The use of alternative fuels for maritime decarbonization: Special marine environmental risks and solutions from an international law perspective

Abstract

The introduction of several alternative marine fuels is considered an important strategy for maritime decarbonization. These alternative marine fuels include liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied biogas (LBG), hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, ethanol, hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO), etc. In some studies, nuclear power and electricity are also included in the scope of alternative fuels for merchant ships. However, the operation of alternative-fuel-powered ships has some special risks, such as fuel spills, vapor dispersion and fuel pool fires. The existing international legal framework does not address these risks sufficiently. This research adopts the method of legal analysis to examine the existing international legal regime for regulating the development of alternative-fuel-powered ships. From a critical perspective, it evaluates and predicts the consequences of these policies together with their shortcomings. Also, this research explores the potential solutions and countermeasures that might be feasible to deal with the special marine environmental risks posed by alternative-fuel-powered ships in the future.

Using Nuclear Energy for Maritime Decarbonization and Related Environmental Challenges: Existing Regulatory Shortcomings and Improvements

“…Transitioning to the use of alternative fuels and energy for ship propulsion has become a true necessity for shipping companies, especially since the International Maritime Organization (IMO) have adopted an initial strategy for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships [ 20 , 21 ]. The increasing need for cleaner fuels and energy in ship propulsion has stimulated “rising technological advancements in ship nuclear power machinery (SNPM) design” [ 22 ].…”

“…Scholars have also noted that the wide use of nuclear energy may meet sociopolitical obstacles due to “public opposition and anti-nuclear politics” [ 23 ]. In particular, the Fukushima Daiichi accident heightened public safety concerns about the utilization of nuclear energy; this opposition may negatively affect the large-scale application of nuclear energy in maritime transport [ 16 , 21 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. These considerations could restrict the access of nuclear-powered merchant ships to ports [ 8 , 34 ].…”

“…Indeed, both owners and managers may be responsible for the management of ships. Thus, this principle may exonerate shipowners from liabilities [ 21 ]. Second, strict and exclusive liability channeling may also face practical problems in its application to nuclear-powered merchant ships.…”

“…However, channeling state liabilities to the nuclear-powered merchant ships’ flag states could be quite problematic if only a “flag of convenience” is considered. The issue of a “flag of convenience” may undermine the state’s supplementary financial security [ 21 ]. Additionally, applying the principle of exclusive judicial jurisdiction to the state within which a nuclear incident occurs could create problems in the case of nuclear-powered merchant ships.…”

“…The IMO’s regulation and rulemaking have focused mainly on nuclear ships’ navigational safety, while the IAEA’s focus has mainly been on nuclear safety and post-accident liability and compensation issues. Research has shown that the IMO often “lacks effective implementation of existing international conventions, which results in a situation of growing regulatory fragmentation, —e.g., regional regulations—and uncertainty” and the Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships has not been implemented [ 3 , 21 , 89 , 90 ]. IAEA dominance in nuclear accident investigations could create further fragmentation.…”