Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Aspects of Cold Ironing Planning for a Maritime Route in the Adriatic Sea

Piccoli, Tobia; Fermeglia, Matteo; Bosich, Daniele; Bevilacqua, Paolo; Sulligoi, Giorgio

doi:10.3390/en14185836

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(82 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the fuzzy analysis indicated that long payback period is the most important barrier, although high investment cost remained one of the most important causal factors in the model. In other words, high investment cost is a critical barrier to including ports in the EU ETS according to both empirical studies (Davies, 2006;Dai et al, 2018Dai et al, , 2019Peng et al, 2019;Gianoli and Bravo, 2020;Piccoli et al, 2021) and the views of selected experts in managerial position in certified green ports in T€ urkiye. In short, ports have financial concerns regarding the potential benefits from participating in the EU ETS carbon trading market.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The inclusion of these two barriers related to leakage into the effect group supports the model's construction due to the structure of these barriers that is sensitive to incentives. Piccoli et al (2021) evaluated the payback period of the cold ironing system, which is thought that it will be useful with the EU ETS. Similarly, our model included the investment payback period as a barrier.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other studies have focused on controlling operational emissions in ports. Liu et al (2019) investigated the role of shore power usage (cold ironing) in a voluntary GHG emission system while Piccoli et al (2021) evaluated the inclusion of cold ironing in the EU ETS. Guo (2021) developed a non-road mobile machinery hybrid power transformation project and verified the model's ability to reduce port-area GHG gas emissions, especially those stemming from fossil fuel use.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The EU ETS which had been implemented in various sectors over a number of years, has recently been preparing to include maritime transport. On 14 July 2021, the European Commission adopted a proposal to amend the EU ETS Directive to fully include the maritime sector in the scheme known as COM ( 2021) 551 (Piccoli et al, 2021). The International Maritime Organization (IMO) predicts that global shipping CO 2 emissions will be cut in half by 2050compared with 2008(IMO, 2018.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

How to integrate ports into the EU ETS: the CAS approach perspective

Ayaz,

Bucak,

Esmer

2023

IJLM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe European Union's Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which is already one of the EU's most impactful instruments for reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs), will soon include the maritime transport industry. Although ports are this industry's most environmental-friendly component, there are still some barriers to including ports in the system. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to identify these barriers and to reveal the barriers' interrelationships.Design/methodology/approachThe study was conducted by identifying barriers from a literature review before analyzing the barriers with the Fuzzy DEMATEL method. Finally, based on the Complex Adaptive System Approach, various solutions are proposed to overcome these barriers.FindingsThe identified barriers were grouped into cause-and-effect groups. Two barriers, namely long payback period and high investment costs, were evaluated as triggers of the model while the others were more sensitive to the model.Research limitations/implicationsThis study only includes the perceptions of green certificated ports in Türkiye. The results revealed an expectation that elimination of financial concerns will alleviate other barriers to including ports in the system. The study's findings can guide port managers on the integration of the managers' processes into the system.Originality/valueThis study provides novel findings regarding the relationships between barriers hindering ports from involvement in the EU ETS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How to integrate ports into the EU ETS: the CAS approach perspective

Ayaz,

Bucak,

Esmer

2023

IJLM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Martínez-López et al [32] evaluated the efect of emission reduction of shore power and LNG in Switzerland by calculation method. Piccoli et al [33] analyzed the regulatory, economic, and environmental elements that could facilitate SP as a standard installation in the Mediterranean Sea.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decisions on Technologies for Emissions Control in Port Areas under Subsidy and Low-Carbon Preferences of Customers

Zhou

2022

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emission control technologies decisions of port and shipping enterprises under subsidy and customers’ low-carbon preferences are discussed from a supply chain perspective. The game models are established under three game models (port-leader Stackelberg game, ship-leader Stackelberg game, and Nash game). The obtained results show that the impact of subsidy and low-carbon preference on demand in its pricing always is considered by the leader in the port supply chain. The profits and emissions in the Nash game are higher than that in the Stackelberg game. When subsidies and customers’ low-carbon preferences are low, the supply chain’s overall profits of using low sulfur oil are higher than that of using shore power. But the supply chain’s carbon emissions of adopting low sulfur oil are also higher than that of adopting shore power. When subsidies and low-carbon preferences of customers are high, the supply chain’s overall profits of using shore power are higher than that of using low sulfur oil. But the supply chain’s carbon emissions of adopting shore power are also higher than that of adopting low sulfur oil. When subsidy and low-carbon preference of customers are in the appropriate(medial) range, the supply chain would choose shore power to reduce emissions from the perspective of profits, and the whole carbon emissions of using shore power are lower than that of using low sulfur oil, so the regulator(government) and enterprises can achieve a win-win situation. Hence for a regulator who has to balance emission control and enterprises’ profits, implementing moderate subsidy within the appropriate range is the better strategy.

show abstract