOH + 15% MGO | |||||||||
ME | AE 1 | AE 2 | ME | AE 1 | AE 2 | ME | AE 1 | AE 2 | ME | AE 1 | AE 2 | ||
Model | 8ZAL40S | 6L26 | 9L26 | 8ZAL40S | 6L26 | 9L26 | CO2 | 35603 | 2781 | 4172 | 33945 | 2652 | 3978 |
No. of installed | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | CH4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MCR (kW) | 5760 | 1800 | 2700 | 5760 | 1800 | 2700 | N2O | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MCR total | 23040 | 1800 | 2700 | 23040 | 1800 | 2700 | NOX | 732 | 57 | 86 | 20 | 2 | 2 |
Load factor at sea | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | SO2 | 23 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
LF at manoeuvring | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | NH3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
14 days for one trip | PM10 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
25 (assuming 15 days of repair and maintenance) trips in 1 year | NMVOC | 28 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | ||||||
8400 running hours in 1 year | CO | 63 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Total | 36457 | 2848 | 4272 | 33985 | 2655 | 3983 | |||||||
Appendix 3: Ranking of criteria for ship-owners through AHP
Criteria | CAPEX | OPEX | Payback period | MBM | Criteria | CAPEX | OPEX | Payback period | MBM | Total | Ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CAPEX | 1.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 7.00 | CAPEX | 0.63 | 0.54 | 0.73 | 0.41 | 2.30 | 1.00 |
OPEX | 0.20 | 1.00 | 0.33 | 3.00 | OPEX | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.18 | 0.47 | 3.00 |
Payback period | 0.25 | 3.00 | 1.00 | 6.00 | Payback period | 0.16 | 0.32 | 0.18 | 0.35 | 1.01 | 2.00 |
Carbon tax | 0.14 | 0.33 | 0.17 | 1.00 | Carbon tax | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.21 | 4.00 |
Total | 1.59 | 9.33 | 5.50 | 17.00 | Total | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 4.00 |
Appendix 4: Calculation of external costs for M.V. Stena Germanica
Voyage | Berthing | Manoeuvring | Free sailing | Berthing | Manoeuvring | Free sailing | ||
Time in hours | 300 | 50 | 3850 | 300 | 50 | 3850 | ||
Port | Kiel | Kiel | Kiel | Gothenburg | Gothenburg | Gothenburg | ||
Air pollution cost factor | CO2 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | HEATCOa project |
NOX | 12.7 | 12.7 | 12.7 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 4.1 | HEATCO project | |
SO2 | 10.9 | 10.9 | 10.9 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 4.2 | HEATCO project | |
PM | 227.6 | 227.6 | 33.6 | 231.3 | 231.3 | 17.0 | HEATCO project | |
MGO (external cost Euros) | CO2 | 45596.3 | 7599.4 | 585152.8 | 45596.3 | 7599.4 | 585152.8 | |
NOX | 396625.6 | 66104.3 | 5090028.2 | 128044.5 | 21340.7 | 1643237.4 | ||
SO2 | 10666.2 | 1777.7 | 136883.0 | 4109.9 | 685.0 | 52743.9 | ||
PM | 52125.6 | 8687.6 | 98754.6 | 52972.9 | 8828.8 | 49965.1 | ||
Total external cost | 505013.7 | 84168.9 | 5910818.6 | 230723.7 | 38453.9 | 2331099.3 | ||
MeOH (external cost Euros) | CO2 | 43097.9 | 7183.0 | 553089.7 | 43097.9 | 7183.0 | 553089.7 | |
NOX | 74036.8 | 12339.5 | 950138.6 | 23901.6 | 3983.6 | 306737.7 | ||
SO2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
PM | 20376.4 | 3396.1 | 38604.1 | 20707.6 | 3451.3 | 19531.8 | ||
Total external cost | 137511.0 | 22918.5 | 1541832.3 | 87707.1 | 14617.9 | 879359.1 | ||
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Srivastava, A., Ölçer, A.I., Ballini, F. (2018). Decision Framework for Shipowners to Comply with Air Emission Reduction Measures: A Case Study of Methanol as a Fuel. In: Ölçer, A., Kitada, M., Dalaklis, D., Ballini, F. (eds) Trends and Challenges in Maritime Energy Management. WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74576-3_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74576-3_29
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74575-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74576-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)