Alternative marine fuels: Prospects based on multi-criteria decision analysis involving Swedish stakeholders

被引:131
作者
Hansson, Julia [1 ,2 ]
Mansson, Stina [3 ]
Brynolf, Selma [1 ]
Grahn, Maria [1 ]
机构
[1] Chalmers Univ Technol, Dept Mech & Maritime Sci, Maritime Environm Sci, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
[2] IVL Swedish Environm Res Inst, Climate & Sustainable Cities, Energy, Box 530 21, SE-40014 Gothenburg, Sweden
[3] Chalmers Univ Technol, Dept Technol Management & Econ, Serv Management & Logist, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
基金
瑞典研究理事会;
关键词
Shipping; Biofuels; Alternative fuels; Sustainability assessment; Analytic hierarchy process; Multi-criteria decision making; LIQUEFIED NATURAL-GAS; ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT; HYDROGEN-PRODUCTION; EMISSIONS; RESOURCES; FRAMEWORK; SECTOR; BIOGAS; TRADE;
D O I
10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.05.008
中图分类号
S2 [农业工程];
学科分类号
0828 ;
摘要
There is a need for alternative marine fuels in order to reduce the environmental and climate impacts of shipping, in the short and long term. This study assesses the prospects for seven alternative fuels for the shipping sector in 2030, including biofuels, by applying a multi-criteria decision analysis approach that is based on the estimated fuel performance and on input from a panel of maritime stakeholders and by considering, explicitly, the influence of stakeholder preferences. Seven alternative marine fuels-liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied biogas (LBG), methanol from natural gas, renewable methanol, hydrogen for fuel cells produced from (i) natural gas or (ii) electrolysis based on renewable electricity, and hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO)-and heavy fuel oil (HFO) as benchmark are included and ranked by ten performance criteria and their relative importance. The criteria cover economic, environmental, technical, and social aspects. Stakeholder group preferences (i.e., the relative importance groups assign to the criteria) influence the ranking of these options. For ship-owners, fuel producers, and engine manufacturers, economic criteria, in particular the fuel price, are the most important. These groups rank LNG and HFO the highest, followed by fossil methanol, and then various biofuels (LBG, renewable methanol, and HVO). Meanwhile, representatives from Swedish government authorities prioritize environmental criteria, specifically GHG emissions, and social criteria, specifically the potential to meet regulations, ranking renewable hydrogen the highest, followed by renewable methanol, and then HVO. Policy initiatives are needed to promote the introduction of renewable marine fuels.
引用
收藏
页码:159 / 173
页数:15
相关论文
共 92 条
  • [31] Chryssakis C., 2017, Low carbon shipping towards 2050
  • [32] Chryssakis C, 2014, DNV GL STRATEGIC RES
  • [33] Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment
    Cinelli, Marco
    Coles, Stuart R.
    Kirwan, Kerry
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2014, 46 : 138 - 148
  • [34] Environmental and economical assessment of alternative marine fuels
    Deniz, Cengiz
    Zincir, Burak
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2016, 113 : 438 - 449
  • [35] Eide MS, 2013, CARBON MANAG, V4, P275, DOI [10.4155/CMT.13.27, 10.4155/cmt.13.27]
  • [36] Developing Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment methodology by applying values-based sustainability weighting - Tested on biomass based and fossil transportation fuels
    Ekener, Elisabeth
    Hansson, Julia
    Larsson, Aron
    Peck, Philip
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 181 : 337 - 351
  • [37] Ellis J., 2018, SWED CIMAC WORKSH 12
  • [38] Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process
    Forman, E
    Peniwati, K
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1998, 108 (01) : 165 - 169
  • [39] G.L. DNV, 2019, INST EXH GAS CLEAN S
  • [40] A conceptual approach to the use of Cost Benefit and Multi Criteria Analysis in natural hazard management
    Gamper, C. D.
    Thoeni, M.
    Weck-Hannemann, H.
    [J]. NATURAL HAZARDS AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2006, 6 (02) : 293 - 302