Abstract
In response to the EU ETS, we propose a cost model considering carbon emissions for container shipping, calculating fuel consumption, carbon emissions, EUA cost, and total cost of container shipping. We take a container ship operating on a route from the Far East to Northwest Europe as a case study. Environmental and economic impacts of including maritime transport activities in the EU ETS on container shipping are assessed. Results show that carbon emissions from the selected container ship using methanol are the smallest, and total cost of the selected container ship using methanol is the lowest. Among MGO, HFO, LNG, and methanol, methanol is the most environmentally and cost-effective option. Using LNG has greater environmental benefit, while using HFO has greater economic benefit. Compared to MGO, carbon reduction effects of LNG and methanol are 14.2% and 57.1%, and their cost control effects are 7.8% and 26.5%. Compared to HFO, carbon reduction effects of LNG and methanol are 11.7% and 55.8%, and the cost control effect of methanol is 9.3%. Speed reduction is effective in achieving carbon reduction and cost control of container shipping only when the sailing speed of the selected container ship is greater than 8.36 knots. Once the sailing speed is less than this threshold, speed reduction will increase carbon emissions and total cost of container shipping. This model can assess the environmental and economic impacts of including maritime transport activities in the EU ETS on container shipping and explore the measures to achieve carbon reduction and cost control of container shipping in response to the EU ETS.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
References
Abreu H, Santos TA, Cardoso V (2023) Impact of external cost internalization on short sea shipping – the case of the Portugal-Northern Europe trade. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ 114:103544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103544
Ančić I, Perčić M, Vladimir N (2020) Alternative power options to reduce carbon footprint of ro-ro passenger fleet: a case study of Croatia. J Clean Prod 271:122638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122638
Bassam AM, Phillips AB, Turnock SR, Wilson PA (2023) Artificial neural network based prediction of ship speed under operating conditions for operational optimization. Ocean Eng 278:114613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114613
Bilgili L (2021) Life cycle comparison of marine fuels for IMO 2020 Sulphur Cap. Sci Total Environ 774:145719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145719
Cariou P, Cheaitou A (2012) The effectiveness of a European speed limit versus an international bunker-levy to reduce CO2 emissions from container shipping. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ 17:116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.10.003
Cariou P, Lindstad E, Jia H (2021) The impact of an EU maritime emissions trading system on oil trades. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ 99:102992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102992
Christodoulou A, Dalaklis D, Olcer AI, Masodzadeh PG (2021) Inclusion of shipping in the EU-ETS: assessing the direct costs for the maritime sector using the MRV data. Energies 14:20. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14133915
Christodoulou A, Cullinane K (2023) The prospects for, and implications of, emissions trading in shipping. Marit Econ Logist 17. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-023-00261-1
Clarksons (2023) Shipping Intelligence Network. https://www.clarksons.net/. Accessed 10 July 2023
European Commission (2023) Reducing emissions from the shipping sector. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/transport-emissions/reducing-emissions-shipping-sector_en. Accessed 9 September 2023
Corbett JJ, Wang H, Winebrake JJ (2009) The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ 14:593–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2009.08.005
COSCO (2023) COSCO SHIPPING Lines. https://lines.coscoshipping.com/. Accessed 11 July 2023
Dalheim ØØ, Steen S (2021) Uncertainty in the real-time estimation of ship speed through water. Ocean Eng 235:109423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109423
Daniel H, Trovão JPF, Williams D (2022) Shore power as a first step toward shipping decarbonization and related policy impact on a dry bulk cargo carrier. eTransportation 11:100150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2021.100150
Ding WY, Wang YB, Dai L, Hu H (2020) Does a carbon tax affect the feasibility of Arctic shipping? Transport Res Part D Transport Environ 80:102257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102257
Dong G, Tae-Woo Lee P (2020) Environmental effects of emission control areas and reduced speed zones on container ship operation. J Clean Prod 274:122582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122582
Doudnikoff M, Lacoste R (2014) Effect of a speed reduction of containerships in response to higher energy costs in sulphur emission control areas. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ 28:51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.03.002
Du YQ, Meng Q, Wang SA, Kuang HB (2019) Two-phase optimal solutions for ship speed and trim optimization over a voyage using voyage report data. Transport Res Part B Methodol 122:88–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2019.02.004
EMBER (2023) Carbon Price Tracker-The price of emissions allowances in the EU and UK. https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/carbon-price-viewer/. Accessed 29 July 2023
EUR-Lex (2023a) Directive (EU) 2023/959 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading system (Text with EEA relevance) . https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/959. Accessed 30 August 2023
EUR-Lex (2023b) Regulation (EU) 2023/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2015/757 in order to provide for the inclusion of maritime transport activities in the EU Emissions Trading System and for the monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions of additional greenhouse gases and emissions from additional ship types (Text with EEA relevance). http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/957/oj. Accessed 30 August 2023
Fagerholt K, Gausel NT, Rakke JG, Psaraftis HN (2015) Maritime routing and speed optimization with emission control areas. Transport Res Part C Emerg Technol 52:57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.12.010
Fan LX, Gu BM, Luo MF (2020) A cost-benefit analysis of fuel-switching vs. hybrid scrubber installation: a container route through the Chinese SECA case. Transp Policy 99:336–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.09.008
Fan AL, Yang J, Yang L, Wu D, Vladimir N (2022) A review of ship fuel consumption models. Ocean Eng 264:112405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112405
Fan AL, Xiong YQ, Yang L, Zhang HY, He YP (2023) Carbon footprint model and low–carbon pathway of inland shipping based on micro–macro analysis. Energy 263:126150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.126150
Farkas A, Degiuli N, Martić I, Grlj CG (2022) Is slow steaming a viable option to meet the novel energy efficiency requirements for containerships? J Clean Prod 374:133915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133915
Freightower (2023) Ship positioning - ship dynamics, ship AIS, ship position. http://www.freightower.com/#/vessel?bd_vid=9187332254345295968. Accessed 10 July 2023
Fricaudet M, Parker S, Rehmatulla N (2023) Exploring financiers’ beliefs and behaviours at the outset of low-carbon transitions: a shipping case study. Environ Innov Soc Transit 49:100788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100788
Goicoechea N, Abadie LM (2021) Optimal slow steaming speed for container ships under the EU Emission Trading System. Energies 14:25. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14227487
Hermeling C, Klement JH, Koesler S, Köhler J, Klement D (2015) Sailing into a dilemma: an economic and legal analysis of an EU trading scheme for maritime emissions. Transport Res Part A Policy Pract 78:34–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.021
Hua WS, Sha YS, Zhang XL, Cao HF (2023) Research progress of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology based on the shipping industry. Ocean Eng 281:114929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114929
IMO (2018a) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), 72nd session, 9–13 April 2018. https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/Pages/MEPC-72nd-session.aspx. Accessed 21 May 2023
IMO (2018b) Resolution MEPC.304(72) (adopted on 13 April 2018) Initial IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships. https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/MEPCDocuments/MEPC.304(72).pdf. Accessed 21 May 2023
IMO (2018c) Resolution MEPC.308(73) (adopted on 26 October 2018) 2018 guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships. https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/MEPCDocuments/MEPC.308(73).pdf. Accessed 21 May 2023
IMO (2020) Fourth IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2020. https://www.maritimecyprus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/4th-IMO-GHG-Study-2020.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2023
IMO (2023a) International Maritime Organization. https://www.imo.org/. Accessed 4 August 2023
IMO (2023b) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 80), 3–7 July 2023. https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/MeetingSummaries/Pages/MEPC-80.aspx. Accessed 4 August 2023
Inal OB, Zincir B, Deniz C (2022) Investigation on the decarbonization of shipping: an approach to hydrogen and ammonia. Int J Hydrog Energy 47:19888–19900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.01.189
Jeong B, Wang HB, Oguz E, Zhou PL (2018) An effective framework for life cycle and cost assessment for marine vessels aiming to select optimal propulsion systems. J Clean Prod 187:111–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.184
Jiang L, Kronbak J, Christensen LP (2014) The costs and benefits of sulphur reduction measures: sulphur scrubbers versus marine gas oil. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ 28:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.005
Joseph L, Giles T, Nishatabbas R, Tristan S (2021) A techno-economic environmental cost model for Arctic shipping. Transport Res Part A Policy Pract 151:28–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.06.022
Kim H, Yeo S, Lee J, Lee W-J (2023) Proposal and analysis for effective implementation of new measures to reduce the operational carbon intensity of ships. Ocean Eng 280:114827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.114827
Kokosalakis G, Merika A, Merika X-A (2021) Environmental regulation on the energy-intensive container ship sector: a restraint or opportunity? Mar Policy 125:104278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104278
Law LC, Mastorakos E, Evans S (2022) Estimates of the decarbonization potential of alternative fuels for shipping as a function of vessel type, cargo, and voyage. Energies 15:26. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207468
Li RR, Liu Y, Wang Q (2022) Emissions in maritime transport: a decomposition analysis from the perspective of production-based and consumption-based emissions. Mar Policy 143:105125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105125
Liu HR, Mao ZK, Li XH (2023) Analysis of international shipping emissions reduction policy and China’s participation. Front Mar Sci 10:15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1093533
Mao ZK, Ma AD, Zhang ZJ (2024) Towards carbon neutrality in shipping: impact of European Union’s emissions trading system for shipping and China’s response. Ocean Coast Manag 249:107006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.107006
Meng Q, Du YQ, Wang YD (2016) Shipping log data based container ship fuel efficiency modeling. Transport Res Part B Methodol 83:207–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2015.11.007
Methanex (2024) Pricing-Methanex. https://www.methanex.com/about-methanol/pricing/. Accessed 4 February 2024
Müller-Casseres E, Carvalho F, Nogueira T, Fonte C, Império M, Poggio M, Wei HK, Portugal-Pereira J, Rochedo PRR, Szklo A, Schaeffer R (2021) Production of alternative marine fuels in Brazil: an integrated assessment perspective. Energy 219:119444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119444
Oloruntobi O, Chuah LF, Mokhtar K, Gohari A, Rady A, Abo-Eleneen RE, Akhtar MS, Mubashir M (2024) Decarbonising ASEAN coastal shipping: addressing climate change and coastal ecosystem issues through sustainable carbon neutrality strategies. Environ Res 240:117353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.117353
Psaraftis HN, Kontovas CA (2013) Speed models for energy-efficient maritime transportation: a taxonomy and survey. Transport Res Part C Emerg Technol 26:331–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2012.09.012
Psaraftis HN, Kontovas CA (2014) Ship speed optimization: concepts, models and combined speed-routing scenarios. Transport Res Part C Emerg Technol 44:52–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.03.001
Ryu BR, Duong PA, Kang H (2023) Comparative analysis of the thermodynamic performances of solid oxide fuel cell–gas turbine integrated systems for marine vessels using ammonia and hydrogen as fuels. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 15:100524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2023.100524
Shimotsuura T, Shoda T, Kagawa S (2023) Firm heterogeneity in sources of changes in CO2 emissions from international container shipping. Mar Policy 157:105859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105859
Stec M, Tatarczuk A, Iluk T, Szul M (2021) Reducing the energy efficiency design index for ships through a post-combustion carbon capture process. Int J Greenh Gas Con 108:103333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103333
Sun YL, Zheng JF, Yang LX, Li X (2024) Allocation and trading schemes of the maritime emissions trading system: liner shipping route choice and carbon emissions. Transp Policy 148:60–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.12.021
Tomos BAD, Stamford L, Welfle A, Larkin A (2024) Decarbonising international shipping – a life cycle perspective on alternative fuel options. Energy Convers Manag 299:117848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117848
van Judith L, Jason M (2022) Decarbonisation of the shipping sector – time to ban fossil fuels? Mar Policy 146:105310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105310
Vessel Value Visualization (2023) myvessel.cn. https://www.myvessel.cn. Accessed 3 November 2023
Wada Y, Yamamura T, Hamada K, Wanaka S (2021) Evaluation of GHG emission measures based on shipping and shipbuilding market forecasting. Sustainability 13:22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052760
Wang SA, Meng Q (2012) Sailing speed optimization for container ships in a liner shipping network. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 48:701–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.12.003
Wang CF, Corbett JJ, Firestone J (2007) Modeling energy use and emissions from North American shipping: application of the ship traffic, energy, and environment model. Environ Sci Technol 41:3226–3232. https://doi.org/10.1021/es060752e
Wang K, Fu XW, Luo MF (2015) Modeling the impacts of alternative emission trading schemes on international shipping. Transport Res Part A Policy Pract 77:35–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.006
Wang SA, Zhen L, Psaraftis HN, Yan R (2021) Implications of the EU’s inclusion of maritime transport in the emissions trading system for shipping companies. Engineering 7:554–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2021.01.007
Watanabe MDB, Cherubini F, Tisserant A, Cavalett O (2022) Drop-in and hydrogen-based biofuels for maritime transport: country-based assessment of climate change impacts in Europe up to 2050. Energy Convers Manag 273:116403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.116403
Wettestad J, Gulbrandsen LH (2022) On the process of including shipping in EU emissions trading: multi-level reinforcement revisited. Politics Gov 10:246–255. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i1.4848
Wu LX, Wang SA, Laporte G (2021) The robust bulk ship routing problem with batched cargo selection. Transport Res Part B Methodol 143:124–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2020.11.003
Wu YZ, Wen K, Zou XL (2022) Impacts of shipping carbon tax on dry bulk shipping costs and maritime trades-the case of China. J Mar Sci Eng 10:16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10081105
Xu H, Yang D (2020) LNG-fuelled container ship sailing on the Arctic Sea: economic and emission assessment. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ 87:102556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102556
Xu L, Yang ZH, Chen JH, Zou ZY, Wang Y (2024) Spatial-temporal evolution characteristics and spillover effects of carbon emissions from shipping trade in EU coastal countries. Ocean Coast Manag 250:107029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2024.107029
Yan R, Wang SA, Du YQ (2020) Development of a two-stage ship fuel consumption prediction and reduction model for a dry bulk ship. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 138:101930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101930
Yan XP, He YP, Fan AL (2023) Carbon footprint prediction considering the evolution of alternative fuels and cargo: a case study of Yangtze river ships. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 173:113068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.113068
You Y, Lee JC (2022) Activity-based evaluation of ship pollutant emissions considering ship maneuver according to transportation plan. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 14:100427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2021.11.010
You Y, Kim S, Lee JC (2023) Comparative study on ammonia and liquid hydrogen transportation costs in comparison to LNG. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 15:100523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2023.100523
Zhang S, Yuan HC, Sun DP (2021) Fluctuation in operational energy efficiency of ships and its implications for performance appraisal. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng 13:367–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2021.04.004
Zhu M, Shen SW, Shi WM (2023) Carbon emission allowance allocation based on a bi-level multi-objective model in maritime shipping. Ocean Coast Manag 241:106665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106665
Zou JH, Yang B (2023) Evaluation of alternative marine fuels from dual perspectives considering multiple vessel sizes. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ 115:103583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103583
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Prof. Zhi Cao of Nankai University for theoretical support of this paper.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant number 2022YFF0903403).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Ling Sun: methodology, writing—original draft preparation, funding acquisition.
Xinghe Wang: methodology, investigation, writing—original draft preparation.
Zijiang Hu: software, resources, data curation, writing—review and editing.
Wei Liu: conceptualization, formal analysis, writing—review and editing, supervision.
Zhong Ning: conceptualization, validation, writing—review and editing, supervision.
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Sun, L., Wang, X., Hu, Z. et al. Carbon reduction and cost control of container shipping in response to the European Union Emission Trading System. Environ Sci Pollut Res 31, 21172–21188 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32434-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32434-7