Appendix: Data and method description for calculations of emissions and abatement costsIntroduction

This appendix presents all data and equations used to calculate emissions and emission abatement costs. We present the equations and data in the order they appear in the method used. First we present the most important categories necessary for the calculations.

Parameters

Table A 1: Description of the main categories and parameters used in the calculations

Categories DescriptionShip types (s) Bulk carrier, Chemical tanker, Container ship, General Cargo, LG tanker, Oil tanker, RoRo

cargo, Ferry, CruiseConstruction year classes (vc) 0, I, II, III. Where 0 construction years = <2000, I = 2001 – 2010, II = 2011 – 2020, III = >2021Fuel types (f) Residual Oil (RO), Medium Distillates (MD), Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)Engine types (e) Slow Speed Diesel engine (SSD) (60-300 revolutions per minute (rpm)), Medium Speed Diesel

engine (MSD) (rpm 300-1000), High Speed Diesel engine (HSD) (rpm 1000 – 3000), Gas Turbine (GT), Steam Turbine (ST), Compressed Ignition (CI), Spark Ignition (SI)

Emission control tech (ct) Emission control technologies or low sulphur fuels. Includes NOx control solutions and SO2 control solutions

NOx control tect (nct) NOx emission control technologies corresponding to the Tier standards Tier I, II, IIIshnct Share of fuel use / CO2 emissions on which a specific nct is used, values are given in Table 3.SO2 control tech (sct) SO2 emission control technologies to achieve emissions corresponding to emissions from fuels

with 0.1% sulphur content (scrubber or low sulphur fuel)Traffic growth (tg) Increased transport demand for each ship typeEfficiency improvements (eff) Improved fuel efficiency of each ship typeLifetime of ships (ltsh) Average lifetime of ships.Lifetime of ships / technologies (ltt) Average lifetime of emission abatement tech.Engine Size (ez) Small, medium, large. See table A11 for specification.Ship shares (shf) Share of engine type, fuel type and engine size per ship type

Emission calculationsThe calculation of scenario-specific emissions starts with a progression of ship type specific CO2 emissions in 2030. The emissions are also disaggregated into CO2 emissions per NOx emission standard.

present the ship types used in the calculations, Table A 3 present the data used in the calculations of CO2 emissions from 1999 to 2030. Given that the data is given for the year 2009, the initial data for the starting year 1999 are calibrated so that the calculated values in 2009 match the data for 2009.

Table A 2: Aggregation of ship types (s)

Ship types in this paper Corresponding to Kalli et al. (2013) ship typesBulk carrier Bulk shipChemical tanker Product tanker + Chemical tankerContainer ship Reefer ships + Container shipGeneral Cargo General Cargo shipsLG tanker LNG tanker + LPG tankerOil tanker Crude oil tankerRoRo cargo RoRo ship + Vehicle carrierFerry RoPax shipCruise Cruise ship

Table A 3: CO2 emissions in 2009, # ships in 2009, average life times (ltsh), traffic growth (gr), and efficiency improvements (eff) per ship type (s). Based on Kalli et al. (2013)

Ship type (s)CO2 emissions 2009 [ktonne] # ships in 2009

Average life time (ltsh) [years]

Traffic growth (gr), [%]

Efficiency improvements (eff), [%]

Bulk carrier 2518 2316 26 1.5 1.9Chemical tanker 5544 2245 26 1.5 1.9Container ship 10060 1938 25.1 3.3 2.3General Cargo 5032 3350 26 1.5 1.27LG tanker 803 327 27.5 1.5 1.9Oil tanker 2779 835 26 1.5 1.9RoRo cargo 4682 719 27 1.5 2.25Ferry 8237 433 27 1.5 2.25Cruise 1159 127 27 1.5 2.25

Calculating CO2 emissions per ship type ( s ) and year ( t ) :

CO2s , t=CO2s , t−1∗(1+tg s)∗(1−eff s) (eq A1)

Calculating CO2 emissions from ship types ( s ) built in year ( t ) :

CO2−news , t=CO2s , t−1∗(1+ tgs )∗(1−eff s )

ltshs(eq A2)

Calculating phased out CO2 emissions from scrapped ship types ( s ) per year ( t ) :

CO2−scraps , t=CO2s , t−1

ltshs (eq A3)

Calculating total CO2 emissions for the ship type ( s ) ship age class ( vc ) that is constructed during year ( t ) :

CO2s , t,vc=CO2−news , t+ ∑

t=1999

t−1

(CO2s , t∈ vc∗(1+tgs )∗(1−eff s ) ) (eq A4)

Calculating total CO2 emissions in year ( t ) for the ship type ( s ), contruction year class ( vc -1 ) :

CO2s , t,vc−1=(1+tgs )∗(1−eff s )∗ ∑

t=1999

t−1

(CO2s , t ∈vc−1∗(1+tgs )∗(1−eff s )) (eq A5)

Calculating total CO2 emissions in year ( t ) for the ship type ( s ), construction year class ( vc -2 ) :

CO2s , t ,vc−2=CO2s ,t−CO2s ,t,vc−CO2s , t , vc−1 (eq A6)

Calculating total CO2 emissions from LNG vessels in year ( t ) for the ship type ( s ) :

CO2−LNGs , t=CO2−news , t

∗lnGshare∗LNGCO2−ratio+ ∑t=1999

t−1

(CO2−LNGs , t∗(1+grs)) (eq A7)

The term CO2-LNG indicates CO2 emissions from all LNG vessels and is calculated in eq A6.

Calculating CO2 emissions per nct for all conventional vessels in 2030 :

CO2s ,2030 ,nct=CO2s ,2030∗shnct s ,2030 ,nct (eq A8)

Calculating 2030 CO2 emissions aggregated per ship type (s) for conventional vessels in 2030:

CO22030=∑s ,nct

CO2s ,2030∗shnct s , 2030 ,nct(eq A9)

From this stage all calculations are made for the target year 2030. Consequently, the year index will be dropped from the equations from now on.

To correlate calculations on fuel use and emissions with calculations of emission abatement costs we need to re-aggregate and re-normalise existing data sets on the ship type-specific use of engines, fuels as well as engine sizes. The data sets in Table A 4 and Table A 5 are used as input to the re-aggregation:

Table A 4: % distribution of engine types for each ship type and engine size class, rounded numbers (% of # of ships) (Sjöbris et al., 2005)

Ship type (s)Engine type (e)

Engine size (ez)

Bulk carrier

Chemical tanker

Container ship

General Cargo

LG tanker

Oil tanker

RoRo cargo Ferry Cruise

SSD Small 7% 11% 4% 23% 18% 11% 9% 10% 6%

MSD Small 3% 16% 3% 26% 21% 16% 21% 20% 10%

HSD Small 3% 16% 3% 26% 21% 16% 21% 20% 10%

GT Small 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

ST Small 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Unknown* Small 2% 1% 0% 4% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2%

SSD Medium 73% 32% 26% 18% 21% 32% 8% 8% 9%

MSD Medium 3% 3% 8% 3% 2% 3% 27% 23% 12%

HSD Medium 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

GT Medium 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

ST Medium 1% 4% 2% 1% 1% 4% 0% 1% 4%

Unknown* Medium 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

SSD Large 7% 11% 52% 0% 2% 11% 3% 1% 5%

MSD Large 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 6% 15% 28%

HSD Large 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

GT Large 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%

ST Large 1% 7% 2% 0% 12% 7% 1% 0% 6%

Unknown* Large 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

*Car Carriers in Sjöbris et al. (2005) are classified as the ship type ‘Ferry’ in our analysis**’Unknown’ are excluded from the re-aggregation and re-normalisation in our analysis

Table A 5: Shentec: % share installed engine effect per ship type and engine type, rounded numbers (% of energy use / CO2 emissions) (ENTEC, 2002)

Ship type (s)Fuel Type (f)

Engine type (e)

Bulk carrier

Chemical tanker

Container ship

General Cargo

LG tanker

Oil tanker

RoRo cargo Ferry Cruise

RO SSD 97% 67% 92% 60% 35% 76% 46% 3% 2%

MD SSD 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

RO MSD 2% 31% 6% 38% 7% 5% 50% 71% 87%

MD MSD 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

RO HSD 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 10% 4%

MD HSD 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0%

RO GT 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

MD GT 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 1%

RO ST 1% 2% 2% 0% 48% 19% 2% 0% 6%

MD ST 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

We re-normalise these distribution data into the lowest level of aggregation for each ship type: shf. shf specifies the percentage distribution of engines, fuels, and engine sizes per ship class.

We assume that two stroke engines are SSD engines, and that four stroke engines are MSD or HSD with the following allocation:

Large engine sizes are assumed not to have HSD as a Main Engine (ME) Medium engine sizes are assumed not to have HSD as a ME. 50% of the small engine sizes are assumed to have HSD as a ME.

Furthermore, in Sjöbris et al. (2005), the divide between small and medium-sized engines is at 5000 kW while in our analysis the divide is at 6000 kW. We assume that the impact on our results from this difference would be negligible.

Table A 6: shf = Relative distribution of engine & fuel type and size class per ship type (% of fuel used in each ship type)

(s)

(e) (f) (ez)Bulk carrier

Chemical tanker

Container ship

General Cargo

LG tanker

Oil tanker

RoRo cargo Ferry Cruise

SSD RO Small 7% 13% 8% 18% 19% 6% 11% 12% 6%

SSD MD Small 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

MSD RO Small 3% 19% 6% 20% 22% 9% 25% 24% 9%

MSD MD Small 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

HSD RO Small 3% 0% 0% 18% 0% 9% 25% 12% 9%

HSD MD Small 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 12% 0%

GT RO Small 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

GT MD Small 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

ST RO Small 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

ST MD Small 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

SSD RO Medium 74% 39% 59% 14% 22% 19% 9% 10% 8%

SSD MD Medium 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

MSD RO Medium 3% 3% 17% 14% 22% 19% 9% 10% 9%

MSD MD Medium 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

HSD RO Medium 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 19% 9% 5% 9%

HSD MD Medium 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0%

GT RO Medium 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 4%

GT MD Medium 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

ST RO Medium 1% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

ST MD Medium 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

SSD RO Large 7% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

SSD MD Large 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

MSD RO Large 0% 0% 4% 0% 13% 4% 1% 0% 6%

MSD MD Large 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

HSD RO Large 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 4% 0% 4%

HSD MD Large 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

GT RO Large 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 1%

GT MD Large 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3%

ST RO Large 1% 8% 2% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 27%

ST MD Large 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Since LNG emissions are treated separately and the two engine types used in LNG propulsion vessels (SI & CI) have identical characteristics in our calculations, shf for LNG vessels is always 100%.

Table A 7: NOx, CO2, PM2.5, SO2, CH4 emission factors and NOx/CO2 ratio (N/C)

(f) (e) NOx emission factor Fuel & PM2.5 SO2 CH4 NOx/CO2 ratio

(g/kWh)

Engine CO2

emission factor (g/ mechanical energy)

emission factor (g / ton 0.1%S

fuel)

emission factor (g / ton

0.1%S fuel)

emission factor (g/ton fuel) (N/C)

(g NOx/g CO2)nct = TIER I

nct = TIER II

nct = TIER III

EmfacCO2 PMemfac SO2emfac CH4emfac

nct = TIER I

nct = TIER II

nct = TIER III

RO SSD 17 14.4 3.4 620 2416 2000 n.a. 0.03 0.02 0.01

RO MSD 13.0 10.5 2.6 683 843 2000 n.a. 0.02 0.02 0.00

RO HSD 11.3 9.0 2.3 683 843 2000 n.a. 0.02 0.01 0.00

RO GT n.a n.a n.a 970 164 2000 n.a. n.a n.a n.a

RO ST n.a n.a n.a 970 1500 2000 n.a. n.a n.a n.a

MD SSD 17 14.4 3.4 588 541 2000 n.a. 0.03 0.02 0.01

MD MSD 13.0 10.5 2.6 652 488 2000 n.a. 0.02 0.02 0.00

MD HSD 11.3 9.0 2.3 652 488 2000 n.a. 0.02 0.01 0.00

MD GT n.a n.a n.a 954 33 2000 n.a. n.a n.a n.a

MD ST n.a n.a n.a 954 290 2000 n.a. n.a n.a n.a

LNG SI 2.6 2.6 2.6 489 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01

LNG CI 2.6 2.6 2.6 489 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01

Table A 8: 2030 PM, BC, and OC emission factors and other PM2.5 fractions from shipping fuel from Corbett et al. (2010)

PM fractions emission factor (g/kg fuel) Estimated fraction of PM2.5

PM 1.4 1BC 0.35 0.25OC 0.39 0.28

residual - 0.47

Calculating N/C ratio per ship type and nct:

N /C s ,nct=∑e , f

(N /Ce , f ,nct∗Shf s , e, f , ez )(eq A10)

Calculating total 2030 NOx emissions per region:

NOxem=∑

s , nct(CO¿¿2s∗N /C s , nct∗¿ shnct s , nct+CO2−LNGs

∗N /CLNG)¿¿(eq A11)

Where: shnct = emission standard share of fuel use (ratio, see Table 3)

The calculations of SO2, PM2.5 and CH4 emissions are not significantly dependent on NOx control technology and therefore based on fuel use.

Table A 9: Specific heat values (shv) and CO2 emission factor (CO2_emfac) per fuel (Cooper and Gustafsson, 2004, IMO, 2014, Kristensen, 2012, Bengtsson et al., 2011)

Fuel Specific heat value (PJ/tonne fuel)

CO2 emission factor (kg CO2/kg fuel)

MD 42.7*10-6 3.179RO 41.0 *10-6 3.179LNG 50.0*10-6 2.736

Calculating fuel use for each of the fuel and engine types (not including unit conversion from kg to tonne):

fuel uses=CO2s

CO2emfac f+

CO2−LNGs

CO2emfac LNG(eq A12)

Note here that we use two types of emission factors for CO2 in our calculations. CO2_emfac is used to calculate the correlations between aggregated fuel use and CO2 emissions. Emfac_CO2 is used to calculate detailed correlations between energy use per ship type, engine type, fuel type and engine size.

Calculating 2030 PM2.5 emissions per ship type:

PM 2.5ems=∑

e, f (fuel uses∗PM emface, f∗∑e z

Shf s , e, f , ez) (eq A13)

Calculating 2030 SO2 emissions:

SO2ems=∑e , f (fueluses∗SO 2emface , f∗∑ez Shf s , e, f , ez) (eq A14)

Calculating 2030 CH4 emissions:

CH 4ems=∑

e ,f (fuel uses∗CH 4emface , f∗∑ez Shf s ,e , f , ez) (eq A15)

Hours in NECASince the operation and maintenance part of the emission abatement costs are dependent on the number of hours that a technology is used we need to calculate the number of hours an average vessel could be expected to spend in a NECA. The estimation of hours at sea is made on 2009 estimates of number of ships and CO2 emissions (Table A 3). We use the following equations:

Calculating # small ships in NECA per ship type:

¿ smallshipss=¿ ships2009s∗∑e , f

shf s ,e ,f ,small(eq A16)

Assuming hours per year operating at sea in the Baltic and North Seas for small engine sizes:

Table A 10: Assumed annual number of hours at sea in the Baltic & North seas for vessels with small engines

Ship type (s) Hours (hssmall)Bulk carrier 2750Chemical tanker 2750Container ship 2750General Cargo 1375LG tanker 2750Oil tanker 2750RoRo cargo 2750Ferry 5500Cruise 2750

Calculating CO2 emission factor per ship type and ship size for conventional vessels:

EmfacCO2s ,ez=∑e, f ( EmfacCO2e, f∗shf s ,e ,f ,ez

∑e , f

shf s , e ,f ,ez ) (eq A17)

We also need to estimate the average hours of operation in NECA per ship type, engine type, fuel type and engine size and the corresponding energy use per vessel.

Table A 11: Data needed to calculate scenario-specific kWh mechanical energy per vessel, (ENTEC, 2005b, ENTEC, 2005a)

Parameter Engine size (ez)Small Medium Large

Average Main Engine, ME effect (ME) 3000 kW 10000 kW 25000 kWAverage Auxiliary Engine, AE effect (ME) 560 kW 1480 kW 3800 kW

Hours at sea (hs)ME Specific for scenario, ship type, and engine sizeAE = ME hours at seaLoad factor at sea (lfs)ME 0.8AE 0.3Hours manoeuvring (hm)ME ME hours at sea * 0.33%AE ME hours at sea * 0.33%Load factor when manoeuvring (lfm)ME 0.2AE 0.5Hours at berth (hb)ME 0AE ME hours at sea * 12%Load factor at berth (lfb)ME 0AE 0.4

Corresponding 2009 CO2 emissions per ship type for small vessels:

CO2s ,small ,2009=MEsmall∗lfs∗hss , small∗¿ smallshipss∗EmfacCO2s ,small

109 (eq A18)

CO2 emissions per ship type for medium and large vessels:

CO2s ,ez,2009=(CO2s ,2009−CO2s ,small ,2009)∗∑

e , fShf s , e, f , ez

(∑e, f Shf s ,e ,f ,medium+∑e ,f

Shf s ,e , f ,large) (eq A19)

Hours at sea per ship type for medium and large size vessels:

hss , ez=(CO2s ,ez ,2009∗10

9/EmfacCO2s ,ez/ (MEez∗lfs ))

(¿ ships2009s∗∑e, f shf s ,e , f ,ez ) (eq A20)

From the equations above it follows that the hours at sea are assumed constant for all years.

The eq A16-A20 give approximations of the time spent in the NECA by different ships types of different size classes. For a few ship types and size classes, the times estimated from the method were unreasonable. For example; the small general cargo ships were according to the method estimated to contribute 100% of all the CO2 from general cargo ships. This is due to very generic input values on estimated installed engine power for the different ship sizes. For such extremes, the values are adjusted manually (based on experience in other studies such as Banks et al. (2013)) in order to have a reasonable distribution of emissions and time spent in the area between different ship sizes. A lower boundary of 110 hours and a higher boundary of 5500 hours at sea in the North and Baltic Sea are used. Other values are rounded before entering the emission abatement cost estimates.

The distribution of hours between NECA scenarios follows the regional distribution of emissions from Jonson et al. (2014), 32% of the 2009 NOx emissions in the Baltic and North Sea originate in the Baltic Sea and 68% in the North Sea. The resulting scenario-specific hours at sea are shown in Table A 12.

Table A 12: Hours of operation within NECA per ship type

Ship class (s) Hours at sea in NECA in the NECA-BAS+NSE, and LNG scenario

Hours at sea in NECA in the NECA-BAS scenario

Hours at sea in NECA in the NECA-NSE scenario

Engine size (ez)

Small Mid Large Small Mid Large Small Mid Large

Bulk carrier 2750 110 110 880 35 35 1870 75 75

Chemical tanker 2750 220 220 880 70 70 1870 150 150

Container ship 2750 935 935 880 299 299 1870 636 636

General Cargo 1375 110 110 440 35 35 935 75 75

LG tanker 2750 165 165 880 53 53 1870 112 112

Oil tanker 2750 440 440 880 141 141 1870 299 299

RoRo cargo 2750 1210 1210 880 387 387 1870 823 823

Ferry 5500 5500 5500 5500 5500 5500 5500 5500 5500

Cruise 2750 1045 1045 880 334 334 1870 711 711

Emission abatement costsThe calculation of emission abatement costs is based on data given for engine types and engine classes and is dependent on how many hours per year the technology would be used. Therefore the calculations start by specifying hours of operation at sea per engine type, fuel type, and size class. This re-classification is based on distributional data, shentec, for conventional fuels from Table A 5,

Calculating fuel use per engine type and fuel type for each ship type for conventional fuels:

fueluses ,e ,f=fueluses∗shentecs ,e ,f (eq A21)

Normalising fuel use per ship type, engine type, and fuel type over each engine and fuel type:

fuel shares ,e , f=fueluses , e, f

∑sfueluses ,e , f (eq A22)

For LNG propulsion vessels, with identical engine characteristics the fuel shared is based directly on the calculated CO2 emissions per ship type and LNG fuel.

Calculating fuel share for LNG propulsion vessels:

fuel share s ,e , LNG=

CO2−LNGs

CO2emfac LNG

∑s ( CO2−LNGs

CO2emfacLNG )(eq A23)

Calculating operating hours at sea per engine type and fuel type:

hse ,f ,ez=∑s

(hss , ez∗fuel shares , e, f )(eq A24)

The operating hours at sea specified per engine type, fuel type and engine size together with data from Table A 11 are used to calculate average energy demand per vessel.

Calculating annual energy demand per vessel:

kWhe ,f ,ez=MEs ,ez∗( (hse, f , ez∗lfs )ME+(hme ,f ,ez∗lfm )ME+(hbe , f ,ez∗lfb )ME )+AE s ,ez ( (hse, f , ez∗lfs)AE+(hme , f , ez∗lfm )AE+(hbe ,f ,ez∗lfb )AE )(eq A25)

Abatement costs per vessel and technologyThe calculations of abatement costs used data presented in Table A 13, Table A 14, Table A 15, Table A 16. Prior to the calculations, these data are converted to suitable units using information from Table A 9, Table A 11, and Table A 17.

Table A 13: Cost data for NOx and SO2 emission abatement

Tech type

Type of cost parameter

Specification Value Unit Source

Low High

sct Investment Open scrubber, new engine 108 120 €2010 / kW Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA) (2012)

sct Investment Open scrubber, retrofitted engine 138 216 -“- -“-

sct Investment Closed scrubber, new 216 278 -“- -“-

sct Investment Closed scrubber, retrofitted 290 433 -“- -“-

nct Investment AIEM – small sized engine 124 888 €2010 / ship Bosch et al. (2009)

nct Investment AIEM – medium sized engine 134 782 -“- -“-

nct Investment AIEM – large sized engine 200 898 -“- -“-

nct Investment EGR, Slow Speed Diesel engine (SSD) – small engine

45 €2010 / kW DEPA (2012)

nct Investment EGR, SSD - medium engine 43 -“- -“-

nct Investment EGR, SSD - large engine 41 -“- -“-

nct Investment EGR, Medium Speed Diesel Engine (MSD) & High Speed Diesel engine (HSD) - small engine

55 -“- -“-

nct Investment EGR, MSD & HSD – medium engine

51 -“- -“-

nct Investment EGR, MSD & HSD - large engine 44 -“- -“-

nct Investment Water in fuel injection (WIF) 15 -“- Bosch et al. (2009)

nct Investment Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

67 -“- Næringslivets NOx-fond and DNV (2015),

nct Investment LNG propulsion (in addition to normal engine investment)

1079 1500 -“- -“-

nct Operation & Maintenance

Urea price 180 €2010 / tonne (100% urea)

HELCOM (2010)

sct Operation & Maintenance

NaOH price 0.6 €2010 / litre AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited (2013)

nct Operation & Maintenance

SCR catalyst use 0.5 €2010 / MWh HELCOM (2010)

sct Operation & Maintenance

Water cost for scrubber use 22 €2010 / tonne Wärtsilä (2010)

nct /sct Operation & Maintenance

labour cost 35 €2010 / hour ENTEC (2005b)

sct Waste Sludge disposal cost 0.1 €2010 / litre AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited (2013)

Table A 14: Technical life time (ltt) of NOx and SO2 abatement technologies and LNG engines

Tech type Technology Lifetime (years) Source

Low High

nct EGR 25 28 Kalli (2013), Sjöbris et al. (2005)

nct Advanced engine modification 25 28 -”-

nct SCR 25 28 -”-

sct Scrubber new 15 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited (2013)

sct Scrubber retrofit 12.5 -”-

nct LNG propulsion engine 26 Kalli (2013)

Table A 15: Fuel costs 2030

Tech type Type of cost parameter

Specification Value (€2010/tonne fuel) Unit Source

Low Mid High

nct Fuel LNG 485 610 740 €2010 / tonne

(Danish Maritime Authority (DMA), 2012)

sct Fuel Heavy fuel oil (RO) 2.94% sulphur

370 530 690 -“- -“-

sct Fuel MD 0.1% sulphur 560 885 1210 -“- -“-

Value (mio €2010/PJ fuel)

Low Mid High

nct Fuel LNG 9.7 12.2 14.8 mio €2010 / PJ

-“-

sct Fuel Heavy fuel oil (RO) 2.94% sulphur

9.0 12.9 16.8 -“- -“-

sct Fuel MD 0.1% sulphur 13.1 20.7 28.3 -“- -“-

Table A 16: Operating parameters for NOx and SO2 abatement technologies

Tech type

Type of cost parameter

Specification Value Unit Source

Low High

nct Operation & Maintenance

Urea (100%) consumption in SCR 6.5 g/kWh IMO (2013)

sct Operation & Maintenance

NaOH consumption in scrubber 15 litre NaOH / MWh

Reynolds (2011)

nct Operation & Maintenance

SCR catalyst replacement labour demand

8 hours / year HELCOM (2010)

sct Operation & Maintenance

Water consumption for scrubber 100 litre / MWh Wärtsilä (2010)

sct Waste costs Sludge disposal for scrubber 0.2 litre / MWh ENTEC (2005c)

nct Fuel penalty Fuel penalty EGR + WIF 5 % Bosch et al. (2009)

sct Fuel penalty Fuel penalty open scrubber 2 % Lloyd's register (2012)

sct Fuel penalty Fuel penalty closed scrubber 0.5 1 % -“-

The calculation principle is to first calculate annual costs for NOx and SO2 abatement for one vessel specified per engine type, fuel type, and engine size, Ctote,f,ez,sct,nct. Ctot is constituted of costs for NOx abatement (Cnct) and SO2 abatement (Csct), which are in turn constituted of annualised Investments (Ian), costs for operation and maintenance and waste handling (CO&M) and fuel penalty costs (Cfuel). CO&M and Cfuel are dependent on kWhe,f,ez. We then convert the costs to average costs per PJ fuel use. Finally we use scenario-specific information on how much each emission control technology was used.

We first present the equations used for calculating Ctot and its components.

Calculating C tot:

C tot e, f ,ez ,sct ,sct=Cncte , f ,ez ,nct+C sct e, f , ez,sct (eq A26)

Important here is that LNG propulsion satisfies the demand for both NOx and SO2 abatement if a NECA and a SECA is in place. So if nct = LNG no sct is needed.

Calculating C nct:

Cncte , f ,ez , nct=Iane , f ,ez ,nct+CO∧M e, f , ez,nct

+C fuele , f ,ez ,nct (eq A27)

Calculating C sct:

C scte , f ,ez ,sct=I ane, f ,ez, sct+CO∧M e, f , ez, sct

+C fuele, f ,ez, sct (eq A28)

Calculating annualised investment per sct or nct for a vessel (Klimont et al., 2002) : Ian

I an=I∗(1+q)ltt∗q(1+q)ltt−1 (eq A29)

The calculation of Ian is for all nct and sct based on values from Table A 13 and Table A 14. If necessary, values of I is converted to value per vessel by using information on average engine sizes.

Calculating C O&M for all control technologies ct :

CO∧M e , f ,ez ,nct=kWhe, f , ez∗(C labour∗Dlabour ct

+Curea∗D ureact+Ccat∗Dcat ct+CNaOH∗DNaOH ct+Cw∗Dwct

+C s∗D sct)(eq A30)

Where: C = Costs per item, [€2010/kWh]D = Demand per item, varying unitslabour = extra work hours needed to use technology urea = urea (needed in SCR)cat = SCR catalysts replacementNaOH = Caustic Soda (needed in scrubbers and EGR to reduce SO2 emissions)w = waters = sludge

Values of C and D are all converted to €/kWh and mass / volume/kWh prior to the calculation of CO&M.

Table A 17: Fuel and engine characteristics, (Cooper and Gustafsson, 2004, IMO, 2014)

specific fuel consumption Spec heat value Fuel efficiency Fuel efficiency

Engine Fuel g/kWh TJ/tonne fuelkWh mechanical energy /PJ fuel %

(e) (f) (sfc) (spech) (fuel eff) (fuel eff%)

CI/SI LNG 166 0.05 120481928 43.4

SSD MD 185 0.0427 120098481 43.2

SSD RO 195 0.041 113442995 40.8

MSD MD 205 0.0427 103168298 37.1

MSD RO 215 0.041 125078174 45.0

HSD MD 205 0.0427 108926529 39.2

HSD RO 215 0.041 107446008 38.7

GT MD 300 0.0427 76784275 27.6

ST MD 300 0.0427 76784275 27.6

GT RO 305 0.041 79968013 28.8

ST RO 305 0.041 79968013 28.8

Calculating Cfuel-p for all control technologies ct:

C fuel−pe, f ,ez,nct=kWhe ,f ,ez∗(sfce, f∗C fuel f

∗fpct /100) (eq A31)

Where: fp = fuel penalty [%]

Calculating abatement costs per PJ fuel use:

C tcPJ e, f ,ez, ct=(Ctot e , f ,ez ,nct ,sct

kWhe ,f ,ez )∗fuel eff e , f (eq A32)

Costs per scenarioIn order to allow for comparison of conventional technologies with LNG propulsion we add the total fuel costs to the scenario-specific cost calculations.

Calculation of scenario-specific costs:

Scencost= ∑s ,e , f ,ez ,ct

(PJ s , e, f , ez , ct∗(C tcPJ e , f , ez ,ct+C fuel f))(eq A33)

References to Appendix AAMEC ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE UK LIMITED 2013. Impacts on jobs and the economy of

the meeting the requirements of MARPOL Annex VI - Final Report.BANKS, C., TURAN, O., INCECIK, A., THEOTOKATOS, G., IZKAN, S., SHEWELL, C. & TIAN, X. 2013.

Understanding ship operating profiles with an aim to improve energy efficient ship operations. Low Carbon Shipping Conference. London.

BENGTSSON, S., ANDERSSON, K. & FRIDELL, E. 2011. 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, 97-110.

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.

COOPER, D. & GUSTAFSSON, T. 2004. Methodology for calculating emissions from ships - 1. Update of emission factors, SMED report 4.2004.

CORBETT, J. J., LACK, D. A., WINEBRAKE, J. J., HARDER, S., SILBERMAN, J. A. & GOLD, M. 2010. Arctic shipping emissions inventories and future scenarios. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10, 9689-9704.

DANISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (DEPA) 2012. Economic Impact Assessment of a NOx Emission Control Area in the North Sea.

DANISH MARITIME AUTHORITY (DMA) 2012. North European LNG Infrastructure Project - a feasability study for an LNG filling station infrastructure and test of recommendations.

ENTEC 2002. Quantification of emissions from ships associated with ship movements between ports in the European Community European Commission Quantification of emissions from ships associated with ship movements between ports in the European Community - 2. Quantification of ship emissions.

ENTEC 2005a. Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments: Task 2 – General Report.

ENTEC 2005b. Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments: Task 2b – NOx abatement.

ENTEC 2005c. Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments: Task 2c – SO2 Abatement.

HELCOM 2010. Maritime Activities in the Baltic Sea - An integrated thematic assessment on maritime activities and response to pollution at sea in the Baltic Sea region, Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No.123.

IMO 2013. Marine environment protection committee 66th session agenda item 4 - air pollution and energy efficiency information about the application status of Tier III compliant technologies, Submitted by EUROMOT. International Maritime Organization.

IMO 2014. Reduction of GHG emissions from ships, third IMO GHG Study 2014 - final report.JONSON, J. E., JALKANEN, J. P., JOHANSSON, L., GAUSS, M. & DENIER VAN DER GON, H. A. C. 2014.

Model calculations of the effects of present and future emissions of air pollutants from shipping in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, 14, 21943-21974.

KALLI, J. 2013. Cost efficiency estimations of in force and forthcoming international regulations (MARPOL Annex VI).

KALLI, J., JALKANEN, J.-P., JOHANSSON, L. & REPKA, S. 2013. Atmospheric emissions of European SECA shipping: long-term projections. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 12, 129-145.

KLIMONT, Z., COFALA, J., BERTOK, I., AMANN, M., HEYES, C. & GYARFAS, F. 2002. Modelling Particulate Emissions in Europe - A Framework to Estimate Reduction Potential and Control Costs.

KRISTENSEN, H. O. 2012. Energy demand and exhaust gas emissions of marine engines.LLOYD'S REGISTER 2012. Understanding exhaust gas treatment systems - guidance for ship owners

and operators.NÆRINGSLIVETS NOX-FOND & DNV. 2015. TILTAKSSØKNADER INNSTILT TIL STØTTE FRA NOx-FONDET

[Online]. www.nho.no. Available: https://www.nho.no/siteassets/nhos-filer-og-bilder/filer-og-dokumenter/nox-fondet/dette-er-nox-fondet/innvilget-stotte/webliste-til-fondet---050515-alle-innvilgede-soknader.pdf [Accessed 24 november 2015].

REYNOLDS, K. J. 2011. Exhaust gas cleaning systems selection guide.SJÖBRIS, A., GUSTAFSSON, J. & JIVÉN, K. 2005. ARTEMIS Sea transport emission modelling.WÄRTSILÄ 2010. Exhaust gas scrubber installed onboard Mt "Suula" - Public test report.