Advertisement

The Way Ahead

  • Harilaos N. PsaraftisEmail author
  • Panos Zachariadis
Chapter

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to attempt to make an assessment on what may lie ahead as regards sustainable shipping. The focus of the chapter is the April 2018 decision of the International Maritime Organization on the formulation of an Initial Strategy to reduce maritime greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In that context, an assessment of the prospects for alternative fuels, which figure centrally in the Initial Strategy, is also included.

Abbreviations

AER

Annual efficiency ratio

BAU

Business as usual

BIMCO

Baltic and International Maritime Council

BRI

Belt and road initiative

CBDR-RC

Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities

CH4

Methane

CO2

Carbon dioxide

DCS

Data collection system

ECSA

European Community Shipowners’ Associations

EEDI

Energy efficiency design index

EESH

Energy efficiency per service hour

EGR

Exhaust gas recirculation

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency (US)

ESPO

European Seaports Organisation

ETS

Emissions Trading System

EU

European Union

FORS

Fuel Oil Reduction Strategy

GHG

Greenhouse gas

GWP

Global warming potential

HFO

Heavy fuel oil

IAPH

International Association of Ports and Harbors

ICS

International Chamber of Shipping

IMO

International Maritime Organization

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISPI

Individual Ship Performance Indicator

ITCP

Integrated Technical Cooperation Programme

kwh

Kilowatt hour

LBSI

Lean burn spark ignition

LDC

Least developed country

LNG

Liquefied natural gas

LPDF

Low-pressure dual fuel

MBM

Market-based measure

MDO

Marine diesel oil

MEPC

Marine Environment Protection Committee

MGO

Marine gas oil

NG

Natural gas

NGO

Nongovernmental organization

NH3

Ammonia

NOx

Nitrogen oxide

OECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

SCR

Single catalytic reduction

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal

SECA

Sulfur emission control area

SEEMP

Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan

SOx

Sulfur oxide

SSS

Short sea shipping

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

US

United States

References

  1. AES. (2018). Methane emissions: This year’s biggest energy challenge. American Energy Society. https://www.energytoday.net/environmental-health-impact/methane-emissions-years-biggest-energy-challenge/.
  2. Allen, D. T. (2014). Methane emissions from natural gas production and use: Reconciling bottom-up and top-down measurements. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 5(1), 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouman, E. I., Lindstad, E., Rialland, A. I., & Strømman, A. H. (2017). State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping – a review. Transportation Research Part D, 52, 408–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BP. (2018). Statistical review of world energy. British Petroleum report.Google Scholar
  5. Collodi, G. (2010). Hydrogen production via steam reforming with CO2 capture. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 19, 37–42.Google Scholar
  6. Corbett, J. J., Thomson, H., & Winebrake, J. J. (2015). Methane emissions from natural gas bunkering operations in the marine sector: A total fuel cycle approach, Report for US Maritime Administration, 21 November.Google Scholar
  7. DNV GL. (2015). The fuel trilemma: Next generation of marine fuels. Strategic Research and Innovation position paper 03-2015.Google Scholar
  8. DNV GL. (2018). Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies. Guidance paper 2018-05.Google Scholar
  9. EU. (2016). Methane emissions from LNG-powered ships higher than current marine fuel oils. European Commission DG Environment News Alert Service. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/research_alert_en.htm, 28 January.
  10. Gilbert, P., Walsh, C., Traut, M., Kesieme, U., Pazouki, K., & Murphy, A. (2018). Assessment of full life-cycle air emissions of alternative shipping fuels. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 855–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Howarth, R. W. (2014). A bridge to nowhere: Methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas. Energy Science & Engineering, 2(2), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IMO. (2014). Third IMO GHG study 2014, Co-authored by Smith, T. W. P., Jalkanen, J. P., Anderson, B. A., Corbett, J. J., Faber, J., Hanayama, S., O’Keeffe, E., Parker, S., Johansson, L., Aldous, L., Raucci, C., Traut, M., Ettinger, S., Nelissen, D., Lee, D. S., Ng, S., Agrawal, A., Winebrake, J., Hoen, M., Chesworth, S., & Pandey, A. International Maritime Organization (IMO) London, UK, June.Google Scholar
  13. IMO. (2016). Study of the use of methanol as marine fuel. IMO doc. MEPC 69/INF.10.Google Scholar
  14. IMO. (2018). Resolution MEPC.304(72) (adopted on 13 April 2018), initial IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships, IMO doc. MEPC 72/17/Add.1, Annex 1.Google Scholar
  15. Jaramillo, P., Griffin, W. M., & Matthews, H. S. (2005). Comparative life cycle carbon emissions of LNG versus coal and gas for electricity generation. Civil and environmental engineering. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  16. Milne, T. A., Elam, C. C., & Evans, R. J. (2006). Task 16, hydrogen from carbon-containing materials (Report for the International Energy Agency, Agreement on the Production and Utilization of Hydrogen). Golden: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.Google Scholar
  17. Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., Koch, D., Lamarque, J.-F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G., Takemura, T., & Zhang, H. (2013). Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis (Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. OECD. (2018). Decarbonising maritime transport. Pathways to zero-carbon shipping by 2035. Report of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, International Transport Forum, Paris, France, March.Google Scholar
  19. Oliver, C. D., & Oliver, F. A. (2018). Global resources and the environment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Psaraftis, H. N. (2018). Decarbonization of maritime transport: To be or not to be? Maritime Economics and Logistics. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-018-0098-8.
  21. SINTEF. (2017). GHG and NOx emissions from gas fueled engines, SINTEF Ocean AS Report.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, T., Raucci, C., Haji Hosseinloo, S., Rojon, I., Calleya, J., Suárez de la Fuente, S., Wu, P., & Palmer, K. (2016). CO 2 emissions from international shipping. Possible reduction targets and their associated pathways. Report prepared by UMAS, London, UK, October.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DTU Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Atlantic Bulk Carriers Management, Ltd.PiraeusGreece

Personalised recommendations