Annual emissions from maritime transport are contributing to the acceleration of global climate change and deteriorating local air quality. Shipowners need information on current and new emission reduction solutions to compare cost-effectiveness and environmental impact. However, emissions reduction in the maritime sector is a complex issue that should also consider the environmental impacts during fuel production and the full impact of different options during use. In this study, different fuel options and emission reduction methods are compared to rank the overall sustainability of alternatives. The overall sustainability assessment is based on the economic and environmental indexes generated, weighted, and aggregated. The results show that the sustainability index of LNG is often the best of the options compared. The difference in fuel prices determines much of the difference in economic performance between fuels. The results emphasize the importance of including several criteria when comparing more sustainable alternatives in shipping.
Aakko-SaksaPTLehtorantaKKuittinenN, et al. Reduction in greenhouse gas and other emissions from ship engines: current trends and future options. Prog Energy Combust Sci2023; 94: 101055.
2.
BoumanEALindstadERiallandAI, et al. State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping – a review. Transp Res D Transp Environ2017; 52: 408–421.
3.
WangKWangJHuangL, et al. A comprehensive review on the prediction of ship energy consumption and pollution gas emissions. Ocean Engineering2022; 266: 112826.
4.
IMO. Third IMO GHG study 2014. Executive summary and report 2015. Report, IMO, UK, April2015.
5.
JalkanenJPJohanssonL. Emissions from Baltic Sea shipping in 2006 – 2018. Report, Maritime working group Lisbon, Portugal, September2019.
6.
Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). Suomen kasvihuonekaasupäästöt 2020. Report, Official Statistics of Finland, Finland, December2021.
7.
IMO. Fourth IMO GHG study 2020 – Final report 2020. Report, IMO, UK, August2020.
8.
LindstadHERehnCFEskelandGS. Sulphur abatement globally in maritime shipping. Transp Res D Transp Environ2017; 57: 303–313.
9.
SolakiviTLaariSKiiskiT, et al. How shipowners have adapted to sulphur regulations – evidence from Finnish seaborne trade. Case Stud Transp Policy2019; 7: 338–345.
10.
WinnesHFridellEYaramenkaK, et al. NOx controls for shipping in EU Seas. Report number: U5552. Report, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd., Sweden, June2016.
11.
BoscaratoIHickeyNKašparJ, et al. Green shipping: Marine engine pollution abatement using a combined catalyst/seawater scrubber system. 1. Effect of catalyst. J Catal2015; 328: 248–257.
12.
ChoiCSungYChoiGM, et al. Numerical analysis of NOx reduction for compact design in marine urea-SCR system. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2015; 7: 1020–1034.
13.
RaptotasiosSISakellaridisNFPapagiannakisRG, et al. Application of a multi-zone combustion model to investigate the NOx reduction potential of two-stroke marine diesel engines using EGR. Appl Energy2015; 157: 814–823.
14.
ChybowskiLLaskowskiRGawdzińskaK. An overview of systems supplying water into the combustion chamber of diesel engines to decrease the amount of nitrogen oxides in exhaust gas. J Mar Sci Technol2015; 20: 393–405.
15.
AbadieLMGoicoecheaNGalarragaI. Adapting the shipping sector to stricter emissions regulations: fuel switching or installing a scrubber?Transp Res2017; 57: 237–250.
16.
TranTA. Research of the scrubber systems to clean marine diesel engine exhaust gases on ships. J Mar Sci Res Dev2017; 07: 1000243.
17.
LindstadERiallandA. LNG and cruise ships, an easy way to fulfil regulations—versus the need for reducing GHG emissions. Sustainability2020; 12: 2080.
18.
IMO. Initial IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships. IMO resolution MEPC.304(72). Report, IMO, UK, 2018. (adopted on 13April2018).
19.
European Commission. Proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the council amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union, decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme and regulation (EU) 2015/757. Belgium: European Commission, 2021.
20.
European Commission. Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council on the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels in maritime transport and amending directive 2009/16/EC. Belgium: European Commission, 2021.
GuYWallaceSWWangX. Can an emission trading scheme really reduce CO2 emissions in the short term? Evidence from a maritime fleet composition and deployment model. Transp Res D Transp Environ2019; 74: 318–338.
23.
GrönholmTMäkeläTHatakkaJ, et al. Evaluation of methane emissions originating from LNG ships based on the measurements at a remote marine station. Environ Sci Technol2021; 55: 13677–13686.
24.
LehtorantaKKoponenPVesalaH, et al. Performance and regeneration of methane oxidation catalyst for LNG ships. J Mar Sci Eng2021; 9: 111.
25.
UshakovSStenersenDEinangPM. Methane slip from gas fuelled ships: a comprehensive summary based on measurement data. J Mar Sci Technol2019; 24: 1308–1325.
26.
ComerBOlmerNMaoX, et al. Black carbon emissions and fuel use in global shipping 2015. Report, International Council on Clean Transportation, USA, March2017.
27.
RodrigueJ-PNotteboomT. The geography of cruises: itineraries, not destinations. Appl Geogr2013; 38: 31–42.
28.
YtrebergEÅströmSFridellE. Valuating environmental impacts from ship emissions - the marine perspective. J Environ Manag2021; 282: 111958.
29.
BengtssonSKAnderssonKEFridellE. Life cycle assessment of marine fuels: a comparative study of four fossil fuels for marine propulsion. Report, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, April2011.
30.
MaHSteernbergKRiera-PalouX, et al. Well-to-wake energy and greenhouse gas analysis of SOX abatement options for the marine industry. Transp Res D Transp Environ2012; 17: 301–308.
31.
BrynolfSMagnussonMFridellE, et al. Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels. Transp Res D Transp Environ2014; 28: 6–18.
32.
GilbertPWalshCTrautM, et al. Assessment of full life-cycle air emissions of alternative shipping fuels. Journal of Cleaner Production2018; 172: 855–866.
33.
PavlenkoNComerBZhouY, et al. The climate implications of using LNG as a marine fuel. Report, International Council on Clean Transportation, USA, January2020.
34.
LapuertaMRamosÁFernández-RodríguezD, et al. High-pressure versus low-pressure exhaust gas recirculation in a Euro 6 diesel engine with lean-NOx trap: Effectiveness to reduce NOx emissions. Int J Engine Res2019; 20: 155–163.
35.
WulfCWerkerJBallC, et al. Review of sustainability assessment approaches based on life cycles. Sustainability2019; 11: 5717.
36.
IannacconeTLanducciGTugnoliA, et al. Sustainability of cruise ship fuel systems: comparison among LNG and diesel technologies. J Clean Prod2020; 260: 121069.
37.
JägerbrandAKBrutemarkABarthel SvedénJ, et al. A review on the environmental impacts of shipping on aquatic and nearshore ecosystems. Sci Total Environ2019; 695: 133637.
38.
BalcombePStaffellIKerdanIG, et al. How can LNG-fuelled ships meet decarbonization targets? An environmental and economic analysis. Energy2021; 227: 120462.
39.
ÅströmSYaramenkaKWinnesH, et al. The costs and benefits of a nitrogen emission control area in the Baltic and North Seas. Transp Res D Transp Environ2018; 59: 223–236.
40.
WinnesHFridellEMoldanováJ. Effects of marine exhaust gas scrubbers on gas and particle emissions. J Mar Sci Eng2020; 8: 299–321.
41.
IMO. Final report of the correspondence group on assessment of technological developments to implement the TIER III NOx emission standards under MARPOL annex VI. MEPC 65/4/7 (8 February 2013). Report, IMO, UK, February2013.
42.
AndersenJHCarstensenJConleyDJ, et al. Long-term temporal and spatial trends in eutrophication status of the Baltic Sea. Biol Rev2017; 92: 135–149.
43.
BengtssonSKFridellEAnderssonKE. Fuels for short sea shipping: a comparative assessment with focus on environmental impact. J Eng Marit Environ2014; 228: 44–54.
44.
RaudseppUMaljutenkoIKõutsM, et al. Shipborne nutrient dynamics and impact on the eutrophication in the Baltic Sea. Sci Total Environ2019; 671: 189–207.
45.
ReissmannJHBurchardHFeistelR, et al. Vertical mixing in the Baltic Sea and consequences for eutrophication – a review. Prog Oceanogr2009; 82: 47–80.
46.
IEA. World Energy Outlook 2021. Report, OECD Publishing, France, October2021.
LaurentAHauschildMZGolsteijnL, et al. Deliverable 5.2: normalization factors for environmental, economic and socio-economic indicators. Report, Development and application of a standardized methodology for the prospective sustainability assessment of technologies (PROSUITE). Denmark, 2013.
49.
SleeswijkAWvan OersLFGuinéeJB, et al. Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Total Environ2008; 390: 227–240.
50.
CrennaESecchiMBeniniL, et al. Global environmental impacts: data sources and methodological choices for calculating normalization factors for LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess2019; 24: 1851–1877.
51.
HassellövIMHermanssonALYtrebergE. Current knowledge on impact on the marine environment of large-scale use of exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers) in Swedish waters. Report, Chalmers university of technology, Sweden, October, 2021.
52.
HermanssonALHassellövI-MMoldanováJ, et al. Comparing emissions of polyaromatic hydrocarbons and metals from marine fuels and scrubbers. Transp Res D Transp Environ2021; 97: 102912.
53.
BekdaşAKayaCKökkülünkG. Comprehensive economic analyses in terms of maritime sulphur 2020 regulation. Ships Offshore Struct2023; 18: 798–809.
54.
LindéTVierthICullinaneK. Evaluating the effects of Sweden’s environmentally differentiated fairway dues. Transp Res D Transp Environ2019; 70: 77–93.
55.
YtrebergEHanssonKHermanssonAL, et al. Metal and PAH loads from ships and boats, relative other sources, in the Baltic Sea. Mar Pollut Bull2022; 182: 113904.
56.
CoronadoCRde CarvalhoJAYoshiokaJT, et al. Determination of ecological efficiency in internal combustion engines: the use of biodiesel. Appl Therm Eng2009; 29: 1887–1892.
57.
GiddeySBadwalSPSMunningsC, et al. Ammonia as a renewable energy transportation media. ACS Sustain Chem Eng2017; 5: 10231–10239.
58.
ZincirB. Environmental and economic evaluation of ammonia as a fuel for short-sea shipping: A case study. Int J Hydrogen Energy2022; 47: 18148–18168.
59.
ChatzinikolaouSDVentikosNP. Holistic framework for studying ship air emissions in a life cycle perspective. Ocean Eng2015; 110: 113–122.
