In order to control the air pollution caused by ships and improve ambient air quality,China set up three domestic emission control areas(DECAs)in 2015 in the Pearl River Delta,the Yangtze River Delta and Bohai Rim(Bei...In order to control the air pollution caused by ships and improve ambient air quality,China set up three domestic emission control areas(DECAs)in 2015 in the Pearl River Delta,the Yangtze River Delta and Bohai Rim(Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei)waters.In order to meet the emission requirements established at the 70th meeting of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee(MEPC),China intends to apply for the establishment of three international Emission Control Area(ECA)in 2030 for these DECAs.This paper discusses existing technologies to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides(NOx)and sulphur oxides(SOx),and examines the abatement costs for the shipping industry in the year 2030 to comply with this action.Based on an examination of the literature and data collected for this study,four traditional alternatives,low-sulphur fuel,sulphur scrubbers/exhaust gas cleaning systems(EGCS),selective catalytic reduction(SCR),and exhaust gas recirculation,are analyzed.The analysis finds that switching to low-sulphur fuel is the best technical solution for SOx emission reduction,and the installation of SCR is the best technology for reducing nitrogen.In addition to traditional emission reduction technologies,the use of shore power facilities and liquefied natural gas(LNG),two alternatives welcomed by China’s green shipping industry,are also considered in this paper.The expected average abatement cost of these alternatives in the year 2030 are USD 2.866 billion,0.324 billion,1.071 billion,0.402 billion,0.232 billion and 0.34 billion,respectively.展开更多
In this study,two integrated game models are developed to explore the possible economic and environmental consequences of Emission control areas(ECA)regulations.Moreover,the analytical solutions compared with a benchm...In this study,two integrated game models are developed to explore the possible economic and environmental consequences of Emission control areas(ECA)regulations.Moreover,the analytical solutions compared with a benchmark case are derived.We find that vessel speed and SO_(2)emissions will decrease under the ECA regulations.However,shipping company’s level of competition has no effect on the equivalent speed.The equivalent freight volume to be reduced or increased is determined by the additional operational cost per voyage due to ECA regulations.Numerical study and sensitivity analysis reveal that the vessel speed and SO_(2)emission reduction are very sensitive to the inventory costs of intransit cargo.Furthermore,if low-sulphur marine gas oil is used throughout the voyage,the SO_(2)emission reduction may be greater than 80%,with a low impact on the shipping company’s profit.Thus,considering the environmental effects,much stricter limits can be set in the future.展开更多
针对考虑排放控制区(Emission Control Area, ECA)和多时间窗的班轮加油与货运收益优化问题,通过分析ECA内/外航路班轮燃油切换对燃油消耗的影响,结合各港口油价、各起讫港口对货运需求量及运费率差异,以班轮运输航次收益最大化为目标,...针对考虑排放控制区(Emission Control Area, ECA)和多时间窗的班轮加油与货运收益优化问题,通过分析ECA内/外航路班轮燃油切换对燃油消耗的影响,结合各港口油价、各起讫港口对货运需求量及运费率差异,以班轮运输航次收益最大化为目标,构建了混合整数非线性规划模型,并设计了分段线性割线逼近求解算法。以中国远洋海运集团有限公司的MEX航线为例,验证了模型和算法的适用性和有效性,算例结果显示,在考虑ECA和多时间窗的情况下,加油与货物装运联合优化可使班轮航次收益提高4.21%。研究表明:班轮公司与港口签署多时间窗合作协议,以及配置燃油消耗系数更小的新型班轮,不仅有利于班轮公司灵活地调整班轮航速和到/离港时间,且能够有效地降低燃油消耗,提高班轮航次货运收益。研究结论可为班轮公司制订ECA规则下的班轮运营决策提供有益的参考。展开更多
基金The Second National Census of Pollution Sources Mobile Source Census Technical Specifications and Organization and Implementation(2018-033-B-021)。
文摘In order to control the air pollution caused by ships and improve ambient air quality,China set up three domestic emission control areas(DECAs)in 2015 in the Pearl River Delta,the Yangtze River Delta and Bohai Rim(Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei)waters.In order to meet the emission requirements established at the 70th meeting of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee(MEPC),China intends to apply for the establishment of three international Emission Control Area(ECA)in 2030 for these DECAs.This paper discusses existing technologies to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides(NOx)and sulphur oxides(SOx),and examines the abatement costs for the shipping industry in the year 2030 to comply with this action.Based on an examination of the literature and data collected for this study,four traditional alternatives,low-sulphur fuel,sulphur scrubbers/exhaust gas cleaning systems(EGCS),selective catalytic reduction(SCR),and exhaust gas recirculation,are analyzed.The analysis finds that switching to low-sulphur fuel is the best technical solution for SOx emission reduction,and the installation of SCR is the best technology for reducing nitrogen.In addition to traditional emission reduction technologies,the use of shore power facilities and liquefied natural gas(LNG),two alternatives welcomed by China’s green shipping industry,are also considered in this paper.The expected average abatement cost of these alternatives in the year 2030 are USD 2.866 billion,0.324 billion,1.071 billion,0.402 billion,0.232 billion and 0.34 billion,respectively.
文摘In this study,two integrated game models are developed to explore the possible economic and environmental consequences of Emission control areas(ECA)regulations.Moreover,the analytical solutions compared with a benchmark case are derived.We find that vessel speed and SO_(2)emissions will decrease under the ECA regulations.However,shipping company’s level of competition has no effect on the equivalent speed.The equivalent freight volume to be reduced or increased is determined by the additional operational cost per voyage due to ECA regulations.Numerical study and sensitivity analysis reveal that the vessel speed and SO_(2)emission reduction are very sensitive to the inventory costs of intransit cargo.Furthermore,if low-sulphur marine gas oil is used throughout the voyage,the SO_(2)emission reduction may be greater than 80%,with a low impact on the shipping company’s profit.Thus,considering the environmental effects,much stricter limits can be set in the future.
文摘针对考虑排放控制区(Emission Control Area, ECA)和多时间窗的班轮加油与货运收益优化问题,通过分析ECA内/外航路班轮燃油切换对燃油消耗的影响,结合各港口油价、各起讫港口对货运需求量及运费率差异,以班轮运输航次收益最大化为目标,构建了混合整数非线性规划模型,并设计了分段线性割线逼近求解算法。以中国远洋海运集团有限公司的MEX航线为例,验证了模型和算法的适用性和有效性,算例结果显示,在考虑ECA和多时间窗的情况下,加油与货物装运联合优化可使班轮航次收益提高4.21%。研究表明:班轮公司与港口签署多时间窗合作协议,以及配置燃油消耗系数更小的新型班轮,不仅有利于班轮公司灵活地调整班轮航速和到/离港时间,且能够有效地降低燃油消耗,提高班轮航次货运收益。研究结论可为班轮公司制订ECA规则下的班轮运营决策提供有益的参考。
