How can shipowners comply with the 2020 global sulphur limit economically?

被引:51
作者
Zhu, Mo [1 ]
Li, Kevin X. [2 ]
Lin, Kun-Chin [3 ]
Shi, Wenming [4 ]
Yang, Jialin [1 ]
机构
[1] Shanghai Maritime Univ, Coll Transport & Commun, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[2] Zhejiang Univ, Ocean Coll, 1 Zheda Rd, Dinghai Dist, Zhoushan, Peoples R China
[3] Univ Cambridge, Dept Polit & Int Studies, Cambridge, England
[4] Univ Tasmania, Australian Maritime Coll, Maritime & Logist Management, Launceston, Tas 7250, Australia
关键词
IMO 2020 sulphur limit; Low-sulphur fuel oils; Scrubber; Cost-benefit analysis; Sensitivity check; REGULATIONS; EMISSION; SHIPS; TECHNOLOGIES; REDUCTION; SCRUBBER; BENEFITS; COSTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.trd.2020.102234
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
To comply with the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 2020 global sulphur limit for maritime shipping, low-sulphur fuel oils (LSFOs) and scrubbers are the most commonly applied approaches in practice, as a result of which, however, shipowners' profits will be affected. This paper is to identify a more economical sulphur reduction approach, for which a 19,000 twenty-foot equivalent unit container ship sailing between Far East and Europe is set as a case study. Using the cost-benefit analysis, the use of scrubbers is proved to be more economical due to the higher net present value and lower annual unit cost. The sensitivity check suggests that a scrubber is more attractive in most cases except for two scenarios where ISFOs are more popular. That is, a scrubber is losing its attractiveness when prices of LSFOs and heavy fuel oil (HFO) move in the same direction with the price spread is equal to or below US$56 per ton, and when prices of HFO rise and prices of LSFOs fall with the price spread is equal to or below US$16 per ton. This finding well explains the current popularity of installing scrubbers among shipowners although retrofitting still faces many challenges.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]   Adapting the shipping sector to stricter emissions regulations: Fuel switching or installing a scrubber? [J].
Abadie, Luis Maria ;
Goicoechea, Nestor ;
Galarraga, Ibon .
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT, 2017, 57 :237-250
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2009, Maritime economics
[3]   Costs and benefits of low-sulphur fuel standard for Baltic Sea shipping [J].
Antturi, Jim ;
Hanninen, Otto ;
Jalkanen, Jukka-Pekka ;
Johansson, Lasse ;
Prank, Marje ;
Sofiev, Mikhail ;
Ollikainen, Markku .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2016, 184 :431-440
[4]   Sulphur emission control areas and transport strategies -the case of Sweden and the forest industry [J].
Bergqvist, Rickard ;
Turesson, Marcus ;
Weddmark, Alexander .
EUROPEAN TRANSPORT RESEARCH REVIEW, 2015, 7 (02)
[5]   Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels [J].
Brynolf, S. ;
Magnusson, M. ;
Fridell, E. ;
Andersson, K. .
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT, 2014, 28 :6-18
[6]   An assessment of technologies for reducing regional short-lived climate forcers emitted by ships with implications for Arctic shipping [J].
Corbett, J. J. ;
Winebrake, J. J. ;
Green, E. H. .
CARBON MANAGEMENT, 2010, 1 (02) :207-225
[7]   Scrubber: A potentially overestimated compliance method for the Emission Control Areas The importance of involving a ship's sailing pattern in the evaluation [J].
Gu, Yewen ;
Wallace, Stein W. .
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT, 2017, 55 :51-66
[8]   The costs and benefits of sulphur reduction measures: Sulphur scrubbers versus marine gas oil [J].
Jiang, Liping ;
Kronbak, Jacob ;
Christensen, Leise Pil .
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT, 2014, 28 :19-27
[9]   Sulphur abatement globally in maritime shipping [J].
Lindstad, H. Elizabeth ;
Rehn, Carl Fredrik ;
Eskeland, Gunnar S. .
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT, 2017, 57 :303-313
[10]   Benefit, cost, and size of an emission control area: a simulation approach for spatial relationships [J].
Okada, Akira .
MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT, 2019, 46 (05) :565-584