해양환경안전학회지 (Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety)

  • 제26권3호
  • /
  • Pages.262-268
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1229-3431(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-3341(eISSN)
해양환경안전학회 (The Korean Society of Marine Environment and safety)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Economic Analysis on SOx Scrubber Operation for ECA Sailing Vessel

  • 투고 : 2020.03.09
  • 심사 : 2020.05.28
  • 발행 : 2020.05.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The IMO (International Maritime Organization) has mandated the restriction of SOx emissions to 0.5 % for all international sailing vessels since January 2020. And, a number of countries have designated emission control areas for stricter environmental regulations. Three representative methods have been suggested to cope with these regulations; using low-sulphur oil, installing a scrubber, or using LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) as fuel. In this paper, economic analysis was performed by comparing the method of installing a scrubber with the method of using low-sulphur oil without installing additional equipment. We suggested plausible layouts and compared the pros and cons of dif erent scrubber types for retrofitting. We selected an international sailing ship as the target vessel and estimated payback time and benefits based on navigation route, fuel consumption, and installation and operation costs. Two case of oil prices were analyzed considering the uncertainty of fuel oil price fluctuation. We found that the expected payback time of investment varies from 1 year to 3.5 years depending on the operation ratio of emission control areas and the fuel oil price change.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Acciaro, M.(2014), Real option analysis for environmental compliance, LNG and emission control area, Transp. Res. Part D, Vol. 28, pp. 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.007
  2. Aminoff, T.(2014), A glance at CAPEX & OPEX for compliance with forthcoming environmental regulations, 16th annual Marine Money Greek Forum, 15th Oct. 2014.
  3. Brynolf, S., M. Magnusson, E. Fridell, and K. Andersson (2014), Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels. Transp. Environ., Vol. 28, pp. 6-18.
  4. Bunkerworld(2017), Available from http://www.bunkerworld.com/.
  5. CIMAC(2015), Cold flow properties of maine fuel oils.
  6. Clarksons research(2017), SOx 2020: effects on the oil products markets.
  7. GSF(2012), Vessel emission study: comparison of various abatement technology conference, Copenhagen.
  8. Gu, Y. and S. W. Wallace(2017), Scrubber: a potentially overestimated compliance method for the emission control areas: the importance of involving a ship's sailing pattern in the evaluation, Transp. Res. Part D, Vol. 55, pp. 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.06.024
  9. IMO(2015), Third IMO GHG Study 2014.
  10. IMO(2016), resolution MEPC.280(70), Effective date of implementation of the fuel oil standard in regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI.
  11. Kim, A. and Y. Seo(2019), The reduction of SOx emissions in the shipping industry: The case of Korean Companies, Marine Policy Vol. 100, pp. 98-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.024
  12. Lee, S., S. Seo, and D. Chang(2015), Fire risk comparison of fuel gas supply systems for LNG fuelled ships, J. of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, Vol. 27, pp. 1788-1795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.11.003
  13. Lindstad, H. E., C. F. Rehn, and G. S. Eskeland(2017), Sulphur abatement globally in maritime shipping, Transp. Res. Part D. Vol. 57, pp. 303-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.028
  14. MAN Diesel & Turbo(2014), Guidelines for Operation on Fuels with less than 0.1 % Sulphur.
  15. Nunes, R., M. Alvim-ferraz, and M. Sousa(2017), Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal, Environ. Pollut., Vol. 231, pp. 1370-1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.112
  16. Panasiuk, I. and L. Turkina(2015), the evaluation of investments efficiency of SOx scrubber installation, Transp. Res. Part D: Transport Environ., Vol. 40, pp. 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.08.004
  17. Schinas, O. and C. Stefanokos(2014), Selecting technologies towards compliance with MARPOL Annex VI: The perspective of operators. Transp. Environ., Vol. 28, pp. 28-40.
  18. Seddiek, I. S. and M. M. Elgohary(2014), Eco-friendly selection of ship emissions reduction strategies with emphasis on SOx and NOx emissions, J of Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng., Vol. 6, pp. 737-748. https://doi.org/10.2478/IJNAOE-2013-0209
  19. Seo, S., B. Chu, Y. Noh, W. Jang, S. Lee, Y. Seo, and D. Chang(2016), An economic evaluation of operating expenditures for LNG fuel gas supply systems onboard ocean-going ships considering availability, J of Ship & Offshore Struct., Vol. 11, pp. 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2014.984389
  20. Shi, Y.(2016), Are greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping a type of marine pollution?, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 113, pp. 187-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.014
  21. Ship & Bunker(2017), Available from http://shipandbunker.com/.
  22. Ulpre, H. and I. Eames(2014), Environmental policy constraints for acidic exhaust gas scrubber discharges from ships, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 292-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.08.027
  23. Viana, M., P. Hammingh, A. Colette, X. Querol, B. Degraeuwe, I. Vlieger, and J. Aardenne(2014), Impact of maritime transport emissions on coastal air quality in, J. of Eur. Atmos. Environ., Vol. 90, pp. 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.03.046
  24. Yang, Z., D. Zhang, O. Caglayan, I. Jenkinson, S. Bonsall, J. Wang, M. Huang, and X. Yan(2012), Selection of techniques for reducing shipping NOx and SOx emission, Transpot. Res. Part D: Transport Environ., Vol. 17, pp. 478-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.05.010