aje_edited_ship size and macc2_final_clean

8/7/2019 AJE_Edited_ship size and MACC2_final_clean

1/26

The Economies of Scale of CO2 Reduction in the

Shipping Industry

Abstract:

It has been realized that ships are of significant economies of scale

when it comes to average fix costs and average operational costs, but

it remains unclear how ship sizes may influence the marginal

abatement cost (MAC) of CO2 reduction. As international community

moves forward to curbing CO2 emissions from ships, investigating the

CO2 reduction cost differences among a variety of ship sizes can shed

light on some unintended consequences to regulatory proposals, theshipping industry, and port and canal authorities. This paper uses data

from the report of the Society of Naval Architect and Marine Engineers,

analyzes the MAC of different ship sizes, concludes that the significant

economies of scale exists for six ship types analyzed in this study, and

discusses some possible influences from some ship CO2 emission

mandates. Bigger ships have more options to reduce CO2 with

relatively lower costs. The smallest size category of each ship type

sees substantial cost increases. The mandate to reduce ship CO2

emissions may impose heavier cost burden on smaller ships than it

does on bigger ships, driving ships even larger. Port and canal

authorities may feel the pressure too as they need to continue to

improve their infrastructure to accommodate even larger ships.

1. Introduction

Shipping accounts for approximately 3% of manmade greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions [1], and it is considered to contribute significantly

to climate change

PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5JTU88L0F1dGhvcj48WWVhcj4y

MDA5PC9ZZWFyPjxSZWNO

dW0+NTwvUmVjTnVtPjxyZWNvcmQ+PHJlYy1udW1iZXI+NTwvcmVjLW5

1bWJlcj48Zm9yZWlnbi1r

1


2/26

ZXlzPjxrZXkgYXBwPSJFTiIgZGItaWQ9ImYwc2E1c3Z2b2Q1dndiZXp4ejB4

MHZ0d3Y5NWY5c2Zm

ZGRmdCI+NTwva2V5PjwvZm9yZWlnbi1rZXlzPjxyZWYtdHlwZSBuYW1lP

SJSZXBvcnQiPjI3PC9y

ZWYtdHlwZT48Y29udHJpYnV0b3JzPjxhdXRob3JzPjxhdXRob3I+SU1PPC9

hdXRob3I+PC9hdXRo

b3JzPjwvY29udHJpYnV0b3JzPjx0aXRsZXM+PHRpdGxlPlVwZGF0ZWQgU

3R1ZHkgb24gR0hHIEVt

aXNzaW9ucyBGcm9tIFNoaXBzPC90aXRsZT48L3RpdGxlcz48ZGF0ZXM+

PHllYXI+MjAwOTwveWVh

cj48L2RhdGVzPjxwdWJsaXNoZXI+TVBFQzwvcHVibGlzaGVyPjx1cmxzPjw

vdXJscz48L3JlY29y

ZD48L0NpdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5Db3JiZXR0PC9BdXRob3I+PFllY

XI+MTk5NzwvWWVhcj48

UmVjTnVtPjU1PC9SZWNOdW0+PHJlY29yZD48cmVjLW51bWJlcj41NTwv

cmVjLW51bWJlcj48Zm9y

ZWlnbi1rZXlzPjxrZXkgYXBwPSJFTiIgZGItaWQ9ImYwc2E1c3Z2b2Q1dndi

ZXp4ejB4MHZ0d3Y5

NWY5c2ZmZGRmdCI+NTU8L2tleT48L2ZvcmVpZ24ta2V5cz48cmVmLX

R5cGUgbmFtZT0iSm91cm5h

bCBBcnRpY2xlIj4xNzwvcmVmLXR5cGU+PGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycz48YXV0

aG9ycz48YXV0aG9yPkNv

cmJldHQsIEphbWVzIEouIDwvYXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I+RmlzY2hiZWNrLC

BQYXVsIFMuPC9hdXRo

b3I+PC9hdXRob3JzPjwvY29udHJpYnV0b3JzPjx0aXRsZXM+PHRpdGxlPkV

taXNzaW9ucyBGcm9t

IFNoaXBzPC90aXRsZT48c2Vjb25kYXJ5LXRpdGxlPlNjaWVuY2U8L3NlY29

uZGFyeS10aXRsZT48

L3RpdGxlcz48cGVyaW9kaWNhbD48ZnVsbC10aXRsZT5TY2llbmNlPC9m

dWxsLXRpdGxlPjwvcGVy

aW9kaWNhbD48cGFnZXM+ODIzLTgyNDwvcGFnZXM+PHZvbHVtZT4yN

zg8L3ZvbHVtZT48bnVtYmVy

PjUzMzk8L251bWJlcj48a2V5d29yZHM+PGtleXdvcmQ+c2hpcCwgZW1p

2


3/26

c3Npb25zLCBwcm9wdWxz

aW9uLCBlbnZpcm9ubWVudCwgYXRtb3NwaGVyZSwgcG9sbHV0aW9uL

CBuaXRyb2dlbiwgc3VsZnVy

LCBzdWxwaHVyLCBlbmdpbmUsIGRpZXNlbDwva2V5d29yZD48L2tleXdv

cmRzPjxkYXRlcz48eWVh

cj4xOTk3PC95ZWFyPjwvZGF0ZXM+PHVybHM+PC91cmxzPjwvcmVjb3Jk

PjwvQ2l0ZT48Q2l0ZT48

QXV0aG9yPkVuZHJlc2VuPC9BdXRob3I+PFllYXI+MjAwMzwvWWVhcj48U

mVjTnVtPjIwPC9SZWNO

dW0+PHJlY29yZD48cmVjLW51bWJlcj4yMDwvcmVjLW51bWJlcj48Zm9yZ

Wlnbi1rZXlzPjxrZXkg

YXBwPSJFTiIgZGItaWQ9ImYwc2E1c3Z2b2Q1dndiZXp4ejB4MHZ0d3Y5N

WY5c2ZmZGRmdCI+MjA8

L2tleT48L2ZvcmVpZ24ta2V5cz48cmVmLXR5cGUgbmFtZT0iSm91cm5h

bCBBcnRpY2xlIj4xNzwv

cmVmLXR5cGU+PGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycz48YXV0aG9ycz48YXV0aG9yPk

VuZHJlc2VuLCDDmC48L2F1

dGhvcj48YXV0aG9yPkUuIFPDuHJnYcKwcmQ8L2F1dGhvcj48YXV0aG9yP

kouIEsuIFN1bmRldDwv

YXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I+Uy4gQi4gRGFsc8O4cmVuPC9hdXRob3I+PGF1

dGhvcj5JLiBTLiBBLiBJ

c2Frc2VuPC9hdXRob3I+PGF1dGhvcj5ULiBGLiBCZXJnbGVuPC9hdXRob3

I+PGF1dGhvcj5HLiBH

cmF2aXI8L2F1dGhvcj48L2F1dGhvcnM+PC9jb250cmlidXRvcnM+PHRpd

Gxlcz48dGl0bGU+RW1p

c3Npb24gZnJvbSBJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIFNlYSBUcmFuc3BvcnRhdGlvbiB

hbmQgRW52aXJvbm1l

bnRhbCBJbXBhY3Q8L3RpdGxlPjxzZWNvbmRhcnktdGl0bGU+Sm91cm5

hbCBvZiBHZW9waHlzaWNh

bCBSZXNlYXJjaDwvc2Vjb25kYXJ5LXRpdGxlPjwvdGl0bGVzPjxwZXJpb2Rp

Y2FsPjxmdWxsLXRp

dGxlPkpvdXJuYWwgb2YgR2VvcGh5c2ljYWwgUmVzZWFyY2g8L2Z1bGwt

dGl0bGU+PC9wZXJpb2Rp

3


4/26

Y2FsPjxwYWdlcz40NTYwPC9wYWdlcz48dm9sdW1lPjEwODwvdm9sdW1l

PjxudW1iZXI+RDE3PC9u

dW1iZXI+PGRhdGVzPjx5ZWFyPjIwMDM8L3llYXI+PC9kYXRlcz48dXJscz4

8L3VybHM+PC9yZWNv

cmQ+PC9DaXRlPjxDaXRlPjxBdXRob3I+V2FuZzwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyP

jIwMDk8L1llYXI+PFJl

Y051bT41NjwvUmVjTnVtPjxyZWNvcmQ+PHJlYy1udW1iZXI+NTY8L3JlYy

1udW1iZXI+PGZvcmVp

Z24ta2V5cz48a2V5IGFwcD0iRU4iIGRiLWlkPSJmMHNhNXN2dm9kNXZ3Y

mV6eHoweDB2dHd2OTVm

OXNmZmRkZnQiPjU2PC9rZXk+PC9mb3JlaWduLWtleXM+PHJlZi10eXBlI

G5hbWU9IkpvdXJuYWwg

QXJ0aWNsZSI+MTc8L3JlZi10eXBlPjxjb250cmlidXRvcnM+PGF1dGhvcnM

+PGF1dGhvcj5XYW5n

LCBILjwvYXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I+TGl1LCBELjwvYXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I

+RGFpLCBHLjwvYXV0

aG9yPjwvYXV0aG9ycz48L2NvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycz48dGl0bGVzPjx0aXRsZT

5SZXZpZXcgb2YgbWFy

aXRpbWUgdHJhbnNwb3J0YXRpb24gYWlyIGVtaXNzaW9uIHBvbGx1dGlv

biBhbmQgcG9saWN5IGFu

YWx5c2lzIDwvdGl0bGU+PHNlY29uZGFyeS10aXRsZT5Kb3VybmFsIG9mI

E9jZWFuIFVuaXZlcnNp

dHkgb2YgQ2hpbmE8L3NlY29uZGFyeS10aXRsZT48L3RpdGxlcz48cGVy

aW9kaWNhbD48ZnVsbC10

aXRsZT5Kb3VybmFsIG9mIE9jZWFuIFVuaXZlcnNpdHkgb2YgQ2hpbmE8

L2Z1bGwtdGl0bGU+PC9w

ZXJpb2RpY2FsPjxwYWdlcz4yODMtMjkwPC9wYWdlcz48dm9sdW1lPjg8L3

ZvbHVtZT48bnVtYmVy

PjM8L251bWJlcj48ZGF0ZXM+PHllYXI+MjAwOTwveWVhcj48L2RhdGVzPj

x1cmxzPjwvdXJscz48 L3JlY29yZD48L0NpdGU+PC9FbmROb3RlPgB=

PEVuZE5vdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5JTU88L0F1dGhvcj48WWVhcj4y

MDA5PC9ZZWFyPjxSZWNO

dW0+NTwvUmVjTnVtPjxyZWNvcmQ+PHJlYy1udW1iZXI+NTwvcmVjLW5

4


5/26

1bWJlcj48Zm9yZWlnbi1r

ZXlzPjxrZXkgYXBwPSJFTiIgZGItaWQ9ImYwc2E1c3Z2b2Q1dndiZXp4ejB4

MHZ0d3Y5NWY5c2Zm

ZGRmdCI+NTwva2V5PjwvZm9yZWlnbi1rZXlzPjxyZWYtdHlwZSBuYW1lP

SJSZXBvcnQiPjI3PC9y

ZWYtdHlwZT48Y29udHJpYnV0b3JzPjxhdXRob3JzPjxhdXRob3I+SU1PPC9

hdXRob3I+PC9hdXRo

b3JzPjwvY29udHJpYnV0b3JzPjx0aXRsZXM+PHRpdGxlPlVwZGF0ZWQgU

3R1ZHkgb24gR0hHIEVt

aXNzaW9ucyBGcm9tIFNoaXBzPC90aXRsZT48L3RpdGxlcz48ZGF0ZXM+

PHllYXI+MjAwOTwveWVh

cj48L2RhdGVzPjxwdWJsaXNoZXI+TVBFQzwvcHVibGlzaGVyPjx1cmxzPjw

vdXJscz48L3JlY29y

ZD48L0NpdGU+PENpdGU+PEF1dGhvcj5Db3JiZXR0PC9BdXRob3I+PFllY

XI+MTk5NzwvWWVhcj48

UmVjTnVtPjU1PC9SZWNOdW0+PHJlY29yZD48cmVjLW51bWJlcj41NTwv

cmVjLW51bWJlcj48Zm9y

ZWlnbi1rZXlzPjxrZXkgYXBwPSJFTiIgZGItaWQ9ImYwc2E1c3Z2b2Q1dndi

ZXp4ejB4MHZ0d3Y5

NWY5c2ZmZGRmdCI+NTU8L2tleT48L2ZvcmVpZ24ta2V5cz48cmVmLX

R5cGUgbmFtZT0iSm91cm5h

bCBBcnRpY2xlIj4xNzwvcmVmLXR5cGU+PGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycz48YXV0

aG9ycz48YXV0aG9yPkNv

cmJldHQsIEphbWVzIEouIDwvYXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I+RmlzY2hiZWNrLC

BQYXVsIFMuPC9hdXRo

b3I+PC9hdXRob3JzPjwvY29udHJpYnV0b3JzPjx0aXRsZXM+PHRpdGxlPkV

taXNzaW9ucyBGcm9t

IFNoaXBzPC90aXRsZT48c2Vjb25kYXJ5LXRpdGxlPlNjaWVuY2U8L3NlY29

uZGFyeS10aXRsZT48

L3RpdGxlcz48cGVyaW9kaWNhbD48ZnVsbC10aXRsZT5TY2llbmNlPC9m

dWxsLXRpdGxlPjwvcGVy

aW9kaWNhbD48cGFnZXM+ODIzLTgyNDwvcGFnZXM+PHZvbHVtZT4yN

zg8L3ZvbHVtZT48bnVtYmVy

5


6/26

PjUzMzk8L251bWJlcj48a2V5d29yZHM+PGtleXdvcmQ+c2hpcCwgZW1p

c3Npb25zLCBwcm9wdWxz

aW9uLCBlbnZpcm9ubWVudCwgYXRtb3NwaGVyZSwgcG9sbHV0aW9uL

CBuaXRyb2dlbiwgc3VsZnVy

LCBzdWxwaHVyLCBlbmdpbmUsIGRpZXNlbDwva2V5d29yZD48L2tleXdv

cmRzPjxkYXRlcz48eWVh

cj4xOTk3PC95ZWFyPjwvZGF0ZXM+PHVybHM+PC91cmxzPjwvcmVjb3Jk

PjwvQ2l0ZT48Q2l0ZT48

QXV0aG9yPkVuZHJlc2VuPC9BdXRob3I+PFllYXI+MjAwMzwvWWVhcj48U

mVjTnVtPjIwPC9SZWNO

dW0+PHJlY29yZD48cmVjLW51bWJlcj4yMDwvcmVjLW51bWJlcj48Zm9yZ

Wlnbi1rZXlzPjxrZXkg

YXBwPSJFTiIgZGItaWQ9ImYwc2E1c3Z2b2Q1dndiZXp4ejB4MHZ0d3Y5N

WY5c2ZmZGRmdCI+MjA8

L2tleT48L2ZvcmVpZ24ta2V5cz48cmVmLXR5cGUgbmFtZT0iSm91cm5h

bCBBcnRpY2xlIj4xNzwv

cmVmLXR5cGU+PGNvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycz48YXV0aG9ycz48YXV0aG9yPk

VuZHJlc2VuLCDDmC48L2F1

dGhvcj48YXV0aG9yPkUuIFPDuHJnYcKwcmQ8L2F1dGhvcj48YXV0aG9yP

kouIEsuIFN1bmRldDwv

YXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I+Uy4gQi4gRGFsc8O4cmVuPC9hdXRob3I+PGF1

dGhvcj5JLiBTLiBBLiBJ

c2Frc2VuPC9hdXRob3I+PGF1dGhvcj5ULiBGLiBCZXJnbGVuPC9hdXRob3

I+PGF1dGhvcj5HLiBH

cmF2aXI8L2F1dGhvcj48L2F1dGhvcnM+PC9jb250cmlidXRvcnM+PHRpd

Gxlcz48dGl0bGU+RW1p

c3Npb24gZnJvbSBJbnRlcm5hdGlvbmFsIFNlYSBUcmFuc3BvcnRhdGlvbiB

hbmQgRW52aXJvbm1l

bnRhbCBJbXBhY3Q8L3RpdGxlPjxzZWNvbmRhcnktdGl0bGU+Sm91cm5

hbCBvZiBHZW9waHlzaWNh

bCBSZXNlYXJjaDwvc2Vjb25kYXJ5LXRpdGxlPjwvdGl0bGVzPjxwZXJpb2Rp

Y2FsPjxmdWxsLXRp

dGxlPkpvdXJuYWwgb2YgR2VvcGh5c2ljYWwgUmVzZWFyY2g8L2Z1bGwt

6


7/26

dGl0bGU+PC9wZXJpb2Rp

Y2FsPjxwYWdlcz40NTYwPC9wYWdlcz48dm9sdW1lPjEwODwvdm9sdW1l

PjxudW1iZXI+RDE3PC9u

dW1iZXI+PGRhdGVzPjx5ZWFyPjIwMDM8L3llYXI+PC9kYXRlcz48dXJscz4

8L3VybHM+PC9yZWNv

cmQ+PC9DaXRlPjxDaXRlPjxBdXRob3I+V2FuZzwvQXV0aG9yPjxZZWFyP

jIwMDk8L1llYXI+PFJl

Y051bT41NjwvUmVjTnVtPjxyZWNvcmQ+PHJlYy1udW1iZXI+NTY8L3JlYy

1udW1iZXI+PGZvcmVp

Z24ta2V5cz48a2V5IGFwcD0iRU4iIGRiLWlkPSJmMHNhNXN2dm9kNXZ3Y

mV6eHoweDB2dHd2OTVm

OXNmZmRkZnQiPjU2PC9rZXk+PC9mb3JlaWduLWtleXM+PHJlZi10eXBlI

G5hbWU9IkpvdXJuYWwg

QXJ0aWNsZSI+MTc8L3JlZi10eXBlPjxjb250cmlidXRvcnM+PGF1dGhvcnM

+PGF1dGhvcj5XYW5n

LCBILjwvYXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I+TGl1LCBELjwvYXV0aG9yPjxhdXRob3I

+RGFpLCBHLjwvYXV0

aG9yPjwvYXV0aG9ycz48L2NvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycz48dGl0bGVzPjx0aXRsZT

5SZXZpZXcgb2YgbWFy

aXRpbWUgdHJhbnNwb3J0YXRpb24gYWlyIGVtaXNzaW9uIHBvbGx1dGlv

biBhbmQgcG9saWN5IGFu

YWx5c2lzIDwvdGl0bGU+PHNlY29uZGFyeS10aXRsZT5Kb3VybmFsIG9mI

E9jZWFuIFVuaXZlcnNp

dHkgb2YgQ2hpbmE8L3NlY29uZGFyeS10aXRsZT48L3RpdGxlcz48cGVy

aW9kaWNhbD48ZnVsbC10

aXRsZT5Kb3VybmFsIG9mIE9jZWFuIFVuaXZlcnNpdHkgb2YgQ2hpbmE8

L2Z1bGwtdGl0bGU+PC9w

ZXJpb2RpY2FsPjxwYWdlcz4yODMtMjkwPC9wYWdlcz48dm9sdW1lPjg8L3

ZvbHVtZT48bnVtYmVy

PjM8L251bWJlcj48ZGF0ZXM+PHllYXI+MjAwOTwveWVhcj48L2RhdGVzPj

x1cmxzPjwvdXJscz48 L3JlY29yZD48L0NpdGU+PC9FbmROb3RlPgB= [1-

4]. Along with other types of emissions, recent studies have

documented the steady increase of ship-based CO2 emissions. The

7


8/26

expansion of international trade has led to substantial increases in CO2

emissions from ocean shipping. CO2 emissions from the international

maritime industry doubled between 1994 and 2007. Without policy

measures, CO2 emissions are projected to grow between 150% and

300% by 2050 and may contribute to as much as 12.7% of the total

global CO2 emissions, despite significant market-driven efficiency

improvements [1].

A few technical and operational measures have been proposed or

implemented to reduce ship-based CO2 by the industry [5]. Most

measures can achieve some degree of energy efficiency improvement.

For example, Propulsion Dynamics, a company specializing in hull and

propeller performance monitoring, estimates significant fuel savings

from such monitoring; Man Diesel, a diesel engine supplier, analyzes

the costs and savings of engine derating and turbocharger cut-off; and

Wettstein and Brown compute the payback time of engine derating

using data provided by Wrtsil, a leading ship design firm.

Shipping firms are beginning to use these measures to save fuel

and reduce CO2. The Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK), Japans largest

shipping company, adopted a plan to reduce the speeds of more than

740 containerships by 10% each year from 2008 [6]. The NYK also

cooperated with Toyota to power the car carrier using solar panels. The

vessel is outfitted with 328 solar panels that can generate up to 40

kilowatts, decreasing demand on the ships diesel-powered auxiliary

engines for electricity [7]. A. P. Moller-Maersk combined some of these

measures in his daily operation and achieved significant CO2 reduction.

These measures included increasing ship sizes, reducing fleet speeds,

retiring old and inefficient vessels, minimizing waiting time at

terminals, and improving the efficiency of main engines. The company

claimed that the CO2/TEU-km dropped 8.9% in 2007 and 15% in 2008,

both compared with the 2002 level [8].

The enthusiasm to increase energy efficiency is further powered by

the price of fuel, which reached its peak in the summer of 2008.

Although the price has collapsed since then, it has recovered and

8


9/26

remains at a historically high level. The concern of potential CO2

reduction regulation and associated costs also incentivizes shipping

firms to investigate in energy-saving options both from an

environmental and an economic perspective.

The costs and benefits of these measures are being evaluated. The

IMO 2009 GHG Study divided these measures to indicate which were

mutually exclusive and which could be implemented simultaneously

[1]. This report was among the first to comprehensively review the

costs and benefits of energy-saving measures. Another comprehensive

overview to date is by CE Delft et al. [9]. This report presented a

thorough cost-effectiveness analysis and a marginal abatement cost

curve for 29 measures in 12 groups, taking into account 14 different

ship types, often subdivided in several size categories. The Society of

Naval Architecture and Civil Engineers (SNAME) conducted an analysis

to update the CE Delft report using updated data and refined

methodology. The report considered 29 measures in 15 groups for 318

different ship type, size, and age combinations. All three of these

reports concluded that a large amount of CO2 could be reduced

inexpensively [10]. For example, the SNAME report showed that about

35% or 580 million metric tons of CO2 could be reduced at a negative

abatement cost in 2020.

Although studies have shown the aggregated marginal cost of all

ships and the decreasing average cost per unit of ship has been

observed in almost all cargo ship types [11][12], the relationship

between the marginal abatement cost and ship size remains unclear,

creating a knowledge gap that this study is going to fill.

Understanding this relationship can help policy makers, the

industry, and other stakeholders in many ways. First, it can facilitate

the discussion of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), which was

proposed to increase the energy efficiency of newly-built ships.

Currently, the EEDI is based on ship types [13], but policymakers may

modify this if the marginal abatement cost (MAC) varies significantly

by ship sizes. Second, if the economies of scale do exist, the potential

9


10/26

CO2 regulations may drive ships to be built even larger, a trend that

has already been observed. The policy may create winners and losers

among shipowners who own different sizes of ships. Third, the already-

constrained port and canal infrastructures may need more upgrades as

ships become larger [14]; port and canal authorities may have to

further upgrade their infrastructures and facilities.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Chapter 2

introduces the methodology and data and illustrates specific ship types

and sizes this study is going to focus on, Chapter 3 presents the

average CO2 reduction per ship capacity for both new ships, and

existing and new ships combined, and Chapter 4 concludes the study.

2. Methodology and Data

The methodology of this study follows Wang et al (2010) with

some major modifications [10]. The MAC of each measure is a

combination of the cost, the savings, and the CO2 reductions from a

given measure. The cost includes the purchasing cost, the installation

cost, the service cost, the opportunity cost, and any other cost. The

saving is primarily from fuel savings from the energy efficiency

improvement. If CO2 has a monetary value, for example, it is taxed or

mandated to reduce in the future, the value of the saved CO2 should

also be included. The CO2 cost can be easily converted into the fuel

cost using Equation 1:

F =1

Ck

CP

Fis the price increase of fuel, Ckis the carbon content of fuel type k,

and CP is the carbon reduction cost. For each fuel type k, the carbon

converter is different. The emission factors of residual oil and marine

diesel oil are about 3130 kg/ton and 3190 kg/ton of fuel, respectively.

The MAC of the measure i of a given ship type and ship size

combination can be reflected in Equation 2:

10


11/26

tand s represent ship type and size combination, respectively; Ct,s,i is

the cost of purchasing, installing, and using measure i in annuity; it

includes all costs associated with the use of measure i except for the

opportunity cost; OCt,s,i is total opportunity cost of using the measure

i; Ft,s,iis the fuel savings from measure i for a given ship type and size

combination; P is the fuel price; Et,s is the total CO2 emission of ship

type tand ship size s; Rt,s,iis the CO2 reduction potential of measure i.

For Ct,s,i, the effect of some services and technologies may last

more than one year, and the cost is discounted and allocated over the

lifetime of the service or technology. This relationship is shown in

Equation 3:

ris the discount rate; liis the lifetime of the measure i; Ii is the initial

investment of measure i. The purchasing cost each year is the net

present value (NPV) of the initial investment.

There are several types of opportunity costs. Sometimes, ships

have to be put out of service for several days to be retrofitted with

energy-saving technologies. If the days exceed that of dry-docking,

these ships will lose profits that they would have made had they been

in service. Another example is the slow steaming: when ship speeds

are slowed, more ships are needed to cover the lost frequency. The

capital cost and operational cost from these extra ships require

substantial investment.

The MAC varies by ship size for each ship type. This paper selects

8 types of ships with 37 ship sizes (Table 1). The MAC of each ship size

within each ship category is then compared.

Table 1. Ship types and sizes in this analysis

Ship Type Ship SizeCrude Tanker A 200,000+ DWT

MACt,s,i

=C

t,s,i+ OCt,s,i Ft,s,i P

Et,s

Rt,s,i

Ct,s,i

= NPV r,li, I

i( )

11


12/26

B 120 -199,999 DWT

C 80 -119,999 DWT

D 60 -79,999 DWT

E 10 -59,999 DWTF -9,999 DWT

Product Tanker

A 60,000+ DWT

B 20 -59,999 DWT

C 10 -19,999 DWT

D 5 -9,999 DWT

E -4,999 DWT

Chemical Tanker

A 20,000+ DWT

B 10 -19,999 DWT

C 5 -9,999 DWT

D -4,999 DWT

Bulk Carrier

A 200,000+ DWT

B 100 -199,999 DWT

C 60 -99,999 DWT

D 35 -59,999 DWT

E 10 -34,999 DWT

F -9,999 DWT

General Cargo

A 10,000+ DWT

B 5,000-9,999 DWT

C -4,999 DWT

General Cargo with Container

D 10,000+ DWT, 100+ TEU

E 5,000-9,999 DWT, 100+ TEU

F -4,999 DWT, 100+ TEU

Container

A 8,000+ TEU

B 5 -7,999 TEU

C 3 -4,999 TEU

D 2 -2,999 TEU

E 1 -1,999 TEU

F -999 TEUCruise A 100,000+ GT

12


13/26

B 60-99,999 GT

C 10-59,999 GT

D 2-9,999 GT

E -1,999 GT

For each of the 37 ship type and size combinations, a variety of

energy-saving measures can be applied. These measures are then

plotted in the marginal abatement cost curve (MACC). The curve

represents the MAC of each measure and can be used to compare the

reduction cost of each ship size. The MACC can be illustrated in

Equation 4:

m1 is the measure corresponding to the MAC.

These energy-saving measures are then ranked on the basis of

their cost-effectiveness. The most cost-effective measure is assumed

to apply first, followed by the second most cost-effective, and so on.

The average MAC for a given ship type and size is then calculated

using the MAC of each measure weighted by the CO2 reduction of the

measure. This relationship can be reflected in Equation 5:

ni represents the measure with the lowest MAC. In other words,

2.2 Data and Assumption

The baseline ship data comes from the IMO 2009 GHG report,

which presented the average yearly activities and fuel consumption of

14 ship types with 53 ship sizes in 2007. This study takes a portion of

these ship types and their sizes and analyzes the economies of scales

MACCs,t

=MAC

s,t,1

MACs,t,2

. ..

m1

m2

.. .

M ACs,t

=M AC

s,t,n1 ( E

s,t R

s,t,n1) + M AC

s,t,n2 (E

s,t (1 R

s,t,n1) R

s,t,n2) + .. .( )

Es,t

Rs,t,n1

+ Es,t

(1 Rs,t,n1

) Rs,t,n 2

+ . ..( )

M ACs,t,n i = min (M ACs,t,i )

13


14/26

by comparing the MACs in 2020. The ship growth rates by ship type

and size are also taken from the IMO 2009 GHG report.

The year 2020 is chosen as the target year because some of the

technologies are not currently available or their costs have not yet

stabilized. Historically, when a new technology is first commercially

applied, the cost may decrease as an effect of competition, maturity of

the technology, economies of scale, etc. Therefore, consistent with

Wang et al (2010), a 10% cost reduction over the next five years is

then assumed for the air lubrication technology and the waste heat

recovery technology. After five years and the 10% price decrease, the

costs are assumed to stabilize for these two technologies. The 10%

learning rate is also consistent with the learning rate estimates of the

ship building industry by NASA [15]. The other three technologies that

are forecasting price decreases in the next five years are wind engines,

wind kites, and solar panels. A 15% price reduction is assumed for

wind engines, wind kites, and solar panels, consistent with the

observed learning rates of their onshore counterpart [16]. For other

technical and operational measures, no learning effect is assumed

because, as Wang et al (2010) point out, these measures have already

been employed by some ships and the learning effect is assumed to

run out [10].

Some of the individual abatement measures that are accounted

for may exclude each other because these measures cannot and will

not be applied at the same time[9, 10]. Therefore, it is useful to

subsume the individual abatement options to groups (whereas the

measures that exclude each other are being allocated to the same

group) and to ultimately present the marginal abatement cost curve on

an option-group basis. Abatement options should exclude each other

because these measures aim at reducing vessel energy loss in the

same way, and no extra abatement can be expected from combining

these options. For example, there will be no extra emission reduction

from cleaning a hull that has recently been blasted. Abatement options

should also exclude each other because a combination of these

14


15/26

measures would not be feasible due to practical reasons. Two technical

options that require a lot of deck space or two options whose

combination might turn out to be counterproductive (or may even

constitute a safety hazard due to unpredictable interactions) must be

classified as mutually exclusive too. The combination of towing kites

and wind engines is an example of two options that are allocated to

the same option group. Therefore, these 22 technologies are classified

into 15 groups, shown in Table 2.

The opportunity costs of technical and operational measures,

except for the operational speed reduction, are associated with the

extra days beyond dry docking. The estimated extra days are listed

in Table 2:

Table 2. Technical and Operational Measures

Technical andOperationalMeasures Group

Learning

RateOpportunity

CostSuitable

Ship TypesOperational SpeedReduction (10%) Operational

speed reductionNo Fix and

operational costsfrom extra ships

All exceptfor Cruise

Operational SpeedReduction (20%) No

All exceptfor Cruise

Weather Routing Weather routing No No AllAutopilotupgrade/adjustment

Autopilotupgrade/adjustm

ent No No AllPropeller polishing at

regular intervalsPropellerpolishing

No No AllPropeller polishing

when required (includemonitoring) No No AllHull cleaning Hull cleaning No No AllHull coating 1

Hull coating

No 1.5 extra days

beyond the drydocking

All

Hull coating 2No All

Air lubrication Air lubrication

15%

1.5 extra daysbeyond the dry

docking

All ship typewith shipsize limit

Propeller rudderupgrade

Propellerupgrade No No All

Propeller boss cap fin

No

1.5 extra daysbeyond the dry

docking AllPropeller upgrade No 1 extra day All

15


16/26


17/26

Figure 1 shows the MAC of various technical and operational

measures for a given ship type. For each ship, the energy-saving

measures are ranked by their MAC. The measure with the lowest MAC

is assumed to be applied first, followed by the measure with second

lowest MAC, and so on. The number of measures that could be applied

vary by ship size. For example, the air lubrication can only be used by

crude oil tankers and bulk carriers larger than 60,000 dwt, and full

container vessels larger than 2000 TEU. In this case, the comparison is

made only for measures that these ship sizes all have. For example, if

the largest crude tankers can use 14 of the 15 energy-saving

measures, and the smallest crude tankers can only use 12 of the 14

measures, then the MAC of the first 12 groups of measures used by the

largest crude tankers are selected and compared with the MAC of

measures used by the smallest crude tankers.

Figure 1 illustrates obvious economies of scale. Larger ships

generally have a smaller MAC. The trend is especially palpable for

crude tankers, containerships, and cruise ships. More startlingly, there

is a significant MAC increase for the smallest size category for each

ship type, especially when the first four or five inexpensive energy-

saving measures run out. This indicates that the smallest ships could

be more vulnerable than larger ships to absorb cost increases from the

CO2 reduction.

17


18/26

Using a similar methodology, we produce Figure 2, which

compares the MAC of different size categories only for new ships. We

assume that all technologies can be retrofitted on new ships to reduce

the energy consumption and increase the ships EEDI. No operational

18

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Chemical TankerA 20,000+ dwt B 10 -19,999 dwt C 5 -9,999 dwt D -4,999 dwt

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Bulker

A 200,000+ dwt B 100 -199,999 dwt C 60 -99,999 dwt

D 35 -59,999 dwt E 10 -34,999 dwt F -9,999 dwt

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


D 10,000+ dwt, 100+ TEU E 5,000-9,999 dwt, 100+ TEU

F -4,999 dwt, 100+ TEU


19/26


20/26

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Crude Tanker

A 200,000+ dwt B 120 -199,999 dwt C 80 -119,999 dwt

D 60 -79,999 dwt E 10 -59,999 dwt F -9,999 dwt

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

argnaaemenosperonProduct Tanker

A 60,000+ dwt B 20 -59,999 dwt C 10 -19,999 dwt

D 5 -9,999 dwt E -4,999 dwt

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Chemical TankerA 20,000+ dwt B 10 -19,999 dwt

C 5 -9,999 dwt D -4,999 dwt

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

1 2 3 4 5

argnaaemenosperonGeneral Cargo

A 10,000+ dwt B 5,000-9,999 dwt C -4,999 dwt

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

1 2 3 4 5

ContainershipA 8,000+ teu B 5 -7,999 teu C 3 -4,999 teu

D 2 -2,999 teu E 1 -1,999 teu F -999 teu

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

1 2 3 4 5

CruiseA 100,000+ gt B 60-99,999 gt C 10-59,999 gt

D 2-9,999 gt E -1,999 gt

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

1 2 3 4 5

General Cargo with TE

D 10,000+ dwt, 100+ TE E 5,000-9,999 dwt, 100+ TEU F -4,999 dwt, 100+ TEU

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

1 2 3 4 5 6

BulkerA 200,000+ dwt B 100 -199,999 dwt C 60 -99,999 dwt

D 35 -59,999 dwt E 10 -34,999 dwt F -9,999 dwt

Applying Equation 4, we calculate the average MAC by ship type

and ship size. The result is demonstrated in Figure 3. Figure 3 shows

that the average MAC becomes higher when the ship size gets smaller,

although this is not unanimous for all ship types and all ship sizes:

there are some exceptions for crude tanker, bulk carrier, and cruise

ships. For most ship types, Figure 3 shows positive abatement costs for

20


21/26

the smallest size category and negative abatement costs for other size

categories.

Figure 4 shows the average MAC for new ships. Similar to Figure 3,

it shows a higher average MAC for smaller ships and some outliers in

crude tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships. Figure 4 reiterates that

the MAC of the smallest ship is much higher than the MAC of other ship

sizes.

Some conclusions can be drawn from Figures 1 - 4. Although there

are some exceptions with crude tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise

ships, larger ships generally have more options to reduce CO2, and can

do so more economically. Ships in the smallest size category incur a

much higher average MAC when existing and new ships are combined

together. If only new ships are considered, the MAC of the smallest

ships is much higher than the MAC of other sizes, with the exception of

the crude tanker and the bulk carrier. Even for these two types of

ships, the MAC of smallest ships is higher than the average MAC of all

ships.

21


22/26

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

A 200,000+

dwt

B 120 -

199,999

dwt

C 80 -

119,999

dwt

D 60 -

79,999 dwt

E 10 -

59,999 dwt

F -9,999

dwt

Cost($perton)

Crude Tanker

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

A 60,000+

dwt

B 20 -59,999

dwt

C 10 -19,999

dwt

D 5 -9,999

dwt

E -4,999 dwtCost($perton)

Product Tanker

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

A 20,000+ dwt B 10 -19,999 dwt C 5 -9,999 dwt D -4,999 dwtCost($perton)

Chemical Tanker

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

A 10,000+ dwt B 5,000-9,999 dwt C -4,999 dwtCost($perton)

General Cargo

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

D 10,000+ dwt, 100+

TEU

E 5,000-9,999

dwt, 100+ TEU

F -4,999 dwt, 100+

TEU

Cost($perton)

General Cargo with TEU

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

A 8,000+teu

B 5 -7,999teu

C 3 -4,999teu

D 2 -2,999teu

E 1 -1,999teu

F -999 teu

Cost($perton)

Containership

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

A 100,000+gt

B 60-99,999gt

C 10-59,999gt

D 2-9,999 gt E -1,999 gt

Cost($perton)

Cruise ship

22


23/26

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

A 200,000+

dwt

B 120 -

199,999 dwt

C 80 -

119,999 dwt

D 60 -79,999

dwt

E 10 -59,999

dwt

F -9,999 dwt

Cost($perton)

Crude Tanker

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

A 60,000+

dwt

B 20 -59,999

dwt

C 10 -19,999

dwt

D 5 -9,999

dwt

E -4,999 dwtCost($perton)

Product Tanker

-100-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

A 20,000+ dwt B 10 -19,999 dwt C 5 -9,999 dwt D -4,999 dwt

Cost($perton)

Chemical Tanker

-150-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

A 200,000+dwt

B 100 -199,999

dwt

C 60 -99,999 dwt

D 35 -59,999 dwt

E 10 -34,999 dwt

F -9,999dwt

Cost($perton)

Bulke Carrier

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

A 10,000+ dwt B 5,000-9,999 dwt C -4,999 dwtCost($perton)

General Cargo

-90-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

D 10,000+ dwt, 100+

TEU

E 5,000-9,999

dwt, 100+ TEU

F -4,999 dwt, 100+

TEU

Cost($perton)


-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

A 8,000+

teu

B 5 -7,999

teu

C 3 -4,999

teu

D 2 -2,999

teu

E 1 -1,999

teu

F -999 teu

Cost($perton)

Containership

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

A 100,000+ gt B 60-99,999 gt C 10-59,999 gt D 2-9,999 gt E -1,999 gt

Cruise Ship

4. Conclusion:

This paper has shown that there are significant economies of

scales with the CO2 reduction cost in the shipping industry. Generally

speaking, it costs less for bigger ships to reduce their CO2. Although

23


24/26

there are some exceptions, economies of scale exists for both existing

and new ships.

As the IMO is moving toward reducing ship-based CO2, there are a

host of policy options to reduce CO2 from existing and new ships, such

as the EEDI and the ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP).

The EEDI focuses on improving energy efficiency of new ships. Ships

smaller than 400 GT are exempted from the EEDI proposal. The SEEMP

focuses on the energy efficiency improvement of existing ships [17].

The IMO has used both the EEDI and the SEEMP as a voluntary and

interim package since MEPC 59, and it proposed the draft mandatory

texts in MEPC 60. It is likely that both the EEDI and the SEEMP are

adopted as the mandatory approach in MEPC 61. Other policy options,

such as emission trading and carbon tax, are under discussion too. The

international community is also making progress to enhance ship-

based CO2 reduction.

The potential CO2 reduction regulation is likely to have a profound

influence on the shipping industry. Enlarging ship sizes can

significantly reduce the average compliance cost. It will add to the

existing momentum of increasing ship sizes. The smaller ships will be

hit especially hard because they have a significant disadvantage in

average CO2 reduction costs. The only exception seems to be the

crude tanker, where the medium size has the lowest reduction cost.

Shipping firms operating mostly small ships may feel the pain.

These firms are usually from small developing countries, or from

countries that defend their shipping industry from foreign competition.

The United States, for example, may be hurt due to the domestic

protection imposed by the Jones Act. The maritime transportation and

international trade costs may also increase because the market lacks

competition to drive down costs or to incentivize shipping firms to

order larger ships.

The trend that ships, especially containerships, are getting bigger

has already challenged port and canal infrastructures. The potential

CO2 reduction regulation and its uneven impact on different ship sizes

24


25/26

are likely to provide extra incentives to ship owners to order larger

ships, and they may create extra burden on port and canal authorities

to upgrade their infrastructures.

Enlarging ship sizes can also reduce unit CO2 reduction. More

commodities can be packed into one ship and thus reduce frequencies,

enabling shipping firms to further reduce ship speed. Quantifying this

effect, however, is out of scope of this work.

Reference:

1. IMO, Updated Study on GHG Emissions From Ships. 2009, MPEC.2. Corbett, J.J. and P.S. Fischbeck, Emissions From Ships. Science,

1997. 278(5339): p. 823-824.

3. Endresen, ., et al., Emission from International SeaTransportation and Environmental Impact. Journal of GeophysicalResearch, 2003. 108(D17): p. 4560.

4. Wang, H., D. Liu, and G. Dai, Review of maritime transportationair emission pollution and policy analysis Journal of OceanUniversity of China, 2009. 8(3): p. 283-290.

5. Crist, P., Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Potential fromInternational Shipping, in International Transport Forum. 2009:Leipzig, Germany.

6. Wallis, K. NYK joins rush to reduce ship speeds. 2008 [cited2010 September 1]; Available from:http://www.lloydslistdcn.com.au/archive/2008/jan/10/nyk-joins-rush-to-reduce-ship-speeds.http://www.lloydslistdcn.com.au/archive/2008/jan/10/nyk-joins-rush-to-reduce-ship-speeds

7. Mongelluzzo, B. Solar-Pushed NYK Ship Arrives at Long Beach.The Journal of Commerce 2009 [cited 2010 August 30];Available from: http://behindthewheelnews.toyota.com/?id=229.http://behindthewheelnews.toyota.com/?id=229

8. Kat, J.O., et al., An Integrated Approach towards Cost-EffectiveOperation of Ships with Reduced GHG Emissions, in SNAMEAnnual Meeting 2009: Rhode Island.

9. CE Delft, Technical support for European action to reducingGreenhouse Gas Emissions from international maritimetransport. 2009, CE Delft.

10. Wang, H., et al., Marginal abatement costs and cost-effectiveness of energy-efficiency measures. 2010, Soceity ofNaval Architect and Marine Engineers: Jersey City.

11. Jansson, J.O. and D. Shneerson, Economies of Scale of GeneralCargo Ships. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1987.60(2): p. 287-293.

25
http://www.lloydslistdcn.com.au/archive/2008/jan/10/nyk-joins-rush-to-reduce-ship-speedshttp://www.lloydslistdcn.com.au/archive/2008/jan/10/nyk-joins-rush-to-reduce-ship-speedshttp://behindthewheelnews.toyota.com/?id=229http://behindthewheelnews.toyota.com/?id=229http://www.lloydslistdcn.com.au/archive/2008/jan/10/nyk-joins-rush-to-reduce-ship-speedshttp://www.lloydslistdcn.com.au/archive/2008/jan/10/nyk-joins-rush-to-reduce-ship-speeds


26/26

12. Jansson, J.O. and D. Shneerson, The Optimal Ship Size. Journal ofTransport Economics and Policy, 1982. 16(3): p. 217-238.

13. IMO, Consideration of the energy efficiency design index for newships guideline for the uniform definition of electric power tablefor EEDI Submitted by Cruise Lines International Association.

2009, MEPC59: London.14. Notteboom, T. and B. Vernimmen, The effect of high fuel costs onliner service configuration in container shipping. Journal ofTransport Geography, 2009.

15. NASA. Learning Curve Calculator. 2005 [cited 2010 May 21];Available from:http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/learn.html.http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/learn.html

16. McDibakdm, A. and L. Schrattenholzer, Learning rates for energytechnologies. Energy Policy, 2001. 29(4): p. 255-261.

17. IMO, Consideration of the energy efficiency design index for new

ships. 2009, MEPC59: London.
http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/learn.htmlhttp://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/learn.htmlhttp://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/learn.htmlhttp://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/learn.html

aje_edited_ship size and macc2_final_clean

Documents