Reducing Sulfur Emissions: Logistical and Environmental Considerations

  • Thalis P. V. ZisEmail author
  • Harilaos N. Psaraftis


In recent years the issue of sulfur emissions from maritime transport has seen newfound attention. This chapter presents an overview of the main issues of sulfur emissions and the legislative framework that seeks to reduce the sulfur footprint of the maritime sector. It also analyzes potential modal shifts toward less efficient land-based modes which may happen as a result of sulfur regulations and investigates the related potential economic damage to ship operators. To that effect, this chapter presents findings from a recently finished project at DTU and the developed methodological framework that can be used to estimate such modal shifts, as well as to measure the efficacy of policy and ship operators’ measures to reverse such shifts.



Bunker adjustment factor


Cost-benefit analysis


Carbon monoxide


Carbon dioxide


European Commission


Energy Efficiency Design Index


Emission trading system


European Union


Greenhouse gas


Heavy fuel oil


International Maritime Organization


Liquefied natural gas


Marine diesel oil


Marine gas oil


Nitrogen oxides


Ro-Ro with passengers


Roll-on roll-off


Sulfur Emission Control Area


Sulfur oxides


Short sea shipping


World Health Organization



Much of the work presented in this chapter is in the context of the project: “Mitigating and reversing the side-effects of environmental legislation on Ro-Ro shipping in Northern Europe” (also known as the RoRoSECA project) funded by the Danish Maritime Fund and the Orients Fund. We are grateful to Poul Woodall of DFDS whom we worked with in this project, for the provision of data and valuable input and discussions in producing this work.


  1. Ben-akiva, M., Bradley, M., Morikawa, T., Benjamin, J., Novak, T., Oppewal, H., & Rao, V. (1994). Combining revealed and stated preferences data. Marketing Letters, 5(4), 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buhaug, Ø., Corbett, J., Endresen, O., Eyring, V., Faber, J., Hanayama, S., Lee, D., Lindstad, H., Mjelde, A., Palsson, C., Wanquing, W., Winebrake, J., & Yoshida, K. (2009). Second IMO greenhouse gas study. London: International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
  3. COWI/DTUCOWI/DTU. (2016). Transport economic unit prices for use in socio-economic analyses – version 1.6 (in Danish). Accessed 14 Feb 2017.Google Scholar
  4. Crowley, T. J. (2000). Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years. Science, 289(5477), 270–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cullinane, K., & Bergqvist, R. (2014). Emission control areas and their impact on maritime transport. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cullinane, K., & Cullinane, S. (2013). Atmospheric emissions from shipping: The need for regulation and approaches to compliance. Transport Reviews, 33(4), 377–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Danesi, A., & Longhi, M. (2016). Opening the southern door of the Italian inland waterway transport network. Transport Logistics, 16(41).Google Scholar
  8. DMA. (2012). A feasibility study for an LNG filling station infrastructure and test of recommendations. North European LNG Infrastructure Project. Available at: Accessed May 2017.
  9. EMSA. (2010). European maritime safety. The 0.1% sulphur in fuel requirement as from 1 January 2015 in SECAs-An assessment of available impact studies and alternative means of compliance.Google Scholar
  10. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2013). Clean air markets: Allowance trading. Available at: Accessed Sep 2018.
  11. European Commission. (2008). Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. Official Journal of the European Union.Google Scholar
  12. Eyring, V., Köhler, H. W., van Aardenne, J., & Lauer, A. (2005). Emissions from international shipping: 1. The last 50 years. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 110(D17), 1–12.Google Scholar
  13. Henriksson, T. (2007). SOx scrubbing of marine exhaust gases. Wärtsilä Technical Journal, 2007(2), 55–58.Google Scholar
  14. IMO. (2014). Third IMO GHG study 2014. London: International Maritime Organization (IMO) Available at: Accessed Jun 2015.Google Scholar
  15. Jiang, L., Kronbak, J., & Christensen, L. P. (2014). The costs and benefits of sulphur reduction measures: Sulphur scrubbers versus marine gas oil. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lemper, B., Hader, A., Hübscher, A., Maatsch, S., & Tasto, M. (2009). Reducing the sulphur conten of shipping fuels further to 0.1% in the North Sea and Baltic Sea in 2015: Consequences for shipping in this shipping area. Final report. Bremen: Institut für Seeverkehrswirtschaft und Logistik.Google Scholar
  17. MAN Diesel and Turbo. (2014). Guidelines for operation on fuels with less than 0.1% Sulphur. Copenhagen, Denmark. Accessed Dec 2017.
  18. Nam, K. C. (1997). Study on the estimation and aggregation of disaggregate models of mode choice for freight transport. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 33(3), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Odgaard, T., Frank, C., Henriques, M., Bøge, M. (2013). The impact on short sea shipping and the risk of modal shift from the establishment of a NOx emission control area in the North Sea. Available at: Accessed Apr 2016.
  20. OECD. (2017). Air and GHG emissions (indicator).
  21. Ortúzar, J. d. D., & Willumsen, L. G. (2011). Modelling transport (4th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Panagakos, G. P., Stamatopoulou, E. V., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2014). The possible designation of the Mediterranean Sea as a SECA: A case study. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 74–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pickering, K. T., & Owen, L. A. (1997). An introduction to global environmental issues (Vol. 2). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ricardo-AEA. (2014). Update of the handbook on external costs of transport. Report for the European Commission DG MOVE, London.Google Scholar
  25. Tsamboulas, D., Chiappetta, A., Moraiti, P., Karousos, I. (2015). Could subsidies for maritime freight transportation achieve social and environmental benefits? The case of ecobonus. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2479), 78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ward, P. L. (2009). Sulfur dioxide initiates global climate change in four ways. Thin Solid Films, 517(11), 3188–3203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. World Health Organization (WHO). (2005). Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide. Available at Accessed Feb 2018.
  28. Zis, T. (2015). The Implications and trade-offs of near-port ship emissions reduction policies.Google Scholar
  29. Zis, T., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2017). The implications of the new sulphur limits on the European Ro-Ro sector. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zis, T., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2018a). Operational measures to mitigate and reverse the potential modal shifts due to environmental legislation. Maritime Policy & Management, 1–16.Google Scholar
  31. Zis, T., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2018b). Key performance indicators to assess and reverse the negative impacts of SECAs policies for Ro-Ro shipping. FME Transactions, 46(3), 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zis, T., Angeloudis, P., Bell, M. G., Psaraftis, H. N. (2016). Payback period for emissions abatement alternatives: Role of regulation and fuel prices. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2549), 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zis, T., Panagakos, G., Kronbak, J., Psaraftis, H. N. (2017). Report on the outcome of Task 3.2 “Measures from policy makers”. Available at:

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DTU Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations