Abstract
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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
