Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7837/kosomes.2020.26.3.262

Comparative Economic Analysis on SOx Scrubber Operation for ECA Sailing Vessel  

Jee, Jae-hoon (Mokpo National Maritime University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety / v.26, no.3, 2020 , pp. 262-268 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
SOx; Scrubber; Retrofit; Economic Analysis; OPEX; CAPEX;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 GSF(2012), Vessel emission study: comparison of various abatement technology conference, Copenhagen.
2 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.   DOI
3 IMO(2015), Third IMO GHG Study 2014.
4 IMO(2016), resolution MEPC.280(70), Effective date of implementation of the fuel oil standard in regulation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI.
5 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.   DOI
6 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.   DOI
7 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.   DOI
8 MAN Diesel & Turbo(2014), Guidelines for Operation on Fuels with less than 0.1 % Sulphur.
9 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.   DOI
10 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.   DOI
11 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.
12 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.   DOI
13 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.   DOI
14 Shi, Y.(2016), Are greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping a type of marine pollution?, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 113, pp. 187-192.   DOI
15 Ship & Bunker(2017), Available from http://shipandbunker.com/.
16 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.   DOI
17 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.   DOI
18 Aminoff, T.(2014), A glance at CAPEX & OPEX for compliance with forthcoming environmental regulations, 16th annual Marine Money Greek Forum, 15th Oct. 2014.
19 Acciaro, M.(2014), Real option analysis for environmental compliance, LNG and emission control area, Transp. Res. Part D, Vol. 28, pp. 41-50.   DOI
20 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.   DOI
21 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.
22 Bunkerworld(2017), Available from http://www.bunkerworld.com/.
23 CIMAC(2015), Cold flow properties of maine fuel oils.
24 Clarksons research(2017), SOx 2020: effects on the oil products markets.