Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Fuel Choices for Short Sea Shipping
The shipping industry is looking for strategies to comply with increasingly stringent emission regulations. Fuel has a significant impact on emissions, so a switch to alternative fuels needs to be evaluated. This study investigated the emission performances of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefi...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | Clean Technologies |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/2/1/4 |
| _version_ | 1819157462657269760 |
|---|---|
| author | Kirsi Spoof-Tuomi Seppo Niemi |
| author_facet | Kirsi Spoof-Tuomi Seppo Niemi |
| author_sort | Kirsi Spoof-Tuomi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The shipping industry is looking for strategies to comply with increasingly stringent emission regulations. Fuel has a significant impact on emissions, so a switch to alternative fuels needs to be evaluated. This study investigated the emission performances of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied biogas (LBG) in shipping and compared them to conventional marine diesel oil (MDO) combined with selective catalytic reduction (SCR). For assessing the complete global warming potential of these fuels, the life-cycle approach was used. In addition, the study evaluated the local environmental impacts of combustion of these fuels, which is of particular importance for short sea shipping operations near coastal marine environment and residential areas. All three options examined are in compliance with the most stringent emission control area (ECA) regulations currently in force or entering into force from 2021. In terms of local environmental impacts, the two gaseous fuels had clear advantages over the MDO + SCR combination. However, the use of LNG as marine fuel achieved no significant CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent reduction, thus making little progress towards the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) visions of decarbonizing shipping. Major life cycle GHG emission benefits were identified by replacing fossil fuels with LBG. The most significant challenge facing LBG today is fuel availability in volumes needed for shipping. Without taxation or subsidies, LBG may also find it difficult to compete with the prices of fossil fuels. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T16:09:09Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-2780319b6e814f9b9456a03c4edc332e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2571-8797 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T16:09:09Z |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Clean Technologies |
| spelling | doaj.art-2780319b6e814f9b9456a03c4edc332e2022-12-21T18:20:32ZengMDPI AGClean Technologies2571-87972020-01-0121345210.3390/cleantechnol2010004cleantechnol2010004Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Fuel Choices for Short Sea ShippingKirsi Spoof-Tuomi0Seppo Niemi1School of Technology and Innovations, University of Vaasa, P.O. Box 700, 65101 Vaasa, FinlandSchool of Technology and Innovations, University of Vaasa, P.O. Box 700, 65101 Vaasa, FinlandThe shipping industry is looking for strategies to comply with increasingly stringent emission regulations. Fuel has a significant impact on emissions, so a switch to alternative fuels needs to be evaluated. This study investigated the emission performances of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied biogas (LBG) in shipping and compared them to conventional marine diesel oil (MDO) combined with selective catalytic reduction (SCR). For assessing the complete global warming potential of these fuels, the life-cycle approach was used. In addition, the study evaluated the local environmental impacts of combustion of these fuels, which is of particular importance for short sea shipping operations near coastal marine environment and residential areas. All three options examined are in compliance with the most stringent emission control area (ECA) regulations currently in force or entering into force from 2021. In terms of local environmental impacts, the two gaseous fuels had clear advantages over the MDO + SCR combination. However, the use of LNG as marine fuel achieved no significant CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent reduction, thus making little progress towards the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) visions of decarbonizing shipping. Major life cycle GHG emission benefits were identified by replacing fossil fuels with LBG. The most significant challenge facing LBG today is fuel availability in volumes needed for shipping. Without taxation or subsidies, LBG may also find it difficult to compete with the prices of fossil fuels.https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/2/1/4marine fuelsshort sea shippinglbglngmdoglobal warming potentiallife cycle assessment |
| spellingShingle | Kirsi Spoof-Tuomi Seppo Niemi Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Fuel Choices for Short Sea Shipping Clean Technologies marine fuels short sea shipping lbg lng mdo global warming potential life cycle assessment |
| title | Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Fuel Choices for Short Sea Shipping |
| title_full | Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Fuel Choices for Short Sea Shipping |
| title_fullStr | Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Fuel Choices for Short Sea Shipping |
| title_full_unstemmed | Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Fuel Choices for Short Sea Shipping |
| title_short | Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Fuel Choices for Short Sea Shipping |
| title_sort | environmental and economic evaluation of fuel choices for short sea shipping |
| topic | marine fuels short sea shipping lbg lng mdo global warming potential life cycle assessment |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8797/2/1/4 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kirsispooftuomi environmentalandeconomicevaluationoffuelchoicesforshortseashipping AT sepponiemi environmentalandeconomicevaluationoffuelchoicesforshortseashipping |