Knowledge

In this video, Professor Harilaos Psaraftis (DTU Technical University of Denmark) will outline the main decarbonization challenges.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted the so-called Initial IMO Strategy in 2018, stipulating that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international shipping need to be reduced by at least 50% by 2050, and CO2 emissions per transport work are to be reduced by at least 40% by the year 2030, both compared to the 2008 levels.

At the same time, there is an elephant in the room: It is the intent of the European Commission and the European Parliament to include shipping into the EU ETS. How the elephant will be handled is not clear. In this talk we will outline the main decarbonization challenges through a focus on a RoPax case study.
The session was developed in collaboration with MARLOG.

The report is organized as follows. The introduction will lay out the current state-of-play of eco-efficiency and the zeitgeist of the current situation on maritime that we find ourselves in, in 2020. The next section will provide some historical context looking back to 2010 and 2000 to trace the trajectory and developmental course on which we are. The core contribution of this report is the Maritime Operations Roadmap that can be found in Figure 1 on page 9. This illustration plots the expectations for technological capabilities and policy from 2020 to 2030.

The report is organized as follows. The introduction will lay out the current state-of-play of eco-efficiency and the zeitgeist of the current situation on maritime that we find ourselves in, in 2020. The next section will provide some historical context looking back to 2010 and 2000 to trace the trajectory and developmental course that we are on. The core contribution of this report is the Shipyard 4.0 Roadmap, that can be found in Figure 1 on page 9. This illustration plots the expectations for technological capabilities and policy from 2020 to 2030. The descriptions of the elements of the roadmap are provided in Appendix 1.

The International Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention entered into force in September 2017. In the convention, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) required two options: ballast water exchange (BWE) standard D-1, and ballast water performance standard D-2 which required ballast water treatment systems (BWTSs). We explored the impact of policy on the utilization of BWTSs by examining IMO Type Approval records and country-level databases in the United States and Australia. In December 2018, 65 BWTSs had IMO Type Approval and 13 had US Coast Guard approval. The majority of vessels with BWTSs had either electrolytic or UV treatment systems (Australia, 84%; USA, 89%). From 2016 to 2017, both countries experienced an increase in the percentage of vessels with BWTS, vessels utilizing BWTS, and total ballast discharge treated with BWTS. Based on this analysis, shipowners appear to primarily rely on two treatment technologies in Australia and the United States to meet compliance.

Among the spectrum of logistics – based measures for sustainable shipping, this chapter focuses on speed optimization. This involves the selection of an appropriate speed by the vessel, so as to optimize a certain objective. As ship speed is not fixed, depressed shipping markets and/or high fuel prices induce slow steaming which is being practised in many sectors of the shipping industry. In recent years the environmental dimension of slow steaming has also become important, as ship emissions are directly proportional to fuel burned. Win-win solutions are sought, but they will not necessarily be possible. The chapter presents some basics, discusses the main trade-offs and also examines combined speed and route optimization problems. Some examples are presented so as to highlight the main issues that are at play, and the regulatory dimension of speed reduction via speed limits is also discussed.

Sustainable shipping involves not only ships but ports as their extension. This chapter examines the issues associated with a green port operation. These include technologies such as cold ironing; market-based practices such as differentiated fairway dues, speed reduction, and noise and dust abatement; and others. The legislative framework in various countries is explained, and various environmental scorecards are discussed. This chapter starts with a brief review on recent academic research in the field of environmental management of ports and presents the status quo in leading ports around the world. The chapter emphasizes on the implementation of speed reduction programmes near the port, the use of cold ironing at berth, and the effects of fuel quality regulation, considering the perspectives of the port authority and the ship operator. The emerging environmental and economic trade-offs are discussed. The aim of this chapter is to be a starting point for researchers seeking to work on green ports. Insights of this chapter may also be useful for stakeholders seeking to select the best emissions reduction option depending on their unique characteristics.

Although the existing literature identifies a fuel levy imposed by means of a global agreement as the most efficient policy for carbon pricing in the maritime sector, scholars and policy makers have debated the possibility for regional measures to be introduced in case a global agreement cannot be achieved. This debate has highlighted several economic, legal, and political challenges that the implementation of an efficient and effective regional scheme would have to face. This article compares the relative performance of various regional measures for carbon pricing based on the following criteria: jurisdictional basis, data availability, environmental effectiveness and avoidance strategies, impact on competitiveness, differentiation for developing countries, and incentives for reaching a global agreement. The main finding is that, if carefully designed, a cargo-based measure that covers the emissions released throughout the whole voyage to the cargo destination presents various advantages compared with other regional carbon pricing schemes. These advantages have been largely ignored in the literature.