Primer on the Cost of Marine Fuels Compliant with IMO 2020 Rule

Rocio, Uria-Martinez,; Leiby, Paul; Corbett, James J.; Wang, Zhaojun

doi:10.2172/1818686

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, we collected historical prices for these fuels from a variety of sources and estimated the relationship between their historical prices and those of fuels for which AEO 2021 does offer projections (crude oil, natural gas, distillate fuel oil, or residual fuel oil). Then, we generated projections for the prices of the target fuels 3,507 na Average main engine fuel consumption for HSFO (ktpy = thousand tonnes per year) 1 11 4 Average auxiliary engine fuel consumption for HSFO 1 1.9 1.1 Average boiler fuel consumption for HSFO 1 0.5 2.9 U.S. new ship cost (U.S. dollars) (three times of international shipbuilding costs) $135,000,000 $120,000,000 U.S. new ship premium by LNG 20% 20% U.S. new ship premium by ammonia, methanol, and ethanol 50% 50% LNG retrofit cost (U.S. dollars) (18) $4,000,000 $1,300,000 Scrubber retrofit cost (U.S. dollars) (17) $6,000,000 $6,000,000 Energy contents: HSFO: 40 MJ/kg; VLSFO: 43 MJ/kg; LNG: 48 MJ/kg; ammonia: 22.5 MJ/kg; methanol: 22.7 MJ/kg; ethanol: 27 MJ/kg (20) Otto efficiency: 0.32 Diesel efficiency: 0.45 assuming that the estimated linear relationship to the fuels that are included in AEO 2021 remains valid over the projection period. All fuel prices are converted to dollars per ton of fuel oil equivalent to account for the different energy content of the various fuels considered.…”

Section: Parameter Values and Sensitivity Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One exception Note: HSFO = high-sulfur fuel oil; LNG = liquefied natural gas; MDO = marine diesel oil; MGO = marine gas oil; VLSFO = very-low-sulfur fuel oil. 1 The AEO scenarios are generated using a model from the EIA that covers all energy markets. It captures the substitution and complementarity relationships among fuels.…”

Section: Estimated Costs For Base Cases Of Each Compliance Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, several U.S. states have set more stringent domestic regulations. For example, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) ratified emission control areas (ECAs) in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, and North America (1); China has also established a domestic ECA (2). Since a North America ECA was already in place in 2020, U.S.-flagged vessels that operate exclusively within it were not affected by the IMO 2020 rule.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cost Analysis of Pathways for the U.S. Shipping Fleet to Comply with the IMO 2020 Rule

Rocio

Wang

Leiby

et al. 2023

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2020, ocean-going vessels must comply with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) mandate to reduce the sulfur content of marine fuels (outside emission control areas) to no more than 0.5%. This paper analyzes the cost of different approaches for the U.S. fleet, which has special cost considerations because of the Jones Act, to comply with the regulation. We perform a cost analysis for a suite of options for compliance by U.S. shippers, including low-sulfur petroleum-based fuels and alternative fuels (liquefied natural gas [LNG], ammonia, methanol, and ethanol). The cost analysis compares the average annual costs (capital and fuel) out to 2050 of each compliance approach for a representative U.S. tanker and U.S. containership under alternative scenarios with regard to fuel prices, policy, and technology innovation. We also consider the sensitivity of results with respect to vessel age, interest rates, and scrubber fuel efficiency penalties. We find the least costly compliance strategies across future fuel price scenarios and vessel types. The lower-cost compliance pathways typically deliver limited improvement in CO2 emissions which makes them riskier in the context of potential more ambitious emissions targets by IMO. This paper is derived from a technical report (ORNL/SPR-2021/2088) first prepared for the U.S. Maritime Administration.

show abstract

Section: Parameter Values and Sensitivity Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Estimated Costs For Base Cases Of Each Compliance Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cost Analysis of Pathways for the U.S. Shipping Fleet to Comply with the IMO 2020 Rule

Rocio

Wang

Leiby

et al. 2023

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Established by Annex VI to MARPOL 73/78 Convention [18], sulfur emission control areas (SECA) followed by the global stepwise limitation of sulfur content in marine fuels, resulted in several changes in ship construction, performance and operation. Fuel oil bunkering and storage systems had to be redesigned and some fuel oil tanks had to be designated for low sulfur fuel oils (LSFO) storage [6,12,23,34]. In many cases, additional cylinder oil storage and supply systems had to be provided to allow smooth and safe fuel changeover [24][25][26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Low sulfur fuel oils have different properties, especially viscosity, stability and lubricity, compared to typical high sulfur fuel oils [1,12,34]. Viscosity, which is directly dependent on fuel temperature, may play a key role in failures of fuel injection system components [5,6,26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A method for assessing of ship fuel system failures resulting from fuel changeover imposed by environmental requirements

Kowalak¹,

Myśków²,

Tuński³

et al. 2021

Eksploatacja i Niezawodność – Maintenance and Reliability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental regulations instigated the technological and procedural revolution in shipping. One of the challenges has been sulfur emission control areas (SECA) and requirement of fuel changeover. Initially, many reports anticipated that new grades of low sulfur fuels might increase various technical problems in ship operation. This research develops a simple and easy to use method of the failure severity and intensity assessment in relation to fuel changeover. The scale of failure rate in the ship’s fuel system was evaluated qualitatively and quantitively, using developed failure frequency indicator and the time between failure. Based on 77 records of fuel system failures collected on seven ships, it has been found that frequency of failures related to SECA fuel changeover is on average nearly three times higher compared to the rest of sailing time. Their severity did not significantly change, but the structure of failures changed considerably. The method and presented results may help in improvement of ship’s systems design and on-board operational procedures.

show abstract

Comparing Life-Cycle Emissions of Biofuels for Marine Applications: Hydrothermal Liquefaction of Wet Wastes, Pyrolysis of Wood, Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis of Landfill Gas, and Solvolysis of Wood

Masum,

Zaimes,

Tan

et al. 2023

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent restrictions on marine fuel sulfur content and a heightened regulatory focus on maritime decarbonization are driving the deployment of low-carbon and low-sulfur alternative fuels for maritime transport. In this study, we quantified the lifecycle greenhouse gas and sulfur oxide emissions of several novel marine biofuel candidates and benchmarked the results against the emissions reduction targets set by the International Maritime Organization. A total of 11 biofuel pathways via four conversion processes are considered, including (1) biocrudes derived from hydrothermal liquefaction of wastewater sludge and manure, (2) bio-oils from catalytic fast pyrolysis of woody biomass, (3) diesel via Fischer−Tropsch synthesis of landfill gas, and (4) lignin ethanol oil from reductive catalytic fractionation of poplar. Our analysis reveals that marine biofuels' life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions range from −60 to 56 gCO 2 e MJ −1 , representing a 41−163% reduction compared with conventional low-sulfur fuel oil, thus demonstrating a considerable potential for decarbonizing the maritime sector. Due to the net-negative carbon emissions from their life cycles, all waste-based pathways showed over 100% greenhouse gas reduction potential with respect to low-sulfur fuel oil. However, while most biofuel feedstocks have a naturally occurring low-sulfur content, the waste feedstocks considered here have higher sulfur content, requiring hydrotreating prior to use as a marine fuel. Combining the break-even price estimates from a published techno-economic analysis, which was performed concurrently with this study, the marginal greenhouse gas abatement cost was estimated to range from −$120 to $370 tCO 2 e −1 across the pathways considered. Lower marginal greenhouse gas abatement costs were associated with waste-based pathways, while higher marginal greenhouse gas abatement costs were associated with the other biomass-based pathways. Except for lignin ethanol oil, all candidates show the potential to be competitive with a carbon credit of $200 tCO 2 e −1 in 2016 dollars, which is within the range of prices recently received in connection with California's low-carbon fuel standard.

show abstract

Primer on the Cost of Marine Fuels Compliant with IMO 2020 Rule

Cited by 3 publications

References 24 publications

Cost Analysis of Pathways for the U.S. Shipping Fleet to Comply with the IMO 2020 Rule

Cost Analysis of Pathways for the U.S. Shipping Fleet to Comply with the IMO 2020 Rule

A method for assessing of ship fuel system failures resulting from fuel changeover imposed by environmental requirements

Comparing Life-Cycle Emissions of Biofuels for Marine Applications: Hydrothermal Liquefaction of Wet Wastes, Pyrolysis of Wood, Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis of Landfill Gas, and Solvolysis of Wood

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About