Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 129–136 | Cite as

Reviews on current carbon emission reduction technologies and projects and their feasibilities on ships

  • Haibin Wang
  • Peilin Zhou
  • Zhongcheng Wang


Concern about global climate change is growing, and many projects and researchers are committed to reducing greenhouse gases from all possible sources. International Maritime (IMO) has set a target of 20% CO2 reduction from shipping by 2020 and also presented a series of carbon emission reduction methods, which are known as Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and Energy Efficiency Operation Indicator (EEOI). Reviews on carbon emission reduction from all industries indicate that, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is an excellent solution to global warming. In this paper, a comprehensive literature review of EEDI and EEOI and CCS is conducted and involves reviewing current policies, introducing common technologies, and considering their feasibilities for marine activities, mainly shipping. Current projects are also presented in this paper, thereby illustrating that carbon emission reduction has been the subject of attention from all over the world. Two case ship studies indicate the economic feasibility of carbon emission reduction and provide a guide for CCS system application and practical installation on ships.


marine environment control carbon reduction technologies EEDI EEOI CCS chemical absorption 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barthelemy H, Bourdeaud’huy D, Jolivet J-L, Kohl U, Krinninger K, Teasdale D, Webb A, Williams S, 2010. Safe handling of liquid carbon dioxide containers that have lost pressure. Globally harmonised document, IGC Doc 164/10/E, European Industrial Gases Association (EIGA) Aisbl, Brussels.Google Scholar
  2. Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ, 2010. Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge. DOI: 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DNV GL and PSE, 2013. Report on ship carbon capture & storage, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo and London, Available from e-ccs-report [Accessed on Oct. 16, 2016]Google Scholar
  4. Global CCS Institute, 2012. The Global Status of CCS: 2012. Global CCS Institute, Canberra, Australia. Available from [Accessed on Sep. 9, 2016]Google Scholar
  5. Gorgon Australia, 2015. Carbon dioxide injection project. Chevron Project. Available from [Accessed on Oct. 16, 2016]Google Scholar
  6. Houghton JT, 2004. Greenhouse gases. In: Global warming: The complete briefing, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. IMO, 2011. IMO train the trainer (TTT) course on energy efficient ship operation. International Maritime Organisation, London. Available from [Accessed on Oct. 18, 2016]Google Scholar
  8. IMO, 2014. Third IMO GHG study 2014. Micropress Printers, Suffolk.Google Scholar
  9. International Chamber of Shipping, 2014. Shipping, world trade and the reduction of CO2 emissions. International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), London.Google Scholar
  10. MAN Diesel & Turbo, 2014. Improved efficiency and reduced CO2. MAN Diesel & Turbo, Available from 12553af0bf5969569b45ff0400499204.pdf?sfvrsn=8 [Accessed on Oct. 18, 2016]Google Scholar
  11. Melzer LS, Midland TX, 2012. Carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2 EOR): Factors involved in adding carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) to enhanced oil recovery. The National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 1–17.Google Scholar
  12. Metz B, Davidson O, de Coninck HC, Loos M, Meyer LA, 2007. IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. National Geographic, 2016. The greenhouse effect. Available from[Accessed on Sep. 9, 2016]Google Scholar
  14. SaskPower, 2014. Boundary dam integrated carbon capture and storage demonstration project. SaskPower CCS, Regina. Available from [Accessed on Oct. 18, 2016]Google Scholar
  15. Shao W, Zhou PL, Thong SK, 2012. Development of a novel forward dynamic programming method for weather routing. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 17(2), 239–251. DOI: 10.1007/s00773-011-0152-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stern D, 2011. Global trends in carbon and sulfur emissions. Available from [Accessed on Sep. 9, 2016]Google Scholar
  17. U.S. Department of Energy, 2013. FutureGen 2.0 Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Available from [Accessed on Oct. 16, 2016]Google Scholar
  18. Wang HB, Zhou PL, Wang ZC, 2016. Experimental and numerical analysis on controllable factors of CO2 absorption efficiency of carbon solidification system. Ocean Engineering, 113, 133–143. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.12.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wischnewski B, 2013. Peace software. Available from http://www. [Accessed on Sep.12, 2013]Google Scholar
  20. Zhou PL, Wang HB, 2014. Carbon capture and storage-Solidification and storage of carbon dioxide captured on ships. Ocean Engineering, 91, 172–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.09.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Marine EngineeringUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Shanghai Maritime UniversityMerchant Marine CollegeShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations