Table 6 Researches on alternative technologies
Source | Man Diesel and Turbo | Aronietis et al., | Hsu et al., | DNV GL and MAN Diesel & Turbo | Fearnleys | Abadie at al., |
Year | 2011 | 2014 | 2014 | 2016 | 2017 | 2017 |
Research question(s) – Objective(s) | Are exhaust gas treatment systems the preferred technical solution? | Selection of the best retrofit solutions. | Assessment of possible alternative solutions such as MGO, LNG, scrubber system, Methanol (Me OH). | Analyzing the costs and benefits of various fuel options for a case with one particular ship and its operating pattern. | Comparison of different alternative shipping fuels. | Adaptation of the shipping sector to stricter emissions regulations by either fuel switching or installing a scrubber. |
Approach – methodology applied | Reference vessel uses MGO inside ECA-zones by 2015 or within EU ports. Outside ECA-zones, HFO is used and a Low-Sulfur Heavy Oil (LSHO) with a 0.5% Sulfur content by 2020. | An aggregate simulation model that simulates the impacts retrofit solutions would have if they were implemented in the market. | Life-cycle cost analysis, which includes different stages such as planning, design, construction, operation, and end of life. | Two different scenarios of fuel prices: a high price scenario based on the fuel prices in mid-2014, and a low price scenario based on fuel prices in mid-2015. | Four different scenarios for container ships: LNG new-built, MGO, Scrubber and LNG conversion. | Stochastic modeling to deal with uncertainties concerning the price of the different fuels. |
Cost elements | Relevant costs for key technologies. | / | Capital cost, installation cost, operation cost, maintenance cost, and total life-cycle cost. | Additional investment and operating costs compared to a standard fuel variant using HFO outside of SECA and MGO inside. | Capital expenses (CAPEX) and voyage expenses (VOYEX). | How many tons of fuel are used under each scenario of time at sea using scrubbers and switching fuels for both types of fuel and two points in time: in the initial period (up to the end of 2019) and in the second period (2020 and beyond). |
Perspective | / | / | Three key elements are environmental, economic and technical issues during each stage of the analysis. The model is applied for a duration of 15 years (from 2013 till 2028) by estimation of fuel prices by considering an escalation rate of 5%. | Alternative fuels selected were LNG, LPG, methanol and new ultra-low-Sulfur fuel oil, a so-called hybrid fuel. | / | Focus is solely on the options available to the existing fleet and therefore considering only the options of switching to low-Sulfur marine fuels and installing a scrubber. The paper does not set out mainly to analyze carbon emissions from shipping and slow steaming and reducing the speed of vessels is not considered. |
Ships | 2,500 TEU, 4,600 TEU, 8,500 TEU, 14,000 TEU, and 18,000 TEU | Ro-Ro and Ro-Pax ships | Ro-Pax (1300 passengers and 300 cars). Cruise vessel (3080 passengers). Container feeder (1700 TEU). Small ferry (600 passengers and 160 cars). | LR1 product tanker | 8,500 TEU container ship | / |
Routes | Round trips for three trades: intra-European, Europe-Latin America and Europe-Asia. | / | / | The route between Northern America and Northern Europe: Houston-Rotterdam; Ventspils-Houston. | Rotterdam to Shanghai - Shanghai to Rotterdam | / |
Conclusion – results | Use of LNG as a ship fuel promises a lower emission level and, given the right circumstances, lower fuel costs. Three main parameters: investment costs for LNG tank system, the price difference between LNG and HFO, and share of operation inside ECA’s. | Speed reduction brings the most benefits. Scrubbers perform well economically, but the emission and energy performance are worse than those of the other technologies. Bad economic performance for dual-fuel. | The fuel price has a significant impact. LNG & scrubber are better for a long life cycle and methanol is better for a short life cycle. | The high price scenario resulted in the highest annual cost difference for the alternatives as well as the shortest payback times. Methanol and ultra-low-Sulfur fuel oil do not show financial feasibility. LNG and LPG are both financially interesting alternative fuels, and LPG was found to be at least as good as LNG, used both inside and outside SECA regions. | Scrubbers have the lowest cost, then LNG for new-built ships is on the second, and MGO and LNG conversion ships are located on the third and fourth places respectively. For existing vessels, LNG and scrubbers provide a very sound option. | The choice of one option or the other depends on various factors such as the price of fuels, the area in which the ship usually operates, the regulations applicable to it, the number of days at sea and the remaining useful lifetime of the ship. The longer the remaining lifetime of the vessel is, the longer the vessels spend in ECAs and the longer they spend at sea, the option of investing in scrubbers becomes more attractive. |