Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd

Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through

the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels
S. Brynolf a,⇑, M. Magnusson a, E. Fridell a,b, K. Andersson a
a
Shipping and Marine Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
b
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Box 5302, 400 14 Gothenburg, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The upcoming stricter emission control area (ECA) regulations on sulphur and nitrogen oxi-
ECA des (NOX) emissions from shipping can be handled by different strategies. In this study,
Marine fuels three alternatives complying with the ECA regulations for sulphur as well as Tier III for
SCR NOX are presented and compared using life cycle assessment. None of the three alternatives
Scrubbers
will significantly reduce the life cycle impact on climate change compared to heavy fuel oil
LCA
(HFO). However, all alternatives will reduce the impact on particulate matter, photochem-
ical ozone formation, acidification and terrestrial eutrophication potential. The assessment
also highlighted two important regulatory aspects. Firstly, the need to regulate the ammo-
nia slip from use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and secondly the need to regulate
the methane slip from LNG engines. In addition, an analysis of the use of SCR in Swedish
waters is presented showing that SCRs have been used on a number of ships already giving
significantly reduced NOX emissions.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The upcoming stricter emission control area (ECA) regulations on sulphur and nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions from ship-
ping can be handled by different strategies. The most obvious reduction strategy is to avoid the problem by not introducing
an impurity to the system. For sulphur oxides (SOX) this can be achieved by using low sulphur marine fuels that fulfil the
regulations, i.e. below 0.10 wt% S (IMO, 2013a). There are a number of possible fuels, with advantages and constraints of dif-
ferent kinds. The most obvious is to use marine gas oil (MGO), but there are also trials with liquefied natural gas (LNG), meth-
anol and biofuels (Bruckner-Menchelli, 2011; Einemo, 2013; Gallagher, 2010). LNG is, after MGO, the most tested low
sulphur fuel in shipping, and there are about 20 ships operating on LNG in Norwegian waters (IMO, 2013d).
For NOX the situation is somewhat different. The majority of the emitted NOX from ships originates from atmospheric
nitrogen (N2), which forms NO at the high temperatures prevailing during combustion in the diesel engines. A fuel change
will influence the NOX formation to different degrees depending on the fuel: LNG will give significant reductions compared
to HFO (about 90% for lean burn engines), while a switch to MGO only gives a reduction of a few per cent. In order to lower
the formation of NO there are a number of techniques that reduce peak temperatures in the cylinder, e.g. exhaust gas recir-
culation (EGR) or introduction of water either in the fuel or directly in the cylinders. The most stringent NOX legislation, IMO
Tier III, will be enforced for all newbuildings trafficking inside ECAs from the period 2016 to 2021 and onwards (IMO, 2013a,
2013e). This reduction may be difficult to reach without using ‘‘end of pipe’’ abatement technology.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 (0)31 772 26 57.

E-mail address: selma.brynolf@chalmers.se (S. Brynolf).

1361-9209/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.001
 S. Brynolf et al. / Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18 7

Here the main alternative is a catalytic technique, SCR (selective catalytic reduction) where NOX is reduced over a base
metal catalyst by an added reducing agent, normally a water solution of urea. This technique has been proven capable to
meet the Tier III emission level and can be used in combination with a variety of marine bunker fuels, i.e. high sulphur levels,
and different marine engines. However, low engine load (i.e. low temperature) may still prove to be an issue for successful
operation of the SCR along with a potential catalytic deactivation over time. The use of NOX abatement technologies, mainly
SCR, has been extensive in Swedish waters during the last 20 years. This is due to a rebate system in use on Swedish fairways
for low emitting ships.
‘‘End of pipe’’ abatement techniques are available for sulphur reduction as well, mainly as ‘‘scrubbers’’, with sulphur oxi-
des being absorbed in water (wet scrubber) or reacting and chemically bound to a solid substance (dry scrubber). The scrub-
ber technology is well proven for land based installations like power plants, where the most common concept is dry
scrubbing. However, the high alkalinity, i.e. buffer capacity, of the sea water makes it suitable for use in a wet scrubber
and this technology has been developed and installed on a few ships. The scrubbers using sea water are called open loop
scrubbers and the water is returned to the sea, sometimes after treatment. The buffering capacity of the sea water thus neu-
tralises the otherwise acidic water (due to the formation of sulphuric acid). Alternatively, fresh water can be used in closed
loop scrubbers where sodium hydroxide is added in order to increase the alkalinity. Treatment of the water yields a sludge
that has to be left for treatment on land. There are also installations that can run in both modes. Dry scrubbing has also been
tested in ship application (Zin, 2009). Here calcium hydroxide, in the form of granules, reacts with sulphur in the flue gas
forming calcium sulphate (‘‘gypsum’’). Again, the solid product has to be handled on land.
To achieve the double goal of reducing sulphur and NOX, different combinations of fuels and technologies may be envis-
aged. The objective of this study is to evaluate three alternatives to fulfil ECA regulations for sulphur as well as Tier III for
NOX:

 Heavy fuel oil (HFO) combined with SCR and open loop sea water scrubber.
 Marine gas oil (MGO) combined with SCR.
 Liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The alternatives are described and analysed using life cycle assessment (LCA). In addition, an analysis of the use of SCR in
Swedish waters is presented. The data for this is collected from certification reports needed to receive a rebate on Swedish
fairway dues. Due to lack of information about closed loop scrubbers, only open loop scrubbers are considered in the LCA. No
extensive economic aspects have been taken into account in this analysis. However, since it is an important factor to consider
when selecting compliance strategies in ECAs the economic aspects will be briefly touched upon.

2. Possible measures for compliance

The three alternatives to fulfil the ECA regulations for sulphur content in marine fuels as well as Tier III for NOX are de-
scribed in more detail below. The selected alternatives imply combining existing fuels such as HFO and MGO with exhaust
abatement technology or a complete fuel change.

2.1. Heavy fuel oil and marine gas oil

Today, HFO is used in the majority of marine engines. In 2007 almost 350 million tonnes of fuels were consumed by ship-
ping, of which about 250 tonnes were residual fuels (Buhaug et al., 2009). Two different grades of distillate fuels are usually
used, MGO and marine diesel oil. The sulphur content of fuels used for marine transportation depends on the sulphur content
in the crude oil and the particular refinery streams that are used to produce the particular fuel. The sulphur content is highest
in the heaviest fractions from the distillation column. The average sulphur content in residual fuels and distillate fuels was
2.7 wt% and 0.5 wt%, respectively in 2002, the average values for Europe were quite similar (2.5 wt% and 0.5 wt%, respec-
tively) (Endresen et al., 2005). Low sulphur heavy fuel oil with a sulphur content of about 1 wt% and marine gas oil with
a sulphur content of 0.10 wt% are produced today in some refineries. It is also possible to produce HFO with even lower sul-
phur content which was illustrated by Avis and Birch (2009) who investigated the possibility of producing low sulphur mar-
ine bunker fuels in European refineries. This will imply refinery changes and increased energy use and emissions from the
refinery. Bredeson et al. (2010) have assessed factors driving refinery CO2 intensity and found that the most important factor
is the hydrogen content in the products relative to the hydrogen content in the crude. Avis and Birch (2009) have estimate
that the total CO2 emissions from European refineries will increase by approximately 3% in 2020 compared with a baseline
scenario without any regulation of the sulphur content in marine fuels.

2.2. Scrubbers

The technology for removal of sulphur oxides by scrubbers from exhaust gases is, as mentioned, well developed for land
applications. Both dry scrubbers using lime or other calcium containing minerals to react with the sulphur and wet scrubbers
using alkaline liquids are used. For land applications restrictions on space and weight of the equipment are normally not an
8 S. Brynolf et al. / Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18

issue. For shipping, in particular when retrofitting with scrubbers, there are space, weight and ship stability constraints and
the design and installation of a scrubber becomes a greater challenge.
A typical wet sea water scrubber uses 45 m3 washwater per MWh, meaning that a typical 10 MW engine needs 450 m3
sea water per hour. The additional fuel consumption has been reported to be 2–3% of the engine power output by USEPA
(2011) and 1.4% by Hansen (2012). The reaction with SO2 will make the seawater acidic, and the neutralisation is made either
on board the ship through mixing with more seawater or outside the ship. The acidic water is neutralised by reactions with
bicarbonates and other substances in the sea water which results in a release of CO2, approximately 1.2 g CO2 is released for
every g SO2 dissolved in sea water (Williams, 2010). The scrubber water can also be purified from solid particles before being
re-emitted into the sea.
In the closed loop scrubbers the buffer capacity, i.e. alkalinity, is enhanced by addition of sodium hydroxide. Also closed
loop scrubbers have to exchange a small amount of the water in order to avoid accumulation of impurities in the water. A
discharge at a continuous level of 0.1–0.3 m3 per MWh is typical and the water is purified before being emitted into the sea
thus producing a sludge that needs to be left in ports. The scrubber may be used in a completely closed mode for shorter
periods (USEPA, 2011). The additional fuel consumption is usually about 0.5%.
Scrubbing installations have been used as a pretreatment for production of inert gas on board (USEPA, 2011), but also for
part flows in combination to EGR when using high sulphur fuel. Investigations of the scrubber chemistry and function for
achieving the goal set by use of 1.5% sulphur fuel have also been performed (Andreasen and Mayer, 2007). An SO2 reduction
efficiency of 93% was reported in a recent laboratory study (Caiazzo et al., 2012) and 65–94% in a compilation of literature
data (Kjølholt et al., 2012). For closed loop, freshwater scrubbers efficiencies of up to 97% have been reported (USEPA, 2011).
The use of fresh water (open loop) scrubbers will ensure a high reduction independent of the sea water quality (USEPA,
2011), but will require successively more water with lower alkalinity. Further, in certain regions with potentially sensitive
waters, e.g. the Baltic Sea, it may prove necessary to use closed loop scrubbers to avoid excessive environmental load by dis-
charge of acidic scrubber water to the environment. At the moment documented operational experience of closed loop
scrubbers for marine applications remains very limited. Additionally, from the period 2016 to 2021 and onwards new built
ships also have to comply with the NOX Tier III requirement in ECAs, with the related introduction and use of NOX abatement
technologies.

2.3. SCRs

In NOX SCR the reduction takes place over a base metal catalyst with ammonia as a reducing agent in reactions that effec-
tively reduce NOX to N2 and water. The ammonia is normally supplied from a water solution of urea that is sprayed into the
exhaust where the urea decomposes to form ammonia. There is a risk for ammonia emissions, ‘‘slip’’, why an additional oxi-
dation catalyst sometimes is added.
The SCR technique is used on land in power plants and also for road traffic and other diesel engines. Extensive research
has been devoted towards SCR, with urea as reducing agent, for heavy duty vehicles during the last 15–20 years, while little
research has been focusing on marine applications. Additionally, it should be noted that there are significant differences con-
sidering the operational conditions for truck and marine SCR applications, such as engine type (two-stroke and four-stroke)
and size, sulphur concentration in the fuel, and lube oil quality and consumption. Magnusson et al. (2012) investigated the
influence of sulphur, water and low temperature on a commercially available SCR, with urea as reducing agent, for marine
applications and it was concluded that high NOX reduction levels, above 90%, could be achieved at temperatures above
300 °C.
According to IMO (IMO, 2013b) regulation 13, paragraph 10, the organization shall no later than 2013 review the status of
the technological development to implement the Tier III NOX emission standard. Accordingly, at IMO MEPC 62 in 2011 it was
agreed to establish a correspondence group (IMO, 2011), which should provide an interim report to MEPC 64 (IMO, 2012a,
2013b) and submit a final report to MEPC 65 (IMO, 2013c, 2013d). The final report (IMO, 2013c) acknowledge that SCR has
been installed and operated on a great number of ships. International Association for Catalytic Control of Ship Emission to Air
(IACCSEA) has provided a list with more than 500 vessels with SCR (IMO, 2013d), while other references in the final report
states that there are more than 1000 vessels equipped with SCR. The majority of the installations are on four-stroke engines,
but with an increasing number of installations on slow-speed two-stroke engines. One engine manufacturer notes that they
installed SCR on two-stroke engines for three RoRo vessels in 1999/2000, which now have been in operation for more than
10 years and show NOX levels below 2 g/kW h. However, three general technical SCR issues of concern are highlighted in the
report (IMO, 2013c). Firstly, low temperature operation, i.e. at engine loads below 25%, with the result that the SCR cannot
operate optimally and can therefore not achieve the desired NOX reduction. Further, at lower exhaust gas temperatures
ammonium sulphates may form and deposit on the catalyst causing lower NOX reduction and increased back pressure.
The final report, and references therein, notes that for low sulphur fuel, 0.1 wt% S, the minimum operational temperatures
is about 270–300 °C, and for fuels with higher sulphur content it is above 300 °C. For two-stroke engines this could mean that
the SCR unit has to be installed upstream of the turbo, where the exhaust gas temperature is higher. Secondly, catalyst dete-
rioration by poisoning and fouling by soot, ash and ammonium sulphates are resulting in reduced NOX reduction and in-
creased ammonia slip. Different strategies and technologies to avoid deterioration were noted, such as only using the SCR
in ECAs, only using low sulphur fuels of 0.10 wt% S or lower in combination to SCR, and turning off the system at predeter-
mined low exhaust gas temperatures. Thirdly, potential ammonia slip due to catalyst deterioration or inadequately tuned
 S. Brynolf et al. / Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18 9

urea dosage system. One proposal was to measure either NOX or ammonia after the SCR, with less than 10 ppm ammonia
being acceptable. Anyhow, it was noted that at present the ammonia is not a controlled parameter under MARPOL Annex
VI. The corresponded group concludes (IMO, 2013c) that SCR will be able to meet Tier III as a sole emission reduction strategy
for the vast majority of all marine engines and vessel applications.

2.4. Liquefied natural gas

LNG contains almost no sulphur and the combustion conditions in lean burn engines result in significantly lower NOX
emissions compared to marine diesel engines, mainly as a result of reduced peak temperatures during combustion (Doug,
2010). An average NOX emission factor of 5.6 kg NOX/ton LNG was compiled based on measurement of five gas fuelled ships
in Norway (Nielsen and Stenersen, 2010). The LNG propelled ships in operation in Norway are either equipped with lean
burn gas engines or dual fuel engines. The gas engines are based on spark plug ignition (Doug, 2010). Dual fuel engines
can run in either gas mode or diesel mode. In gas mode, the engine works according to the lean burn Otto principle, but
the lean air mixture is ignited by the injection of a small amount of diesel fuel, i.e. pilot fuel, into the combustion chamber
instead of a spark plug. In diesel mode, the engine works according to the normal diesel cycle with diesel fuel injected at high
pressure just before top dead centre. Gas admission is deactivated but pilot diesel fuel is still injected (Doug, 2010).
The ‘‘methane slip’’, unburned methane emitted from gas and dual fuel engines, is important to consider since it has a
great impact on the global warming potential. This is caused by the 25 times higher global warming potential (GWP) of
CH4 than of CO2 over a 100-year perspective (IPCC, 2007). The different engine concepts have different methane slip, with
the highest methane slip reported for the lean burn dual fuel concept. The emissions of methane can be very high at low
engine loads, up to 15% (Nielsen and Stenersen, 2010). More than 90% reduction of the methane slip may be possible with
an oxidation catalyst, but this have so far not been tested (Järvi, 2010). Other problems with use of LNG are the lack of infra-
structure and increased investment cost compared to traditional fuels.

3. Practical experiences from marine SCR installations in Sweden

The Swedish Maritime Administration introduced environmentally differentiated fairway dues in Swedish waters in the
late 90ies. The instrument was designed as a financial incentive to encourage reduced NOX emissions from vessels, by offer-
ing a stepwise reduction in the fairway due as a function of the NOX emission as g NOX/kW h from the vessel (Swedish Mar-
itime Administration, 1998a, 1998b). The stepwise function started at 12 g NOX/kW h and reached a maximum reduction at
2 g NOX /kW h. However, the system has been revised several times (Swedish Maritime Administration, 2004, 2006), with
the latest version (Swedish Maritime Administration, 2008, 2012a, 2012b) having a stepwise reduction in the fee starting
below 6 g NOX/kW h and reaching a maximum reduction at 0.4 g NOX/kW h.
In order to be granted reduced fairway dues, the shipping company must comply with some specified requirements
(Swedish Maritime Administration, 1998b, 2004, 2012b). First, the NOX emissions should be measured in accordance with
the international standard ISO 8178 considering the test cycle for each engine type and the IMO Technical Code on Control
of Emission of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines (IMO, 2008). Second, the NOX emissions should be measured at
75% of the maximum rated power for all main engines (ME), and at 50% for all auxiliary engines (AUX), respectively. A total
weighted NOX emission factor should then be calculated for the entire ship. This value is later used as the key figure in the
application for reduced fairway dues. Third, the ammonia slip should be measured in the exhaust gas funnel after the SCR
and was originally not allowed to exceed 10 ppm NH3 (Swedish Maritime Administration, 1998b, 2004), but later revised to
20 ppm NH3 (Swedish Maritime Administration, 2012b). Fourth, evidence of use has to be provided by, for example, reading
of urea consumption and provision of urea purchase notes. Finally, the exhaust gas measurements, i.e. NOX and NH3, and the
calculated weighted g NOX/kW h for the ship have to be submitted on a certain application form to the Swedish Maritime
Administration, whereafter reduced fairway dues may be granted if the weighted NOX emission is below 6 g NOX/kW h.
The exhaust gas measurement has to be renewed every third year along with a new application.
Since this system has been in force for about 15 years it provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the practical effective-
ness of installed marine SCR systems. The measured NOX emissions, from both main and auxiliary engines, for all vessels
with an installed marine SCR were compiled in the second half of 2009, together with, when available, the recorded sulphur
concentrations in the fuels used and the ammonia slip. It should be noted that due to the requirement of renewing the appli-
cation every third year, one individual ship may occur several times, but every single measurement point (n) is unique and
constitutes the measured NOX emissions from one specific engine at one point in time. The result is shown in Fig. 1, and it can
be noted that the majority of the measured NOX emissions were already below the IMO Tier III level (note that the measure-
ment procedure is somewhat different for Tier III testing which, for example, includes a low load point).
Additionally, the majority of all measured ammonia slips were below 20 ppm and there was no observed correlation be-
tween the NOX levels and the magnitude of this slip. This underlines the technical possibility of reaching high NOX reduction
in combination with low ammonia slip. Furthermore, the NOX measurements have been performed for vessels operating on
different marine fuels, with a sulphur content up to 2 wt%. Again, the data showed no clear correlation between the sulphur
content in the fuel and the NOX reduction achieved.
10 S. Brynolf et al. / Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18

Fig. 1. IMO NOX emission regulation and measured NOX emissions in accordance with Swedish environmental differentiated fairway dues.

4. Environmental assessment of selected alternatives

The environmental performance of the three selected alternatives to comply with ECA regulations, i.e. sulphur content
and NOX Tier III, are evaluated using life cycle assessment (LCA). The data is mainly based on previous studies (Bengtsson
et al., 2011a; Bengtsson et al., 2012), but some modifications and improvements have been made. These are explained in
detail in Subsection 4.1 below.

4.1. Goal and scope

LCA is a tool for environmental assessment of products and services during the whole life cycle of the product or service.
This study compares transportation of one tonne of cargo one km with a RoRo vessel for the three fuels/abatement alterna-
tives studied. The studied system includes acquisition of raw materials, production, transportation and storage. The flows of
emissions and the resource use for each process in the life cycle are sorted into different impact categories depending on
their environmental impact. The recommended characterisation factors from the International Reference Life Cycle Data Sys-
tem (ICLD) handbook have been used (IES, 2012). An overview of the methodological choices is presented in Table 1. The
reference case is ship propulsion with four-stroke diesel engines fuelled with HFO with 2.7 wt% sulphur content and no
abatement technologies. The life cycle performance for HFO is modelled according to Bengtsson et al. (2011a). This is then
compared with the three selected alternatives that are assumed to comply with 0.1% sulphur in the fuel and the NOX Tier III
requirement (2.5 g NOX per kW h at 500 rpm): (i) HFO propulsion combined with SCR and open loop sea water scrubber, (ii)
MGO propulsion combined with SCR and (iii) LNG propulsion.
The fuel consumption of the RoRo vessel for the different alternatives is presented in Table 2. The LNG alternative is as-
sumed to have a slightly reduced cargo capacity. Original calculations of the fuel consumption for LNG are presented in Ben-
gtsson et al. (2011b). The use of scrubbers could possibly also affect the cargo capacity, especially for retrofits. This will vary
between vessels and is not considered here.
Dual fuel engines are chosen in the model to be used for LNG propulsion and the methane slip is set to 3 wt%. This is high-
er than what was used in a previous assessment (Bengtsson et al., 2011a, 2012), but still lower than measurements from
existing ships operating in Norway (Nielsen and Stenersen, 2010). Nielsen and Stenersen (2010) suggest an emission factor
of 80 kg CH4 per tonne LNG (8%) for dual fuel engines. In addition, the two most common types of engines (dual fuel and
spark ignition gas engines) are compared in the analysis of how the methane slip contributes to global warming potential
(see data in Table 2). Nielsen and Stenersen (2010) suggest an average emission factor of 5.6 kg NOX per tonne LNG (approx-
imately 0.12 g/MJ LNG) and this figure is used in this study.
An open loop scrubber is chosen in the model and it reduces the emissions of SO2 from HFO with 2.7 wt% sulphur content
to the same levels as the SO2 emissions from a fuel with 0.10 wt% sulphur content. The reduction required by the scrubber
unit is thus 96%. The urea dosage for the SCR alternatives is calculated so that the Tier III requirement is fulfilled, which for
the chosen engine represents 2.5 g NOX/kW h.
Table 1
Overview of the methodological choices.

Functional unit One tonne cargo transported one kilometre (km) with a RoRo vessel
Time horizon 2010–2020
Geographical The SECAs in northern Europe (the English Channel, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea)
boundaries
System boundaries The study includes all activities from raw material extraction to the release of waste to the environment, e.g. from cradle to propeller. Production of lubrication oil is not included in

S. Brynolf et al. / Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18

the system nor is waste treatment of oil sludge and used lubrication oil. Manufacturing of capital goods is not included in this study, e.g. the manufacturing of the vessel
Investigated options (Base) Heavy fuel oil (HFO), (1) heavy fuel oil (HFO) in combination with an SCR and a open loop sea water scrubber, (2) marine gas oil (MGO) in combination with an SCR, and (3)
liquefied natural gas (LNG)
Data sources HFO and MGO: The data for the HFO and MGO from raw material extraction to fuel production are from the ELCD core database version II (2010a, b). The data for the exhaust
emissions from the ship are from Cooper and Gustafsson (2004) and NTM (2008) for the diesel fuels
LNG: The data for LNG production are mainly from the JEC well to wheel study (JEC 2008a, b). 50% of the LNG is assumed to be produced in Norway (350 nautical miles) and 50% in
Qatar (7000 nautical miles). Emission factors are based on personal communication with Wärtsilä and presented in Bengtsson et al. (2012). A 3 wt% methane slip has been assumed
in the base analysis, but emissions factors from measurements on Norwegian vessels (Nielsen and Stenersen, 2010) are also used as a supplement
Sea water scrubber: A 2% increased energy use is assumed when using scrubbers. The power requirement for scrubbers is estimated to vary between 1% and 3% of the engine
capacity (Kjølholt et al., 2012). The scrubber unit is modelled to remove 96% and 25% of the sulphur dioxide and the particles, respectively (Lövblad and Fridell, 2006)
SCR: It is assumed that the SCR unit reduces the NOX emissions to 2.5 g/kW h; approximately 19 and 18 g 40 wt% urea solution per kW h is here assumed to be needed for the
reduction for HFO and MGO, respectively. The same emission factors as without an SCR are used except for NOX and NH3; the emission of NH3 is assumed to be 0.025 g/kW h
(Cooper, 2001). Data for the production and transportation of urea are from a study by Andersson and Winnes (2011) and included in the well to tank inventory. The emission of
CO2 from the use of urea is included in the data for production of urea (Davis and Haglund, 1999)
Allocation The impacts of heavy fuel oil and marine gas oil production have been allocated after each sub process in the refinery based on lower heating value of the streams (ELCD core
database version II, 2010a, b)
Impact categories (1) Total primary energy use (MJ/tonne km), (2) global warming potential (g CO2-eq/tonne km), (3) particulate matter (g PM2.5/tonne km), (4) photochemical ozone formation (g
C2H4-eq./tonne km), (5) acidification potential (mole H+-eq./tonne km), (6) terrestrial eutrophication potential (mole N-eq./tonne km), (7) marine eutrophication potential (tonne
N-eq./tonne km). Characterisation factors from the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ICLD) handbook have been used (IES, 2012), at midpoint level
Included primary (1) Carbon dioxide (CO2), (2) carbon monoxide (CO), (3) nitrogen oxides (NOX), (4) nitrous oxide (N2O), (5) sulphur dioxide (SO2), (6) methane (CH4), (7) ammonia (NH3), (8)
pollutants particulate matter (PM10) and (9) non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC)
Limitations It has not be possible to consider the increased energy use in refineries for producing MGO after 2015 since data for all environmental flows were not available. The CO2 emissions
are estimated to increase with approximately 7 g/MJ MGO based on Avis and Birch (2009), when allocating the total increase in CO2 to the production of MGO. Furthermore, open
loop sea water scrubbers discharge the scrubber water in the open sea, thereby indirectly releasing CO2 to the atmosphere. Approximately 2 mol of CO2 is formed for every mole of
SO2 released. This would increase the CO2 emissions from use of scrubbers with approximately 1.5 g/MJ HFO combusted and is not included in the LCA. The bunkering of fuels is
not considered as it is assumed to be similar for all alternatives, and was shown to not have a significant impact on the results (Bengtsson et al., 2011a)

11
12 S. Brynolf et al. / Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18

Table 2
Characteristics of the RoRo vessel by energy carrier.

RoRo vessel fuelled by RoRo vessel fuelled by HFO RoRo vessel fuelled by RoRo vessel fuelled by LNG
HFO with SCR and scrubber MGO with SCR
Characteristics of the propulsion system
Total engine power (kW) 14,680 14,680 14,680 14,680 14,680
Engine type Medium speed four- Medium speed four-stroke Medium speed four- Dual fuel engine (1% Spark ignition
stroke diesel engine diesel engine stroke diesel engine MGO as pilot fuel) gas engine
Engine efficiency (%) 41 41 41 41 41
Engine speed 500 rpm 500 rpm 500 rpm 500 rpm 500 rpm
Engine load (%) 85 85 85 85 85
Cargo capacity (tonne) 7500 7500a 7500 7200 7200
Load factor (%) 88 88 88 88 88
Average amount of loaded 6600 6600 6600 6336 6336
cargo (tonne)
Speed (knots) 18 18 18 18 18
Vessel efficiency (kW h 0.0568 0.0568 0.0568 0.0591 0.0591
work/tonne km)
Inputs to the propulsion system
Fuel (MJ/tonne km) 0.4987 0.5087 0.4987 0.5189 0.5189
Urea (g/MJ) 0 0.86 0.80 0 0
Emissions to air from combustion
CH4 (g/MJ) 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.62b (1.65c) 0.91c
CO (g/MJ) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3
CO2 (g/MJ) 79 79 (80d) 75 (76d) 57 57
NOX (g/MJ) 1.60 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.12
N2O (g/MJ) 0.004 0.004 0.004 – –
NH3 (g/MJ) 0.0003 0.0029 0.0029 – –
NMVOC (g/MJ) 0.056 0.056 0.059 – –
PM10 (g/MJ) 0.093 0.070 0.011 0.004 0.004
SO2 (g/MJ) 1.33 0.049 0.047 0.001 0.0001
a
The use of a scrubber on board may reduce the cargo capacity of the vessel.
b
Represents 3% methane slip from the engine.
c
A weighted emission factor based on ISO 8178/IMO NOX Technical Code weighting by Nielsen and Stenersen (2010), representing an average methane
slip of 8% and 4.4% for dual fuel and spark ignition gas engines, respectively.
d
Data in parenthesis represents emission factors including the CO2 emissions from urea decomposition to ammonia and CO2. This is included in the urea
production in this study.

4.2. Results

The results for the life cycle environmental impact for HFO propulsion and the three selected alternatives that comply
with the ECA regulation are presented in Fig. 2. The figure illustrates the contribution to the impact categories climate
change, particulate matter, photochemical ozone formation, acidification and terrestrial eutrophication from the different
processes in the life cycle of the respective fuels. It is shown that it is the combustion of fuels in marine engines that is dom-
inating in the life cycle for all impact categories.
The impact on climate change is similar for all four compared alternatives. The use of HFO with a scrubber and an SCR has
slightly higher impact on climate change while the use of MGO with an SCR and the use of LNG have slightly lower impact on
climate change. The use of an SCR is shown to slightly increase the impact on climate change. The three alternatives that
comply with the most stringent ECA regulations show significantly reduced life cycle environmental impact (around or over
80% reduction) for the impact categories particulate matter, photochemical ozone formation, acidification and terrestrial
eutrophication compared to use of HFO.
The 3% methane slip assumed for the dual fuel engine used for LNG propulsion still makes the climate impact of LNG
slightly lower than for the other alternatives. Fig. 3 shows the climate impact divided into the different contributing climate
gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O) and the impact of the methane slip from marine gas engines on LNG’s climate performance. The
use of LNG is the alternative with the lowest impact on climate change if the methane slip from the engine is eliminated, but
has the highest climate impact of the compared options in this study if the methane slip is 4 wt% or more.
SCR is shown to be a good way to reduce the NOX emissions from marine engines. However, the potential ammonia slip,
from urea, could be a problem. Fig. 4 shows how the life cycle environmental impact for three impact categories is affected
by the dosage of urea. The injected urea in the SCR is decomposed to ammonia and CO2. When injecting more than 23 g
40 wt% urea solution per kW h (i.e., over stoichiometric in relation to NOX), there is a risk of a slip of ammonia (assuming
no ammonia oxidation catalyst is fitted). This could potentially eliminate the positive effect with use of an SCR as 1 g of
ammonia has 9, 4, 3, and 4 times higher particulate matter potential, acidification potential, terrestrial eutrophication
potential and marine eutrophication potential, respectively, compared to 1 g of NOX with the characterisation factors used
in this study. The data in Fig. 4 show the results for a case where the ammonia slip is proportional to the over dosage of urea.
 S. Brynolf et al. / Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18 13

Fig. 2. Summary of the LCA results showing the potential environmental impact for the investigated impact categories for HFO, (1) HFO, representing HFO
combined with a scrubber and an SCR, (2) MGO, representing MGO combined with an SCR, and (3) LNG. Each impact category is normalised to the impact of
HFO for that category (100% represents 4.4 E-05g CO2-eq./tonne km, 5.8 E-08g PM2.5/tonne km, 9.0E-07g C2H4-eq./tonne km, 1.5E-03 mol H+-eq./tonne km,
3.4E-03 mol N-eq./tonne km, respectively for the impact categories climate change, particulate matter, photochemical ozone formation, acidification and
terrestrial eutrophication).

Fig. 3. Life cycle global warming potential (GWP) in g CO2-eq./tonne km for the compared alternatives divided into the different contributing emissions and
the impact from use of LNG in dual fuel (DF) engines dependent on the CH4 slip from the engines. 1 HFO represents use of HFO combined with a scrubber
and an SCR, 2 MGO represents use of MGO combined with an SCR, 3a LNG represents use of LNG in DF engines with 0 wt% CH4 slip from the engine, 3b LNG
represents use of LNG in DF engines with 8 wt% CH4 slip from the engine and 3c LNG represents use of LNG in spark ignition (SI) gas engines with 4.4 wt%
CH4 slip from the engine.

Over dosage of urea combined with an oxidation catalyst that oxidises the ammonia to N2 would result in an almost flat
line from the dosage of 23–35 g 40 wt% of urea in Fig. 4. This implies that the oxidation catalyst is well designed and avoids
the further oxidation of ammonia to NOX. The increased use of urea would then only lead to a slightly increased impact due
to production and transportation of urea. If the oxidation catalysts instead convert ammonia to NOX this would only result in
a slightly lower impact as compared to without oxidation catalysts, shown in Fig. 4.
14 S. Brynolf et al. / Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18

Fig. 4. The impact of the dosage of 40 wt% urea solution when no oxidation catalysts are fitted, i.e. all excess ammonia is released to air, to the impact
categories terrestrial eutrophication potential, acidification potential and particulate matter potential for (1) HFO, representing HFO combined with a
scrubber and an SCR and (2) MGO, representing MGO combined with an SCR and (3) LNG compared to HFO.

Fig. 4 shows that it is possible to reduce the terrestrial eutrophication potential for use of HFO by combining with a scrub-
ber and an SCR or by using MGO combined with an SCR to below the level obtained from the use of LNG. Furthermore, the
acidification potential is reduced to the same level as with use of LNG, while the particulate matter formation potential is less
affected by the use of an SCR. The use of an SCR will also increase the emissions of CO2 in the exhaust gas slightly (around 1%
(representing from 79 and 75 g CO2/MJ to 80 and 76 g CO2/MJ for HFO and MGO, respectively)) if the dosage of urea is cor-
rectly calibrated. This CO2 emission is accounted for in the calculations in the data for production of urea.

5. Discussion

All the three selected alternatives to comply with the strictest ECA regulations show reduced environmental impact in the
fuel life cycle; except for the impact on climate change which is not reduced compared to HFO. Thus, this shows that reg-
ulating the emissions of NOX and SO2 during combustion also have a positive effect in the whole fuel life cycle.
Considering the result illustrated in Fig. 1 it is evident that the practical experiences of marine SCR show high NOX reduc-
tion levels, which already are in line with IMO Tier III levels, in combination with low ammonia slip and a wide range of
sulphur concentrations in the fuel. However, the NOX measurements presented in Fig. 1 have been done at 75% load for main
engines, and at 50% for auxiliary engines, respectively, while the IMO Tier III will require a test procedure including several
measurements in the range 25–100% load. The low load points and the related low exhaust gas temperatures may prove a
challenge for the SCR. However, it seems clear that marine SCR has reached a technical maturity and is to be considered as a
viable and effective technology to meet the upcoming IMO Tier III regulation which will be enforced in ECAs from the period
2016 to 2021 and onwards. Additionally, it is possible to reach high NOX reduction levels in combination with low ammonia
slip. The impact of increased ammonia slip due to increased dosage of urea, shown in Fig. 4, underlines the importance of
regulating the ammonia slip, as increased slip will reduce, and ultimately outweigh, the positive benefits of reducing the
NOX emissions from marine engines by the use of an SCR.
In view of the results presented in Fig. 3, it is evident that the methane slip from marine engines needs to be regulated in
order to assure that the life cycle climate impact from use of LNG in shipping will not increase compared to the situation
today. The methane slip has a profound influence on the climate impact of use of LNG and high slip levels have been reported
from LNG propelled vessel in Norway. Still, the use of LNG with a methane slip of 2% or lower could contribute to decreasing
the climate impact from shipping.
In the LCA study it is assumed that it is possible to combine an SCR unit with a scrubber. This may be complicated due to
the sulphur dependent temperature requirements to avoid deactivation and ensuring efficient operation of the SCR,
 S. Brynolf et al. / Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18 15

e.g. 300 °C at 0.1 wt% S. There may be three general ways of combining the two technologies. First, install the SCR before the
wet scrubber, i.e. maintaining high exhaust gas temperatures, while exposing the catalyst to high sulphur concentrations.
However, placing the SCR before the scrubber may move the scrubber further up in the funnel, with potentially reduced ship
stability as a result. Second, placing the SCR after the wet scrubber to avoid the sulphur, which will require a significant
reheating of the exhaust gases before entering the SCR, thereby increasing the fuel consumption. Third, a combination of
a dry scrubber followed by an SCR, which may allow high exhaust gas temperatures and reduced sulphur concentrations
before the SCR, but will require a continuous use of sulphur adsorption chemicals and the need to exchange these after a
certain operational time, which may prove the dry scrubber to be more expensive than the wet scrubber. Independently
of the three options, the total back pressure of the systems has to be considered in order to allow an efficient operation
of the marine engine. However, in the present LCA study the combination of wet scrubber and SCR is assumed to be possible
without any extra fuel consumption. A fuel penalty would increase the environmental impact from use of HFO combined
with an SCR and a scrubber relative to the other alternatives.
LCA is a systematic tool that can be used to evaluate the environmental performance of products and services and can, for
example, be used to identify which impacts are the most important in the life cycle. However, as always when dealing with
future systems, there are uncertainties, e.g. due to lack of knowledge. Four important modelling choices will be highlighted
below. First, comparing HFO combined with a scrubber and an SCR to MGO combined with an SCR show quite similar climate
impact during the life cycle (Fig. 2). This, however, connects to a debated issue; whether it is best to reduce the sulphur con-
tent in marine fuels at the refineries or on board the vessels with a scrubber. In this study, data for HFO and MGO production
for 2003 is used, and do not consider the increased energy use required for producing more low sulphur fuels in 2015. Based
on the study by Avis and Birch (2009), it is estimated that the increased CO2 emissions for producing MGO compared with
HFO will be approximately 7 g/MJ in 2015 when MGO is used in SECA areas. Adding this to the calculations would result in
47 g CO2-eq./tonne km (compared to 43 g CO2-eq./tonne km) for MGO. This can be compared to the climate impact for use of
HFO combined with an open loop scrubber and an SCR which is increased to 47 g CO2/tonne km (from 46 g CO2/tonne km)
when also including the release of CO2 from the buffering of SO2 in the oceans.
Second, the weight and space requirements of the different alternatives are very uncertain and will also vary from vessel
to vessel. This will have an impact on the amount of energy that is needed to transport one tonne of cargo one km. Here it is
assumed that the use of LNG will reduce the cargo capacity by 4% compared to the other alternatives. If no penalty would be
assumed for the use of LNG this would reduce the GWP from 43 to 42 g CO2-eq./tonne km (in the base scenario, 3% CH4 slip
and dual fuel engine). It is also possible that a scrubber will affect the stability of the vessel thereby reducing the cargo capac-
ity. In order to assess the potential impact of reduced cargo capacity for the scrubber, a case with a 2% decreased cargo capac-
ity is assessed. This results in an increased environmental impact from use of HFO combined with an open loop scrubber and
an SCR with 2% for all impact categories. The GWP for HFO combined with a scrubber is then 6% higher compared to the use
of HFO without any exhaust gas abatement technologies.
Third, in the present LCA study it is assumed that half of the LNG is transported from Qatar and half from Norway. Assum-
ing a shorter transportation distance for LNG would decrease the environmental impact of LNG slightly, but not change the
overall result. This can be seen in Bengtsson et al. (2011a), where these two different transport distances for LNG are com-
pared. Today, the natural gas imports to Europe come mainly from Africa, Middle East, Russia and Norway (Schori and Fris-
chknecht, 2012), this might change in the future and could then also change the life cycle environmental impact for the use
of LNG.
Fourth, the emission factors used for the three alternatives are more uncertain than for the existing vessels operating to-
day. The uncertainty of the methane slip from marine engines has already been discussed above. The use of a scrubber is
assumed to reduce the emissions of particles with 25 wt%. This is very uncertain and more tests need to be done on marine
scrubber installations in order to establish this value.
The ECA regulations for sulphur content in marine fuels in 2015 as well as Tier III for NOX, from the period 2016 to 2021
and onwards, are the most stringent existing exhaust emission regulations in force in shipping today, but even stricter reg-
ulation may be introduced in the future. Road transportation in Europe has, for example, much stricter regulation today. The
maximum sulphur content in road based fuels is 10 ppm (European Commission, 2009) thus 100 times lower than the ECA
sulphur regulation in 2015. Even if further lowering of the sulphur levels for marine fuels seem unrealistic today, the impact
on air quality and on abatement systems may change this situation in the future.
Furthermore, the strictest regulation for heavy-duty diesel engines (Euro VI, January 2013) will limit the NOX emissions to
0.40–0.46 g/kW h which is significantly lower than the Tier III limits. However, the focus for reducing NOX emissions from
shipping today should be on the formation of more NOX-ECAs and on policy instruments to reduce the emissions from the
existing fleet through the promotion of the use of retrofitted SCR units or other measures. Use of pure LNG will already today
comply with the 10 ppm sulphur regulation for road fuels, but will need engine modifications or exhaust abatement to re-
duce the NOX emissions further down to 0.40–0.46 g/kW h, i.e. equivalent to Euro VI. The SCR could possibly reduce the NOX
emissions to the Euro VI levels, but will require certain attention to the combination of exhaust gas temperature and the fuel
sulphur content in order to avoid catalytic deactivation and to ensure efficient NOX reduction.
Additionally, the ECA regulations, as of today, do not include any quantitative emission standards for PM, while this has
been incorporated in the Euro standards for trucks, non-road machinery and inland waterway vessels. The PM emissions for
international shipping are only regulated indirectly through the sulphur levels in the fuel. This may prove to be insufficient if
16 S. Brynolf et al. / Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18

further reductions in PM emissions than what is achieved from a switch to MGO are needed. Specific levels for PM emissions
may lead to the development of PM abatement technologies for marine engines.
The payback time of the possible ECA compliance solutions is an important factor considered by ship owners when select-
ing the fuel system. However, the payback time is very dependent on the specific circumstances, e.g. operation hours inside
ECAs, the cost difference between different fuels, and the installation and operational costs for abatement technologies.
Using cost values from the Danish Maritime Authority (2012b), when it comes to investment costs, MGO in combination
with SCR seems to be the least expensive option. However, there is also a need to consider estimations of future fuel prices
which are of course difficult to predict. Future price scenarios for HFO, MGO and LNG have been estimated to around
520 Euro/tonne HFO, 600–1200 Euro/tonne MGO and 315–600 Euro/tonne LNG (Danish Maritime Authority, 2012a;
Klimt-Møllenbach et al., 2012), as has urea prices in the range 150–250 Euro/m3 (Bosch et al., 2009). Furthermore, the
net-present value of the three compliance options was investigated in a case study for the cases with HFO combined with
a freshwater scrubber and an SCR; for MGO combined with an SCR; and for LNG with dual fuel engines respectively (Madsen
and Olsson, 2012). HFO combined with a freshwater scrubber and an SCR was shown to be least expensive solution. This is
also supported by Klimt-Møllenbach et al. (2012), who only investigated compliance with 0.1% sulphur in the fuel for an
existing tanker vessel. They reported lower cost for HFO combined with a scrubber than for LNG, but highlighted that the
payback period for the scrubber is sensitive to the spread between the HFO and the MGO price. Hence, when considering
possible ECA compliance strategies, i.e. fuels and/or abatement technologies individually or in combination, it is of impor-
tance to have an understanding of the estimated operational activity inside and outside of ECAs, and on that basis investigate
and evaluate the total cost for different ECA compliance alternatives, e.g. fuel cost, investment, installation and operational
costs related to abatement technologies, and costs related to potentially reduced cargo capacity. The evaluation may become
further complicated by potential difficulties in estimating future fuel costs and the spread between different fuel prices.

6. Conclusions

This study shows that there exist several solutions to comply with the coming ECA regulations, i.e. sulphur content and
NOX Tier III. MGO is an accepted fuel in shipping today and LNG is used on a number of vessels in Norway. SCR systems have
been used on a number of ships already and have been proven to reduce NOX emissions satisfactory, with practical experi-
ence already reaching Tier III levels. The scrubbers have so far mainly been used on land based applications. To date, only a
few scrubber installations have been completed in shipping and their performance needs to be verified further.
Three alternatives have been assessed in more detail: HFO combined with a scrubber and an SCR, MGO combined with an
SCR, and LNG. Neither of these alternatives will reduce the life cycle impact on climate change significantly compared to
HFO. However, all alternatives will reduce the impact on particulate matter, photochemical ozone formation, acidification
and terrestrial eutrophication potential in the life cycle.
The assessment also highlighted two important regulatory aspects: the need to regulate the ammonia slip from use of
SCRs and the methane slip from LNG engines. This is important in order to assure good environmental performance when
using these alternatives in shipping. Firstly, from experiences with the Swedish fairway dues it is evident that it is possible
to combine high reduction of NOX while keeping the ammonia slip below 20 ppm. Secondly, the methane slip, i.e. unburned
methane, could possibly be reduced with engine modifications or with oxidation catalysts. If the methane slip is limited to
2 wt% this would ensure that LNG has a lower impact on climate change in the life cycle compared to HFO in the present
situation.

Acknowledgements

Vinnova, the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, the Swedish Maritime Administration and Light-
house Maritime Competence Centre are gratefully acknowledged for their financial support.

References

Andersson, K., Winnes, H., 2011. Environmental trade-offs in nitrogen oxide removal from ship engine exhausts. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment 225 (1), 33–42.
Andreasen, A., Mayer, S., 2007. Use of seawater scrubbing for SO2 removal from marine engine exhaust gas. Energy and Fuels 21 (6), 3274–3279.
Avis, M.J., Birch, C.H., 2009. Impacts on the EU Refining Industry & Markets of IMO Specification Changes & Other Measures to Reduce the Sulphur Content of
Certain Fuels. Purvin & Gerts Inc.
Bengtsson, S., Andersson, K., Fridell, E., 2011a. A comparative life cycle assessment of marine fuels; liquefied natural gas and three other fossil fuels.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment 225 (M2), 97–110.
Bengtsson, S., Andersson, K., Fridell, E., 2011b. Life Cycle Assessment of Marine Fuels – A Comparative Study of Four Fossil Fuels for Marine Propulsion.
Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.
Bengtsson, S., Fridell, E., Andersson, K., 2012. Environmental assessment of two pathways towards the use of biofuels in shipping. Energy Policy 44, 451–
463.
Bosch, P., Coenen, P., Fridell, E., Åström, S., Palmer, T., Holland, M., 2009. Cost Benefit Analysis to Support the Impact Assessment accompanying the revision
of Directive 1999/32/EC on the Sulphur Content of certain Liquid Fuels, Final Report, AEA/ED45756/Issue 3 ed. AEA, Didcot, UK.
Bredeson, L., Quiceno-Gonzalez, R., Riera-Palou, X., Harrison, A., 2010. Factors driving refinery CO2 intensity, with allocation into products. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1–10.
Bruckner-Menchelli, N., 2011. US Navy Targets 2016 for Green Fuel use. Sustainable Shipping. Petromedia Ltd., <http://www.sustainableshipping.com>.
 S. Brynolf et al. / Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18 17

Buhaug, Ø., Corbett, J.J., Endresen, Ø., Eyring, V., Faber, J., Hanayama, S., Lee, D.S., Lee, D., Lindstad, H., Markowska, A.Z., Mjelde, A., Nelissen, D., Nilsen, J.,
Pålsson, C., Winebrake, J.J., Wu, W., Yoshida, K., 2009. Second IMO GHG Study 2009. International Maritime Organization, London, UK.
Caiazzo, G., Langella, G., Miccio, F., Scala, F., 2012. An experimental investigation on seawater SO2 scrubbing for marine application. Environmental Progress
and Sustainable Energy 27 (4).
Cooper, D.A., 2001. Exhaust emissions from high speed passenger ferries. Atmospheric Environment 35 (24), 4189–4200.
Cooper, D., Gustafsson, T., 2004. Methodology for calculating emissions from ships: 1 Update of emission factors. Swedish Methodolgy for Environmental
data (SMED), Norrköping.
Danish Maritime Authority, 2012a. North European LNG Infrastructure Project – A Feasibility Study for an LNG Filling Station Infrastructure and Test of
Recommendations, Copenhagen.
Danish Maritime Authority, 2012b. North European LNG Infrastructure Project – A feasibility study for an LNG filling station infrastructure and test of
recommendations (Appendencies). The Danish Maritime Authority, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Davis, J., Haglund, C., 1999. Life cycle inventory (LCI) of fertiliser production: fertiliser products used in Sweden and Western Europe. SIK – Swedish institute
for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Doug, W., 2010. Dual-Fuel and Gas Engines, Pounder’s Marine Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines (ninth ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 41–60.
Einemo, U., 2013. Methanol sea Trial Expected to Start this Month, Sustainable Shipping. Petromedia Ltd., <http://www.sustainableshipping.com>.
ELCD core database version II, 2010a. Process data set: Heavy fuel oil; from crude oil; consumption mix, at refinery, 12th of March 2010 ed. European
Commission – Joint Reaserch Centre – LCA Tools, Services and Data.
ELCD core database version II, 2010b. Process data set: Light fuel oil; from crude oil; consumption mix, at refinery; 2000 ppm sulphur, 12th of March 2010
ed. European Commission – Joint Reaserch Centre – LCA Tools, Services and Data.
Endresen, O., Bakke, J., Sorgard, E., Berglen, T.F., Holmvang, P., 2005. Improved modelling of ship SO2 emissions – a fuel-based approach. Atmospheric
Environment 39 (20), 3621–3628.
European Commission, 2009. Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards
the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and amending Council
Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC (Text with EEA relevance).
Journal of the European Union.
Gallagher, T.L., 2010. Maersk to run biodiesel test. Journal of Commerce Online. Journal of Commerce, New York.
Hansen, J.P., 2012. Exhaust Gas Scrubber Installed Onboard MV Ficaria Seaways. Public Test Report Environmental Protection Agency. Danish Ministry of
Environment, København.
IES, 2012. Characterisation Factors of the ILCD Recommended Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods – Database and Supporting Information, first ed.
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Luxembourg.
IMO, 2008. Internantional Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, MEPC 58/23/Add.1, Annex 14, RESOLUTION MEPC.177(58).
Adopted on 10 October 2008, Amendments to the Technical Code on Controll of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines, (NOx
Technical Code 2008).
IMO, 2011. MEPC 62/24, Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its sixty-second session. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, London.
IMO, 2012a. MEPC 64/4/16, Air Pollution and Energy Efficiency, Interim Report of the Correspondence Group on Assessment of Technological Developments
to Implement the Tier III NOx Emission Standards under MARPOL Annex VI, Submitted by the United States of America. International Maritime
Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, London.
IMO, 2012b. MEPC 64/INF.8, Air Pollution and Energy Efficiancy, Supplementary Information to the Interim Report of the Correspondence Group on
Assessment of Technological Developments to Implement the Tier III NOx Emission Standards under MARPOL Annex VI, Submitted by the United States
of America. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Comittee, London.
IMO, 2013a. MARPOL ANNEX VI AND NTC 2008 WITH GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION, third ed., 2013. CPI Group (UK) Ltd., London.
IMO, 2013b. MARPOL Annex VI and NTC 2008 with Guidlines for Implementation, 2013 ed. International Maritime Organization, London.
IMO, 2013c. MEPC 65/4/7, Air Pollution and Energy Efficiancy, Final report of the Correspondence Group on Assessment of Technological Developments to
Implement the Tier III NOx Emission Standards under MARPOL Annex VI, Submitted by the United States. International Maritime Organization, Marine
Environment Protection Committee, London.
IMO, 2013d. MEPC 65/INF.10, Air Pollution and Energy Efficiancy, Supplementary Information to the final report of the Correspondence Group on
Assessment of Technological Developments to Implement the Tier III NOx Emission Standards under MARPOL Annex VI, Submitted by the United States.
International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee, London.
IMO, 2013e. Report of the Marine Environment Protection Comittee on its sixty-fifth session. International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment
Protection Committee, IMO, London.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment. In: Solomon, S.D., Qin, M.M., Chen,
Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L. (Eds.), Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p. 996.
Järvi, A., 2010. Methane slip reduction in Wärtsilä lean burn gas engines. In: 26th CIMAC World Congress on Combustion Engines, Bergen.
JEC, 2008a. Input Data NG 181108.xls, JEC Well-to-wheels study Joint Research Centre of the EU Commission, ECUAR and CONCAWE.
JEC, 2008b. Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context – Well-to-Tank Report Version 3.0 – Appendix 2.
JEC Well-to-wheels study Joint Research Centre of the EU Commission, ECUAR and CONCAWE.
Kjølholt, J., Aakre, S., Jürgensen, C., Lauridsen, J., 2012. Assessment of Possible Impacts of Scrubber Water Discharges on the Marine Environment.
Environmental Protection Agency, Danish Ministry of Environment, København.
Klimt-Møllenbach, C., Schack, C., Eefsen, T., Kat, J.D., 2012. Vessel Emission study: Comparison of Various Abatement Technologies to Meet Emission Levels
for ECAs’s. Geen Ship of the Future.
Lövblad, G., Fridell, E., 2006. Experiences from use of Some Techniques to Reduce Emissions from Ships. Profu, IVL Svenska miljöinstitutet, Gothenburg.
Madsen, S., Olsson, T.C., 2012. Cost-Efficient Emission Control Area Compliancy. Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim.
Magnusson, M., Fridell, E., Ingelsten, H.H., 2012. The influence of sulfur dioxide and water on the performance of a marine SCR catalyst. Applied Catalysis
Part B – Environmental 111, 20–26.
Nielsen, J.B., Stenersen, D., 2010. Emission factors for CH4, NOX, Particulates and Black Carbon for Domestic Shipping in Norway, Revision 1. Marintek, Klima
og forurensningsdirektoratet.
NTM, 2008. Environmental data for international cargo and passenger sea transport, Version 2008-10-18 ed. Nätverket för transporter och miljön.
Schori, S., Frischknecht, R., 2012. Life Cycle Inventory of Natural Gas Supply – Version 2012. ESU-services Ltd., Uster.
Swedish Maritime Administration, 1998a. Sjöfartsverkets föreskrifter om farledsavgift; SJÖFS 1998:12, Norrköping, Sweden (only available in Swedish).
Swedish Maritime Administration, 1998b. Sjöfartsverkets författningssamling, Sjöfartsverkets föreskrifter om villkor för miljödifferentierade
farledsavgifter; SJÖFS 1998:13, Norrköping, Sweden (only available in Swedish).
Swedish Maritime Administration, 2004. Sjöfartsverkets författningssamling, Sjöfartsverkets föreskrifter om ändringar i Sjöfartsverkets föreskrifter; (SJÖFS
1998:13) om villkor för miljödifferentierade farledsavgifter; SJÖFS 2004:27, Norrköping, Sweden (only available in Swedish).
Swedish Maritime Administration, 2006. Sjöfartsverkets författningssamling, Föreskrifter om ändring i Sjöfartsverkets föreskrifter (SJÖFS 2004:26) om
farledsavgift; SJÖFS 2006:44, Norrköping, Sweden (only available in Swedish).
Swedish Maritime Administration, 2008. Sjöfartsverkets författningssamling, Sjöfartsverkets föreskrifter om farledsavgifter; SJÖFS 2008:5, Norrköping,
Sweden (only available in Swedish).
18 S. Brynolf et al. / Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18

Swedish Maritime Administration, 2012a. Sjöfartsverkets författningssamling, Sjöfartsverkets föreskrifter om ändring i Sjöfartsverrket föreskrifter (SJÖFS
2008:5) om farledsavgift; SJÖFS 2012:7, Norrköping, Sweden [only available in Swedish].
Swedish Maritime Administration, 2012b. Sjöfartsverkets författningssamling, Sjöfartsverkets föreskrifter om villkor för miljödifferentierade farledsavgift;
SJÖFS 2012:9, Norrköping, Sweden (only available in Swedish).
USEPA, 2011. Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Effluent, Washington, USA.
Williams, P.J.l.B., 2010. The natural oceanic carbon and sulfur cycles: implications for SO2 and CO2 emissions from marine shipping. Underwater
Technology: The International Journal of the Society for Underwater 29 (1), 5–19.
Zin, C.T., 2009. Dry Scrubber ‘Successfully’ Tested at sea, Sustainable Shipping. Petromedia Ltd., <http://www.sustainableshipping.com>.