Next Article in Journal
Air Pollution and Public Bike-Sharing System Ridership in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals
Next Article in Special Issue
A Review and Classification Framework of Traceability Approaches for Identifying Product Supply Chain Counterfeiting
Previous Article in Journal
Advancing Wildlife Policy of Eastern Timber Wolves and Lake Sturgeon through Traditional Ecological Knowledge
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

LNG vs. MDO in Marine Fuel Emissions Tracking

by
Styliani Livaniou
1,*,
Georgios Chatzistelios
1,
Dimitrios V. Lyridis
2 and
Evangelos Bellos
1
1
School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15780 Zografos, Greece
2
School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 15780 Zografos, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(7), 3860; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073860
Submission received: 13 February 2022 / Revised: 7 March 2022 / Accepted: 17 March 2022 / Published: 24 March 2022

Abstract

:
The continuous increase in global maritime freight transport has led to an increase in emissions. The port of Heraklion was selected as a case study to investigate the environmental impact of shipping in wider areas. Two different maritime fuels were examined: the conventional maritime fuel, marine diesel oil (MDO), and an alternative maritime fuel, liquified natural gas (LNG). To carry out this study, real data from the port of Heraklion, the Lloyd’s Register Fairplay (LRF) Sea-Web database, and literature reviews were used. The bottom-up method was adopted for data processing. The results of this study demonstrate that alternative maritime fuels, such as LNG, could drastically reduce SO2, NOx, PM, and CO2 emissions.

1. Introduction

Global economic development is based on ship trade. For this reason, maritime emissions are considered a significant source of air pollution that has a negative impact on human health and the atmospheric environment. The global waterborne trade is expected to reach more than 15,000 million tons by 2035, with a slight increase over the long-term historical average [1,2]. Greenhouse gases (GHGs), ozone and aerosol precursors, sulfur oxides (SOX), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOX) [3,4,5,6], and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the main factors that contribute to air pollution and cause climate change [7,8,9]. The toxicity of these pollutants is dangerous for human health and the environment [10]. Fuels that are related to SOX and NOX emissions are the main cause of water and soil acidification since both are easily converted into active acid [11]. NOX, SOX, and PM emissions are also toxic to humans [4,12]. At least 70% of emissions from ships that operate on international routes occur within 400 km from the coast, according to recent studies [13]. For these reasons, it is crucial to improve maritime legislation in order to reduce emissions and their effect on nature [2,14,15].
At a global level, total GHG emissions from the shipping industry increased by 9.6% between 2012 (977 Mt) and 2018 (1076 Mt4), according to the IMO’s fourth GHG study [16]. As a result, the share of global anthropogenic emissions attributed to shipping increased from 2.76% in 2012 to 2.89% in 2018. During the same period, CO2 emissions increased by 9.3%, from 962 Mt to 1056 Mt. International ships, on the other hand, contribute 2% of global GHG emissions and, based on the new voyage-based allocation, CO2 emissions increased by 5.6%Mt in 2018, from 701 Mt in 2012 to 740. Furthermore, total shipping (international and domestic) emissions are expected to rise from around 1000 Mt CO2 in 2018 to 1000–1500 Mt CO2 by 2050, representing a 0–50% increase from 2018 levels and a 90–130% increase from 2008 levels.
Shipping emissions that are related to the potential growth of the economy and changes in the energy sector could rise by 50 to 250% by 2050 [17].
Moreover, emissions are expected to rise from roughly 90% of 2008 levels in 2018 to 90–130 percent of 2008 levels by 2050 under a variety of plausible long-term economic and energy-related scenarios. Although it is too soon to assess the quantitative impact of COVID-19 on emission projections, it is clear that emissions in 2020 and 2021 were significantly lower. Depending on the rate of recovery, emissions in the coming decades may be a few percentage points lower than predicted. Overall, the impact of COVID-19 is likely to be reduced.
With regard to international regulations on emissions from shipping, there are several regulations and directives that have been formulated to reduce NOX, SOX, and CO2 emissions. The most relevant convention is IMO’s MARPOL 73/78 Convention, which specifies air pollution limits in Annex VI entitled “Regulation on the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships”. The European Union implemented the Directive 2012/33/EU, amending the Directive 1999/32/EC, which is related to the quantity of sulfur in shipping fuels and is compatible with IMO standards, but it does not include guidance as to how to control NOX and PM emissions. Stricter sulfur limits for marine fuels in sulfur emission control areas (SECAs) and nitrogen oxide emission control areas (NECAs) are also included in this directive [18]. The Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the region of North America (including the coastal part of Canada and USA), and the areas of the Caribbean Sea that belong to the USA (around Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands) are all known as SECAs [18,19]. To comply with the EU Directive 2005/33/EC, ships that are berthing or approaching European ports must use marine fuel oils that contain less than 0.1% sulfur by mass (1.00% by mass until 31 December 2014 and 0.10% by 1 January 2015). For non-SECAs (3.50 percent by mass from 18 June 2014), see Figure 1 [9,20,21].
However, it is important to remember that SO2 emissions are a significant contaminant in ports [23]. As a result, from 1 January 2020, the sulfur limits on ship fuels were importantly reduced worldwide, according to the EU sulfur regulation document. For this reason, four realistic methods have been proposed for the reduction in sulfur emissions limits [24,25], which can be sorted in two categories depending on the need for ship modification.
Non-Modification Methods
The first category is the use of low-sulfur fuel oil (LSFO) with the dominant method being to simply switch to LSFO marine fuel since the existing infrastructure is functional without requiring any change. LSFO prices, on the other hand, are over 30% higher compared to heavy fuel oil (HFO) since there are not enough refineries to produce sufficient amounts of LSFO [26].
The next method is to replace HFO with marine gas oil (MGO). MGO can use also the existing systems, so no additional infrastructure is needed. On the other hand, its use can influence ship operations, such as engine maintenance, speed, and combustion characteristics [27].
Modification Methods
The third choice is the use of heavy fuel oil (HFO) with the addition of a scrubber to remove SOX. The device specifications require a relatively large space within the ship for installation, making the procedure difficult on small vessels [28], and the final cost of modification is usually very expensive.
The fourth choice is to use liquefied natural gas (LNG) to replace HFO. LNG is a natural gas that is temporarily converted to liquid form at low temperatures to facilitate storage and transportation. There are some issues with LNG marine fuel, such as the large initial amount that needs to be invested in order to cope with the lack of infrastructure for supplying LNG services [29,30,31]. However, LNG complies with IMO environmental regulations because it can significantly minimize air emissions due to its lower peak temperatures during combustion [32,33]. In comparison to HFO, LNG shipping fuel can reduce NOX emissions by 85–95%, CO2 by 20%, and SOX by 100% [34]. As a result, liquefied natural gas marine fuel is a good choice to reduce air pollution and has become a valid alternative to the conventional fuel oils that have traditionally been used for ship propulsion. The key justification for the use of natural gas as an alternative fuel is that global LNG output from gas wells is predicted to rapidly increase in the short term. By 2050, LNG could provide for 32% of shipping energy demands [24]. Furthermore, natural gas is much less expensive than fossil fuels. The cost of LNG is roughly 60% of the cost of HFO [35,36], although there have been intense fluctuations in recent years. In addition, LNG has benefited greatly from investments made through the NOx fund [36]. Importantly, Ushakov, Stenersen, and Einang [37] noted that “engines tend to be overtuned” and have exceptionally low NOx emissions as a result (lower than the limit set by the standards). LNG is gaining traction as a viable potential source of power.
On the other hand, regarding the impact of pollutant emissions in Greece at the local level, ships in Greek waters emit 7.4 million tons of CO2, according to estimates (at least 7 million tons of CO2). It should be noted that Greece contributed 7.3% and 14.1% of the census of shipping emissions in the same year [38].
This article aims to contribute toward filling the gaps in current literature regarding the differences in ship emissions between MDO and LNG maritime fuel use and to include an assessment of the emissions inventory by introducing a ship activity-based methodology using data collected from the port of Heraklion [39] and the Lloyd’s Register Fairplay (LRF) Sea-Web database [40]. A distance of 10 km from the Heraklion’s port region was studied to estimate the total cruising emissions from ships that berth in the port and ships that use routes within the wider area [10]. This examination was based on the use of different fuels in different types of vessels. In this paper, we examined the argument that the switch to LNG fuel should be universal, implying that all ships should henceforth run on LNG. The emissions from different case studies were compared. Heraklion is one of the most important ports in Greece and was selected as the case study. Heraklion is located on the north coast of Crete, about 145 km east of Chania, 80 km east of Rethymnon, and 3 km west of Nikos Kazantzakis International Airport (airport code HER). The port of Heraklion is also one of the busiest ports in Greece. It serves one of the five most populous islands in the Mediterranean and is also the main port of a spectacular and popular tourist destination. Approximately two million passengers visit each year. Crete is visited by a considerable number of ships of various uses and sizes.
Section 1 of this paper presents the literature analysis. Section 2 describes the methodology used to conduct the research. The results of case study analysis are shown in Section 3. The paper is summarized by conclusions and directions for future research, which are presented in Section 4.

2. Emissions Calculation Methodology

The atmospheric emission inventory guidebook contains detailed methods for preparing ship emission inventories. The two main strategies for creating ship pollution inventories are the top-down and bottom-up methods.
Top-down Approach: the top-down approach is based on fuel consumption reports and is typically used when there is no available information about the ship’s detailed activity and/or status during various operational phases.
Bottom-up method: the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, is employed when the data availability guarantees the detailed calculation of fuel consumption and air emissions during each operational phase (i.e., cruise, maneuvering, at berth) of the ship, thus providing the spatial allocation of the air emissions. The bottom-up method uses ship movements, characteristics, and emission variables to estimate the ship- and route-related emissions [13].
Heraklion is the Greek port case study, the location of which is shown in Figure 2a.
Heraklion’s main port is part of the region within which emissions are calculated. The cruising and maneuvering activity lines are shown in Figure 2b,c. The Heraklion Port Authority calculated the ship routes as the best routes for ships to take based on the sea depth. Table 1 shows the distances for each activity of a ship. “A” is the point at which each ship begins cruising into the Heraklion port using a pilot. It should be noted though that RoPax vessels do not require piloting services. “B” is the point at which the cruise comes to an end and the maneuver begins. “D” indicates Heraklion port’s field.
Following the objective of this study, the contaminants generated by the conventional MDO fuel were investigated since any ship entering the port is required by port regulations to change its fuel from HFO to MDO. The traffic statistics for the port under consideration are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 displays the type of conventional fuel (MDO) consumed by each group of ships entering the port of Heraklion, as well as the type of alternative fuel (LNG) those ships are able to consume in the future to minimize emissions. RoPax is the most vessel category in Heraklion port, followed by the other categories, such as cruise ships, etc.
The propulsions of the main engine and the secondarily auxiliary engine that generate electricity for ship functions are the emission sources from operational ships. Vessels in the port area produce emissions from both the main and auxiliary engines during maneuvering for berth and anchor, while the auxiliary engines are the only source of emissions when the ship is either anchored or berthed. Ship activities can be divided into three categories: maneuvering, hoteling, and cruising. The energy consumption of ship must be calculated for each mode of operation. Fuel and engine type, operation mode, fuel consumption, time in operating mode, and pollution factors are all parameters that affect ship emissions [41]. Emissions in Heraklion port are defined for every mode of operation and refer exclusively to ships that have entered and left the port. For each ship call, the expression in Equation (1) [42,43] is used to estimate each of the air pollutants (CO2, CO, NOx, SO2, HC, CH4, and PM) emitted for the ship’s operating time in the port.
E i , f = j , k ( T j × P k × L F j , k × E F i , f ) ,
where E represents the total amount of ship emissions (tons); i denotes the emission type (SO2, NOX, CO, HC, CH4 or PM2.5); j denotes the vessel’s operation phase (i.e., sailing, maneuvering or hoteling); f specifies the type of fuel (conventional (c) or alternative (a)); k denotes the type of the engine ((ME) for main and (AE) for auxiliary); and P denotes the power of the engine (kW). The amount of power used by the engine during a given operation is the engine load factor (LF). T is the time spent in each of the ship’s operation phases (hours). TC = D/U stands for the average time spent cruising (hours), where D is the ship’s range or the distance traveled at sea within a range of 10 km from Heraklion’s coastline (km) [10,44]. The ship moving velocity is denoted by U and is the average speed of each category of ships entering the port of Heraklion in cruising mode. TM stands for the average time spent maneuvering (hours) and TH stands for the average time spent at berth (hours) [43]. A careful evaluation of the available routes and velocity patterns that ships follow in port was carried out in the current study and a generic cruise ship path was created through detailed personal communications with local port authorities, ship operators, and observations of the case study port. This path was used to calculate the moving and maneuvering times, while the hoteling times for all types of ship calls were extracted from the relevant detailed data provided by local port authorities for the period under consideration. The average load factors for the main and auxiliary engines for each mode of ship activity (cruising, maneuvering, and hoteling) in the Mediterranean port of Heraklion were calculated according to these data and are shown in Table 3 [45,46,47].
The emissions factor (g/kW h) was calculated using comprehensive vessel data, such as engine and fuel type (conventional and alternative fuels), but there could be some uncertainties [7,48]. All required data concerning ship activities in Heraklion port in 2018, such as maneuvering and hoteling periods, ship calls, names of vessels, dates, and duration of calls (time between arrival and departure), and ship speed, are meticulously gathered by local port authorities. The average installed main engine (ME) power (per ship, engine type, and size class), as well as the distribution of two-stroke and four-stroke engines, were derived from the Lloyd’s Register Fairplay (LRF) Sea-Web database [40]. Recent research [49,50] was adopted to calculate the power of the auxiliary engines (AE) of cruise ships using the IMO energy efficiency design index [51], while the power of the AEs of the other categories of ships was taken from Table 4 [10,44].
Cruise ships, RoPax (roll-on/roll-off passenger) ships, vehicle ships, and general cargo ships are the specific types of ships that were under investigation in Heraklion port.

3. Results and Discussion

The results of the activity-based emissions model were used to measure maritime emissions in this analysis. Table 5 shows the calculated sum of shipping pollution in 2018. The sum of NOx emissions from all ships approaching Heraklion port that were burning conventional fuels was 893.13 t (2.44% of the total), the sum of SO2 emissions was 36.28 t (0.10% of the total), the sum of CO2 emissions was 35,564.20 t (97.34% of the total), the sum of PM emissions was 10.24 t (0.03% of total), the sum of HC and CH4 emissions was 0.69 t (0% of the total), and the sum of CO emissions was 31.97 t (0.09% of the total). The total NOX emissions from ships using alternative fuels, such as LNG, were 145.94 t (0.51% of the total), the total SO2 emissions as well as the total PM emissions were 0.19 t (0% of the total), the total CO2 emissions were 28,202.53 t (98% of the total), the total HC emissions were 9.56 t (0.03% of the total), the total CO emissions were 87.12 t (0.30% of the total), and the total CH4 emissions were 332.71 t (1.16% of the total). As also shown in Table 5, the percentage reduction in sulfur dioxide and particulate matter emissions was almost 100% for LNG compared to MDO. The percentage reduction in NOx and CO2 emissions was 83.66% and 20.70% respectively. However, there were increased emissions for the CO, HC, and CH4 pollutants, which means that there is an adverse effect of switching from conventional fuel to alternative fuel for these specific pollutants. This is caused due to the “methane slip”, which occurs when unburned methane from the fuel is released in combination with the exhaust gas [31].
Figure 3 shows the port’s environmental profit per ship category, as well as the percentage of pollution reduction based on the different types of ships. Cruise ships were the dominant category of ships in terms of environmental profit due to their large technical characteristics, such as the power of the main engine, the power of the auxiliary engine, etc.
Figure 4 shows that RoPax ships accounted for the vast majority of vessel emissions (84.47% of the total emissions) in the examined port, followed by cruise ships (11.41% of the total emissions), regardless of the type of fuel used. Since the port of Heraklion is a very popular tourist destination, the RoPax and cruise ship categories account for the majority of pollution. When it comes to conventional fuels, CO2 was the most prevalent pollutant, followed by NOx emissions, with SO2 being the third ranked pollutant. Owing to the longer distances, emissions during cruising were higher than the emissions during maneuvering and hoteling when the ME and AE were both operating at full load.
Figure 5 depicts the emissions of a ship during each of the hoteling, maneuvering, and cruising modes. Ship emissions of exhaust gas contaminants during cruising accounted for 49.7% of overall emissions in operating modes. Furthermore, for ships using conventional fuels, emissions were 10.59% during maneuvering and 39.72% during hoteling. When the ME and AE used LNG as fuel, the above percentages adjusted to 46.65% in cruising mode, 11.25% in maneuvering mode, and 42.24% in hoteling mode.
The above results can be compared to existing research findings for different dates and different ports, as shown in Table A3 (see Appendix A). The studies included in Table A3 clearly show the contribution of LNG fuel to the environmental profit of a port, as do our results, because the conversion of conventional fuel into LNG results in a significant reduction in emissions.

4. Conclusions

Annual SO2, CO2, CO, NOx, HC, CH4, and PM emissions from five distinct kinds of ships in Heraklion port were estimated for 2018. The emissions were calculated depending on the ship category, operation mode, and fuel type. In 2018, NOx emissions totaled 893.13 tons, SO2 emissions totaled 36.28 tons, CO2 emissions were 35,564.2 tons, CO emissions totaled 31.97 tons, PM emissions totaled 10.24 tons, and HC and CH4 emissions totaled 0.69 tons. The environmental profit of the port with the change of ship fuel from MDO to natural gas was about 76% of the total emissions. The pollutants with the largest reduction in emissions were carbon dioxide, sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and particular matter. RoPax ships produced most of the emissions, followed by cruise ships, regardless of whether the ship was sailing on MDO or LNG. The total pollutants were found to be the greatest in cruising mode, followed by hoteling mode, according to Table A1 and Table A2 (see Appendix A). Ship hoteling emissions are concentrated close to the shore; as a result, it is essential to reduce air pollution within the proximity of coastal cities.
Ships are a source of air pollution in Heraklion, especially in terms of NOx, CO2, and SO2 emissions. However, because maritime transport is extremely energy efficient and because it is expected to increase significantly in the near future, emission mitigation strategies have been considered. More detailed and complex research into methods that can reduce the volume and quality of emissions from ships in port areas, such as scrubbers, selective catalytic reduction (SCR), exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) [52,53], biodiesel–acetylene [54], biofuels, hydrogen, ammonia, and battery power, will be the direction of our future research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L. and D.V.L.; methodology, S.L.; validation, E.B.; formal analysis, S.L.; resources, S.L.; data curation, S.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.L.; writing—review and editing, S.L., G.C. and D.V.L.; visualization, S.L. and G.C.; supervision, D.V.L.; project administration, E.B.; funding acquisition, G.C. and E.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was co-financed by the European Union and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation” under the call RESEARCH–CREATE–INNOVATE (project code: T1EDK-01727).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the TRiTON project (i.e., Ocean Finance, National Centre for Scientific Research “Demokritos”, Port of Volos, and Hellenic Organization for Standardization) for their contribution in this research project. They would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for the time spent on reviewing this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. MDO: the amount of emissions (tons/year) produced during different operation modes (cruising (Cr), maneuvering (Man), and hoteling (Hotel)) by ship type and fuel type.
Table A1. MDO: the amount of emissions (tons/year) produced during different operation modes (cruising (Cr), maneuvering (Man), and hoteling (Hotel)) by ship type and fuel type.
MDO
Ship TypesCO2NOxCOHCPMSO2CH4
CrManHotelCrManHotelCrManHotelCrManHotelCrManHotelCrManHotelCrManHotel
Cruise Ships9247.951320.693676.82232.2333.1692.348.301.193.300.160.020.062.650.381.069.451.343.760.160.020.06
RoPax48,827.7511,331.2545,324.991,226.15284.561,138.2543.8310.2040.670.820.230.8214.063.2813.0149.9311.6046.290.820.230.82
Container Ships2314.66402.83199.8158.1310.125.022.650.360.180.040.010.000.660.120.062.370.410.200.040.010.00
Vehicle Carriers170.5326.6437.814.280.660.950.150.020.030.000.000.000.050.010.010.170.020.040.000.000.00
General Cargo1473.05147.98367.8436.993.729.241.320.130.330.030.000.010.430.040.111.500.150.370.030.000.01
Total62,033.9413,229.3949,607.271557.78332.221.245.8056.2511.9044.511.050.260.8917.853.8314.2563.4213.5250.661.050.260.89
Table A2. LNG: the amount of emissions (tons/year) produced during different operation modes (cruising (Cr), maneuvering (Man), and hoteling (Hotel)) by ship type and fuel type.
Table A2. LNG: the amount of emissions (tons/year) produced during different operation modes (cruising (Cr), maneuvering (Man), and hoteling (Hotel)) by ship type and fuel type.
LNG
Ship TypesCO2NOxCOHCPMSO2CH4
CrManHotelCrManHotelCrManHotelCrManHotelCrManHotelCrManHotelCrManHotel
Cruise Ships1550.471071.002,981.6838.165.4515.1728.143.868.582.480.351.000.090.020.030.080.020.0387.9112.5634.95
RoPax39,596.499188.9536,755.91201.4746.76186.93148.6133.05132.4413.133.0512.190.470.120.470.470.120.35464.23107.71430.94
Container Ships1788.62311.28154.408.301.450.725.400.940.180.620.110.050.020.000.000.020.000.0013.292.311.15
Vehicle Carriers138.2921.6030.660.700.110.160.540.090.090.050.010.010.000.000.000.000.000.001.620.260.36
General Cargo1138.27114.35284.245.290.531.323.440.350.850.400.040.100.020.000.000.020.000.000.010.852.11
Total44,212.1410,707.1840,206.89253.9254.30204.30186.1338.29142.1416.683.5613.350.600.140.500.590.140.38567.06123.69469.51
Table A3. Ship emissions in other ports.
Table A3. Ship emissions in other ports.
Region/PortsAir Pollutant Emissions (10 thousand tons/year)YearReference
SOxNOxCOHCPM2.5PM10CO2
Greece/Piraeus, Santorini, Mykonos, Corfu and Katakolo Ports0.07 a0.18-ND b0.009--2013[41,42]
Greece/18-ports0.09 a0.24-ND b-0.001-2013[50]
Portugal/4-Ports1.37 a2.95-0.12-0.15-2014[10]
Spain/Las Palmas Port0.14 a0.42-ND b-0.03-2011[55]
India/JN-New Bombay Port0.03 a0.03-ND b-0.003-2006[55]
China/Shanghai Yangshan Port0.56 a1.07-0.05-0.08-2009[56]
China/Tianjin Port2.93 a4.13-0.17-0.4-2014[57]
Korea/Busan Port0.82 a0.87-0.06-ND b-2009[58]
Taiwan/Kaohsiung, Keelung, and Taichung Ports0.11 a0.11-0.003-0.009-2012[49]
Turkey/İzmit Gulf0.43 a0.53-0.02-0.05-2005[59]
Turkey/Ambarlı Port0.02 a0.08-ND b-0.003-2009[41]
Turkey/İzmir Port0.14 a0.19-0.016-0.013-2007[44]
Turkey/Çandarlı Port0.06 a0.06-0.005-0.003-2007[60]
Hong Kong Port1.241.450.14//0.14-2007[61,62]
Shenzhen Port1.362.330.22/0.170.22-2010[63]
Shanghai Port5.125.82-0.46//-2003[64]
Shanghai Port3.545.730.490.210.370.46-2010[65]
Shanghai Port8.1615.180.71/1.141.23-2010[66]
Yangshan0.561.080.110.050.090.11-2009[56]
YRD port38712.9/5.15.7-2010[66]
Tianjin Port2.934.130.360.170.370.4-2014[57]
Tangshan Port7.9711.220.870.360.700.76-2014[6]
Qinhuangdao Port6.448.630.670.280.550.60-2014[67]
Huanghua Port2.633.460.270.110.230.25-2014[67]
Bohai Gulf23.0930.584.790.991.972.15-2014[67]
Bohai Gulf12.0717.381.440.61/1.53-2014[67]
National inland river/81174.3/3.6-2010[6]
Turkey/Ambarlı Port0.02420.08450.2127--0.0036 c7.8592009[41]
Turkey/İzmir Port0.14050.1923-0.0074-0.0165 c8.27532013[44]
a Emissions of SO2; b ND, not determined; c any type of PM emissions.

References

  1. 2017 Market Forecast Report, Brussels. 2017. Available online: https://danskemaritime.dk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-Market-Forecast-Report-finaal.pdf (accessed on 9 June 2021).
  2. Traut, M.; Larkin, A.; Anderson, K.; McGlade, C.; Sharmina, M.; Smith, T. CO2 abatement goals for international shipping. Clim. Policy 2018, 18, 1066–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Chapman, L. Transport and climate change: A review. J. Transp. Geogr. 2007, 15, 354–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Corbett, J.J.; Winebrake, J.J.; Green, E.H.; Kasibhatla, P.; Eyring, V.; Lauer, A. Mortality from Ship Emissions: A Global Assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 8512–8518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kurtenbach, R.; Vaupel, K.; Kleffmann, J.; Klenk, U.; Schmidt, E.; Wiesen, P. Emissions of NO, NO2 and PM from inland shipping. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2016, 16, 14285–14295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Zhang, Y.; Yang, X.; Brown, R.; Yang, L.; Morawska, L.; Ristovski, Z.; Fu, Q.; Huang, C. Shipping emissions and their impacts on air quality in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 581–582, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bengtsson, S.; Andersson, K.; Fridell, E. A comparative life cycle assessment of marine fuels: Liquefied natural gas and three other fossil fuels. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M: J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 2011, 225, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Choi, W.; Song, H.H. Well-to-wheel analysis on greenhouse gas emission and energy use with natural gas in Korea. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 850–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Okada, A. Benefit, cost, and size of an emission control area: A simulation approach for spatial relationships. Marit. Policy Manag. 2019, 46, 565–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nunes, R.A.O.; Alvim-Ferraz, M.C.M.; Martins, F.G.; Sousa, S.I.V. The activity-based methodology to assess ship emissions-A review. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 231, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Miola, A.; Ciuffo, B. Estimating air emissions from ships: Meta-analysis of modelling approaches and available data sources. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 2242–2251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cullinane, K. Chapter 4 An International Dimension: Shipping. In Transport and Climate Change; Ryley, T., Chapman, L., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2012; Volume 2, pp. 65–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Eyring, V.; Isaksen, I.S.; Berntsen, T.; Collins, W.J.; Corbett, J.J.; Endresen, O.; Grainger, R.G.; Moldanova, J.; Schlager, H.; Stevenson, D.S. Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Shipping. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 4735–4771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bows-Larkin, A. All adrift: Aviation, shipping, and climate change policy. Clim. Policy 2015, 15, 681–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Simonsen, M.; Gössling, S.; Walnum, H.J. Cruise ship emissions in Norwegian waters: A geographical analysis. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 78, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fourth IMO GHG Study 2020 Executive Summary. Available online: https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Environment/Documents/Fourth%20IMO%20GHG%20Study%202020%20Executive-Summary.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2021).
  17. Toscano, D.; Murena, F. Atmospheric ship emissions in ports: A review. Correlation with data of ship traffic. Atmos. Environ. X 2019, 4, 100050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nichols, M.; Bremauntz, A.; Bracho, L.; Williams, M.; Friedrich, A.; Lloyd, A.; Greenbaum, D.; Hanyu, J. A Policy-Relevant Summary of Black Carbon Climate Science and Appropriate Emission Control Strategies. Available online: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/BCsummary_dec09.pdf (accessed on 9 June 2021).
  19. IMO. Sulphur Oxides (SOx) and Particulate Matter (PM)–Regulation 14. Available online: https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Sulphur-oxides-(SOx)---Regulation-14.aspx (accessed on 23 June 2021).
  20. Bergqvist, R.; Turesson, M.; Weddmark, A. Sulphur emission control areas and transport strategies -the case of Sweden and the forest industry. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2015, 7, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. IMO. Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), 70th Session, 24–28 October 2016; IMO: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  22. Licki, J.; Pawelec, A.; Zimek, Z.; Witman-Zajac, S. Electron beam treatment of simulated marine diesel exhaust gases. Nukleonika 2015, 60, 689–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Tovar, B.; Tichavska, M. Environmental cost and eco-efficiency from vessel emissions under diverse SOx regulatory frameworks: A special focus on passenger port hubs. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 69, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Van, T.C.; Ramirez, J.; Rainey, T.; Ristovski, Z.; Brown, R.J. Global impacts of recent IMO regulations on marine fuel oil refining processes and ship emissions. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 70, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Solakivi, T.; Laari, S.; Kiiski, T.; Töyli, J.; Ojala, L. How shipowners have adapted to sulphur regulations–Evidence from Finnish seaborne trade. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2019, 7, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. PacificGreen Technologies Group. Will There Be A Low Sulphur Fuel Oil Crisis In 2020? Available online: https://www.pacificgreen-group.com/articles/will-there-be-low-sulphur-fuel-oil-crisis-2020 (accessed on 5 June 2021).
  27. ABS. Fuel Switching Advisory Notice. Available online: https://www.american-club.com/files/files/ABS_Fuel_Switching_Advisory_Notice.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2021).
  28. Sargun, S. A Guide To Scrubber System On Ship. 17 March 2020. Available online: https://www.marineinsight.com/tech/scrubber-system-on-ship/ (accessed on 7 June 2021).
  29. Hayward, A. LNG Preferred as Transport Fuel, but Lack of Infrastructure a Barrier. Deloitte Industry Survey. 20 June 2018. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/media-releases/articles/lng-preferred-transport-fuel-lack-infrastructure-barrier-200618.html (accessed on 7 June 2021).
  30. Saul, J.; Chestney, N. New Fuel Rules Push Shipowners to Go Green with LNG. 15 August 2018. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shipping-fuel-lng-analysis/new-fuel-rules-push-shipowners-to-go-green-with-lng-idUSKBN1L01I8 (accessed on 7 June 2021).
  31. Schinas, O.; Butler, M. Feasibility and commercial considerations of LNG-fueled ships. Ocean. Eng. 2016, 122, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Brynolf, S.; Fridell, E.; Andersson, K. Fuels for short sea shipping: A comparative assessment with focus on environmental impact. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 2013, 228, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Brynolf, S.; Magnusson, M.; Fridell, E.; Andersson, K. Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2014, 28, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bekaert, M. LNG as Fuel for Shipping. September 2016. Available online: http://gassforum.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/LNG_as_fuel_for_shipping.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2021).
  35. Livanos, G.A.; Theotokatos, G.; Pagonis, D.N. Techno-economic investigation of alternative propulsion plants for Ferries and RoRo ships. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 79, 640–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Bektas, C.; Hubatova, M.; O’leary, A.; Floor, F.; Chambers, B. International Shipping Why the Norwegian NOx Fund? The Norwegian NOx Fund Environmental Defense Fund: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ushakov, S.; Stenersen, D.; Einang, P.M. Methane slip from gas fuelled ships: A comprehensive summary based on measurement data. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2019, 24, 1308–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ypsilantis, P.; Zuidwijk, R. Collaborative fleet deployment and routing for sustainable transport. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Oργανισμός Λιμένος Hρακλείου [Heraklion Port Authority]. Ετήσια Oικονομική Έκθεση της περιόδου 1-1-18 έως 31-12-2018 [Annual Financial Report from 01/01/2018 to 31/12/2018]. Available online: https://portheraklion.gr/images/3.attachments/statistics/note-2018-not-signed.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
  40. Lloyd’s. Lloyd’s Seaweb Register of Ships Online. Available online: https://hec.lrfoundation.org.uk/archive-library/lloyds-register-of-ships-online (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  41. Deniz, C.; Kilic, A. Estimation and assessment of shipping emissions in the region of Ambarli Port, Turkey. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2009, 29, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Maragkogianni, A.; Papaefthimiou, S. Evaluating the social cost of cruise ships air emissions in major ports of Greece. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2015, 36, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. European Commission Directorate General Environment Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments Task 2c-SO 2 Abatement Final Report Entec UK Limited. 2005. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/task2_so2.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  44. Saraçoǧlu, H.; Deniz, C.; Kiliç, A. An investigation on the effects of ship sourced emissions in Izmir port, Turkey. Sci. World J. 2013, 31, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Alver, F.; Saraç, B.A.; Şahin, Ü.A. Estimating of shipping emissions in the Samsun Port from 2010 to 2015. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2018, 9, 822–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Howitt, O.J.A.; Revol, V.G.N.; Smith, I.J.; Rodger, C.J. Carbon emissions from international cruise ship passengers’ travel to and from New Zealand. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 2552–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tzannatos, E. Ship emissions and their externalities for the port of Piraeus–Greece. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 400–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Balcombe, P.; Staffell, I.; Kerdan, I.G.; Speirs, J.F.; Brandon, N.P.; Hawkes, A.D. How can LNG-fuelled ships meet decarbonisation targets? An environmental and economic analysis. Energy 2021, 227, 120462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cullinane, K.; Tseng, P.-H.; Wilmsmeier, G. Estimation of container ship emissions at berth in Taiwan. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2016, 10, 466–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Papaefthimiou, S.; Maragkogianni, A.; Andriosopoulos, K. Evaluation of cruise ships emissions in the Mediterranean basin: The case of Greek ports. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2016, 10, 985–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. European Environment Agency. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2013 Technical Guidance to Prepare National Emission Inventories; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Manieniyan, V.; Velumani, V.; Senthilkumar, R.; Sivaprakasam, S. Effect of EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) in diesel engine with multi-walled carbon nanotubes and vegetable oil refinery waste as biodiesel. Fuel 2021, 288, 119689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Manieniyan, V.; Senthilkumar, R.; Sukumar, V. Study on diesel engine characteristics using multi-walled carbon nanotubes blended thermal cracked vegetable oil refining waste. Mater. Today: Proc. 2021, 37, 3665–3672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sonachalam, M.; Manieniyan, V. Comparative experimental analysis on dual fuel with biodiesel-acetylene in reactivity controlled compression ignition engine. Int. J. Ambient. Energy 2021, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Joseph, J.; Patil, R.S.; Gupta, S.K. Estimation of air pollutant emission loads from construction and operational activities of a port and harbour in Mumbai, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2008, 159, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Song, S. Ship emissions inventory, social cost and eco-efficiency in Shanghai Yangshan port. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 82, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chen, D.; Zhao, Y.; Nelson, P.; Li, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhou, Y.; Lang, J.; Guo, X. Estimating ship emissions based on AIS data for port of Tianjin, China. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 145, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Song, S.-K.; Shon, Z.-H. Current and future emission estimates of exhaust gases and particles from shipping at the largest port in Korea. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 6612–6622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kiliç, A.; Deniz, C. Inventory of shipping emissions in Izmit gulf, Turkey. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2010, 29, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Deniz, C.; Kilic, A.; Cıvkaroglu, G. Estimation of shipping emissions in Candarli Gulf, Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 171, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ng, S.K.; Loh, C.; Lin, C.; Booth, V.; Chan, J.W.; Yip, A.C.; Li, Y.; Lau, A.K. Policy change driven by an AIS-assisted marine emission inventory in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 76, 102–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yau, P.S.; Lee, S.C.; Cheng, Y.; Huang, Y.; Lai, S.C.; Xu, X.H. Contribution of ship emissions to the fine particulate in the community near an international port in Hong Kong. Atmos. Res. 2013, 124, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yang, J.; Yin, L.P.; Ye, Q.S.; Wang, S.S.; Zheng, Y.J.; Ou, M.J. Marine Emission Inventory and Its Temporal and Spatial Characteristics in the City of Shenzhen. Huan Jing Ke Xue 2015, 36, 1217–1226. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  64. Yang, D.Q.; Kwan, S.H.; Lu, T.; Fu, Q.Y.; Cheng, J.M.; Streets, D.G.; Wu, Y.M.; Li, J.J. An Emission Inventory of Marine Vessels in Shanghai in 2003. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 5183–5190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fu, M.; Ding, Y.; Ge, Y.; Yu, L.; Yin, H.; Ye, W.; Liang, B. Real-world emissions of inland ships on the Grand Canal, China. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 81, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fan, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, W.; Ma, H.; Feng, J.; Yu, Q.; Yang, X.; Ng, S.K.; Fu, Q.; Chen, L. Spatial and Seasonal Dynamics of Ship Emissions over the Yangtze River Delta and East China Sea and Their Potential Environmental Influence. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 1322–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xing, H.; Duan, S.-L.; Huang, L.-Z.; Liu, Q.-A. AIS data-based estimation of emissions from sea-going ships in Bohai Sea areas. China Environ. Sci. 2016, 36, 953–960. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The limits and deadlines for the enforcement of the sulfur regulations imposed by MARPOL Annex VI, according to IMO requirements. Reprinted from Licki et al (2015) [22].
Figure 1. The limits and deadlines for the enforcement of the sulfur regulations imposed by MARPOL Annex VI, according to IMO requirements. Reprinted from Licki et al (2015) [22].
Sustainability 14 03860 g001
Figure 2. (a) The location of the studied port; (b) the location of the studied port with the routes of ships; (c) the routes of ships inside the port.
Figure 2. (a) The location of the studied port; (b) the location of the studied port with the routes of ships; (c) the routes of ships inside the port.
Sustainability 14 03860 g002
Figure 3. Heraklion port’s environmental benefit per ship category.
Figure 3. Heraklion port’s environmental benefit per ship category.
Sustainability 14 03860 g003
Figure 4. The amounts of emissions (tons/year) by ship category and fuel type.
Figure 4. The amounts of emissions (tons/year) by ship category and fuel type.
Sustainability 14 03860 g004
Figure 5. The total exhaust emissions during ship operational modes (cruising (Cr), maneuvering (Man), and hoteling (Hotel)) for (a) MDO and (b) LNG.
Figure 5. The total exhaust emissions during ship operational modes (cruising (Cr), maneuvering (Man), and hoteling (Hotel)) for (a) MDO and (b) LNG.
Sustainability 14 03860 g005
Table 1. The distance required for each ship activity (km).
Table 1. The distance required for each ship activity (km).
SymbolShip ActivityDistance (km)
A–BCRUISING10.0
B–C–DMANEUVERING1.7
Table 2. The traffic statistics and fuel types.
Table 2. The traffic statistics and fuel types.
Conventional Fuel (MDO)Alternative Fuel (LNG)Ship Calls
Diesel EngineLPDF 4-StrokeLPDF 2-Stroke
Ship CategoryCruise ShipsXX 187
RoPaxXX 1404
Container ShipsX X45
Vehicle CarriersXX 10
General CargoX X80
Table 3. The engine load factors for ship activities within the port of Heraklion.
Table 3. The engine load factors for ship activities within the port of Heraklion.
ActivityCruise ShipsCoastal Passenger ShipsOther Ships
MEAEMEAEMEAE
Cruising0.800.750.800.750.800.75
Maneuvering0.200.750.200.750.400.75
Hoteling0.000.600.000.450.000.75
Table 4. Maximum continuous rating.
Table 4. Maximum continuous rating.
MCRME>10,000 KW<10,000 KW
PowerAE(0.025 × MCRME) + 2500.05 × MCRME
Table 5. The estimated amounts of emissions (tons/year) by pollutant category and fuel type.
Table 5. The estimated amounts of emissions (tons/year) by pollutant category and fuel type.
Emissions (tons/year)
Conventional Fuels (MDO)Alternative Fuels (LNG)Difference (tons/year)Percentage of Change
CO235,564.228,202.537361.6720.70%
NOx893.13145.94747.1983.66%
CO31.9787.12−55.15Increase in emissions
HC0.699.56−8.87Increase in emissions
PM10.240.1910.0598.14%
SO236.280.1936.0999.48%
CH40.69332.71−332.02Increase in emissions
Total36,537.228,778.247758.9621.24%
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Livaniou, S.; Chatzistelios, G.; Lyridis, D.V.; Bellos, E. LNG vs. MDO in Marine Fuel Emissions Tracking. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3860. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073860

AMA Style

Livaniou S, Chatzistelios G, Lyridis DV, Bellos E. LNG vs. MDO in Marine Fuel Emissions Tracking. Sustainability. 2022; 14(7):3860. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073860

Chicago/Turabian Style

Livaniou, Styliani, Georgios Chatzistelios, Dimitrios V. Lyridis, and Evangelos Bellos. 2022. "LNG vs. MDO in Marine Fuel Emissions Tracking" Sustainability 14, no. 7: 3860. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073860

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop