Energy efficient shipping between research and implementation

Transcription

1 Proceedings of the IAME 2013 Conference July 3-5 Marseille, France Paper ID 240 Energy efficient shipping between research and implementation Linda Styhre IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Aschebergsgatan 44, Gothenburg, Sweden, Hulda Winnes IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Aschebergsgatan 44, Gothenburg, Sweden, Abstract Shipping contributes to a substantial amount of CO 2 emissions globally. To meet sustainability objectives, EU has requested a minimum 40% reduction of CO 2 emissions from shipping by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. Increased energy efficiency - defined as energy used per transportation work - through better operational practices, new technologies and improved logistic systems will be key issues in the effort to abate these emissions. The objective of this paper is to identify and describe the gap between present knowledge and implementation of available energy efficient measures among shipping companies. The results show that measures that cost-efficiently decrease the energy consumption of shipping companies are available; however, many of them are not implemented or used in daily operations. Implementation of operational and structural measures faces many challenges. This study highlights that there is very little time to plan, control and follow-up on voyages in shipping companies, and the crews seldom receive feedback on bunker consumption during or after a voyage. There is also to some extent a lack of incentives to apply new technologies and methods among crew and on-shore staff in the shipping companies. Keywords: energy efficiency, shipping, logistic measures, operative measures, technical measures, implementation barriers 1. Introduction Shipping contributes to approximately 3% of global carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, and its share is expected to increase (Buhaug et al., 2009). European shipping faces a great challenge in adjusting to a political statement of a 40% reduction of CO 2 emissions (minimum), with a

2 simultaneous expected growth in its share of the total transport work in the region (European Commission, 2011). The main route discussed towards mitigating CO 2 emissions from shipping is through increased energy efficiency 1 through better operational practices; new technologies and improved logistic systems. Buhaug et al. (2009) concluded that a 25-75% increase in CO 2 efficiency in shipping could be reached by known measures, of which the majority was due to measures directed towards energy efficiency. Eide et al. (2011) found that reductions of over 33% by 2030 could be achievable at negative or zero marginal cost. Energy efficiency measures can be divided into four categories: technical, alternative fuels and/or power sources, operational, and structural measures (Eide et al., 2011). This paper focuses on measures mainly related to the last two. Operational measures include, for example, slow steaming and enhanced weather routing, maintenance of hull, propeller and engine, enhanced voyage performance measurement and reporting. This group of measures has, in general, low investment costs and can give substantial effects on the fleet in a short time. Structural measures are characterised by two or more counterparts in shipping working together to increase efficiency and/or reduce emissions. Examples of such measures are improved charter contracts, fewer ballast journeys, enhanced logistics and fleet planning. They are believed to have significant potential to reduce emissions, but are generally hard to develop and implement (Eide et al., 2011). 2. Purpose and methodology Previous research shows that the energy efficiency potential in shipping is high. Further, many improvement measures are cost efficient, which means that a shipping company actually gains from realising a specific measure. In this paper, the authors pose the following research question: Why is there a disparity between the present level of energy efficiency efforts in the industry and the current state of art knowledge in research and development? The purpose of this paper is to describe why cost efficient measures are not implemented to a larger extent by the shipping companies. The study is based on a literature review and interviews carried out with onshore managers and ship operators in shipping companies, and with ship crews and port managers. The interviews include four different shipping companies in the bulk and tank segments and two ports. Policy instruments for enabling a positive development for energy use in shipping are not included in this study. 1 Energy efficiency in shipping is often defined as energy used per transported goods and distance, e.g., MJ per tonne cargo and nautical mile. Since the source of energy in shipping almost exclusively is fossil fuel, a related figure is CO 2 efficiency, which is the mass of CO 2 emissions per transported goods and distance. IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 2

3 3. Energy use in shipping International shipping was estimated to consume 150 to 450 MT bunker oil in 2005 (Eyring et al., 2009). Of this, 90% was estimated to be heavy fuel oil and the remaining 10% marine distillates. Many environmental impact categories are related to fuel combustion in the marine engines. However, tightly coupled to the combustion of any fossil fuel is the climate impact from CO 2 emissions. The international fleet contributes approximately 3.3% of total global anthropogenic CO 2 emissions (Buhaug et al., 2009). A number of energy efficiency measures for the industry are cost efficient. Eide et al. (2011) estimate that it is feasible to avoid emitting approximately 400 million tonnes of CO 2 in 2030, by only using cost efficient measures. Over the last several years, marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs) have been used to identify cost efficiency in measures. However, published MACCs project different abatement potential. This can be explained to a large extent by the fact that they use different emission baselines, different sets of measures and different assumptions about future fuel prices (Faber et al., 2011a). The fuel prices used by Eide et al. (2011) were 350 USD/tonne heavy fuel oil and 500 USD/tonne marine distillate. With higher prices (the price today, spring 2013, is over 600 USD/tonne), it is obviously possible to reduce even more CO 2 emissions with cost savings (Det Norske Veritas, 2009). Further, MAC curves are very sensitive to assumptions such as discount rates, investment costs, vessel service life and annual transport work (Kesicki and Ekins, 2012). The analysis of measures includes aggregated data on efficiency and costs, whereas little information is available concerning the source of the assumptions (Kesicki and Strachan, 2011; Kesicki and Ekins, 2012). Smith (2012) argues that a comprehensive economic analysis of energy efficiency implementation should also include the significant revenues that can be expected from speed increases. Initiatives within the International Maritime Organization (IMO) have resulted in an addition to MARPOL Annex VI on prevention of pollution from CO 2. An energy efficiency design index (EEDI) which relates the mass of CO 2 emissions per transport work to ship size should be produced for all new ships. The EEDI of a specific ship is compared to a reference line that dictates the maximum allowed limit. The reference line is different for various ship types. The regulation entered into force 1st January In addition, the added regulation requires a so called ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP). A SEEMP should function as an operational tool to improve energy efficiency. However, due to expected increase in transport volumes, a reduction in energy use and CO 2 emissions from the shipping industry is not expected despite the new regulations (Bazari and Longva, 2011; Anderson and Bows, 2012). IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 3

4 4. Measures for energy efficiency Measures for improved energy efficiency in shipping can be applied to the entire ship service life cycle and on different organisational levels. However, some measures, especially technical measures and the ones related to alternative fuels and/or power sources, are in practice limited to new ships (Eide et al., 2011), because retrofit can be a very costly procedure. Considering the long life of a vessel, often around 35 years, new technologies are slowly implemented in the world s fleet. Operational measures and structural measures, which are characterised by two or more counterparts in shipping working together, have a large effect on the ship s operational phase. It is also noteworthy that a successful implementation of these measures in many cases depends on behavioural aspects and functioning communication both on board and on shore. Most energy efficiency measures can be applied to all types of ships, e.g., tankers, RoRo-vessels, container ships, bulk carriers, etc., and to all three shipping sectors: liner shipping, tramp shipping and industrial shipping. Nevertheless, each measure is expected to have a diverse potential for individual vessels, because of the different types of vessel designs, operational procedures, and shipping routes. Thus, it is highly relevant for the shipping company to identify the potential of different measures for individual vessels rather than for the fleet as a whole. Important operational and structural measures are described below: slow steaming, route planning, decreased turnaround time in port and increased capacity utilisation. 4.1 Slow Steaming The diminishing demand for transportation in the autumn of 2008, due to the financial crisis and the economic downturn, in combination with the arrival of many new-built vessels from the shipyards, resulted in a great level of excess capacity in the world fleet (UNCTAD, 2011). As a consequence, the shipping companies also decreased speed to reduce the excess capacity by tying up existing capacity and to save costs related to bunker fuel (Nguyen, 2009; Styhre, 2010). Slow steaming is not a new concept: it was widely used in the 70s during and after the oil crisis (Chrzanowski, 1980; Ronen, 1982). Ship speed normally follows the prevailing economic climate and the bunker price (Faber et al. 2012) and the slow steaming option might not always be a preferable strategy for fleet utilisation. There is a risk that profit maximisation in shipping can result in higher speed and, consequently, increased fuel consumption in a strong economy (Lindstad et al., 2011). Suggestions to maintain slow speed operations in the international fleet in order to reduce CO2 emissions from ships include fuel taxes (Cariou, 2011; Corbett et al., 2009) and regulated speed restrictions for ships (Faber et al., 2012; Lindstad et al., 2011). As the relationship between ship speed and fuel consumption per unit time is approximately cubically increasing, a minor speed reduction can have a great influence on fuel consumption. IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 4

5 Slow steaming is in general the energy efficiency measure that is expected to have the highest savings potential (e.g., Buhaug et al., 2009). However, the potential can be expected to vary significantly between different shipping sectors and operating speeds. According to a study within the EU, up to a 30% reduction of the energy need is often realistic at constant transport work for single ships (European Commission, 2012). At constant transport work, reduced speed can be achieved by an increased number of ships in the fleet or by reduced turnaround time in port. There are however technical limitations: ships are built to operate effectively in the design speed. Much lower speeds can result in higher levels of pollutants in the exhaust gases and increased maintenance costs. Further, a reduced speed only reduces bunker consumption down to a certain point, which can be called the most energy efficient speed. Below this speed, the fuel consumption increases per transported unit (Cariou, 2011). Technical problems that arise when operating vessels at lower speeds than the design speed can be overcome with adjustments to existing engines (Faber et al., 2012). The result of the interviews showed no clear consensus among ship crews and ship operators about what is the most energy efficient speed for each individual ship. One captain stated that the voyage instructions were unclear and also ineffective from an economic point of view, especially when the maintenance costs are included. 4.2 Route planning Route planning is a method to establish efficient shipping routes, which can be used both on strategic, tactical and operational levels to minimise bunker consumption (Christiansen et al., 2004). The strategic aspect contains all long-term decisions on the composition of the fleet and selection of transport network. The tactical issues include adjustments to fleet size and mix, and routing and berth scheduling such as most favourable speed in relation to cost. On an operational level, speed adjustment to the sailing schedule is necessary and shipping companies might use weather routing in order to adjust the route to the current weather situation. Fuel savings from route planning based on weather data have been estimated to potentially be between 0.1% and 4% (Henningsen, 2000; European Commission, 2012). The greatest potential can be found on long routes where a ship is exposed to weather for a long time and where there are many optional routes (Swedish Transport Administration, 2012). Consequently, route planning is more interesting for deep sea shipping rather than short sea shipping. The potential is also great for ships operating in waters where the crew does not have knowledge or previous experience of weather situations, and for ships operating in areas with unstable weather (Buhaug et al., 2009). IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 5

6 4.3 Reduced turnaround time in port Reduced turnaround time in ports means that the vessel can reduce speed at sea and still carry out the same amount of transport work on an annual basis. Faber et al. (2009) have estimated that up to a 10% improvement is possible, and Bazari and Longva (2011) have shown that approximately 10-20% can be achieved depending on ship type and size. Eide et al. (2011) conclude that increased port efficiency is among the measures that have the greatest potential and is also one of the least costly. The effects of different berthing policies on speed reduction were investigated by Kontovas and Psaraftis (2011). The result shows that a change from a first-come-first-serve policy to a system with prebooked specific time slots in ports would reduce waiting time for the vessels, which can be translated to slower speed at sea. Johnson and Styhre (2013) combined quantitative operational data and interviews and concluded that between one and four hours of the time in port could be reduced for two bulk ships just by reducing waiting times. For the two ships, this would correspond to potential fuel consumption reductions of 2-8%. Besides shorter waiting time, the time for the vessel in port can be reduced through more efficient loading and unloading activities, i.e. productivity improvement. An example of productivity improvement was suggested by a shipping agent in an interview: to have very good stowage plans. Thereby, the capacity utilisation of the vessel can be increased and the lashing work can be minimized, which means saved man hours for lashing, lower material costs and shorter turnaround time for the vessel. 4.4 Increased capacity utilisation Another approach to reduce fuel consumption per tonne-kilometre is to increase the capacity utilisation of the vessels. Vessel capacity utilisation is the relation, usually expressed as a percentage, between transported units (actual output) and maximum units (potential output) within a certain time frame (Styhre, 2010). Shipping is a capital-intensive industry and is characterised by high fixed costs and economies of scale. Consequently, the shipping companies often strive for a high vessel capacity utilisation as a high degree of utilisation can justify the large investments required. However, shipping exhibits characteristics that have led to unutilised capacity for much of its history. Customer demands for available vessel capacity when needed, regularity and frequency requirements (Mangan et al., 2002; Higginson and Dumitrascu, 2007) combined with the industry s inherent excess capacity due to demand variation and trade imbalances (Davies, 1983; Fusillo, 2004; Haralambides, 2004) can easily lead to low vessel capacity utilisation. Further, large vessels and a tendency of shipping companies operating oversized vessels relative to available goods (Styhre and Lumsden, 2007; Wu, 2009) means that many vessels sail with half empty cargo holds. IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 6

7 Higher capacity utilisation is achieved by transporting more goods per departure and by minimising ballast voyages 2. The latter is particularly central in the tank and bulk segment because of the products (such as oil and ore) typical production and consumption patterns, which often involve an empty voyage when the vessel is repositioned from the port of discharge to the next port of loading. Examples of different types of approaches to increase capacity utilisation in short sea transport are described by Styhre (2010): Stand-by goods, overbooking, price differentiation, better communication with the port, adjusting schedules, development of a suitable vessel design, improved loading plan, and strategic alliances with other shipping companies. Even though the CO2 per tonne-kilometre decreases with improved utilisation level, the improvement potential is very hard to estimate for a fleet. The level of energy efficiency depends on how the shipping company determines, strategically, what the best use of the vessels is. 5. Discussion In order to adapt to the emission strategies agreed upon in the Copenhagen Accord 3 and stay below an increase in global mean temperature of 2 C, around 80% of reductions in CO2 emissions from shipping compared to the emission level in 1990 is needed (Anderson and Bows, 2012). Such large improvements in energy efficiency in shipping can be expected only after implementation of basically all known measures. Buhaug et al. (2009) concluded that up to a 75% increase in CO2 efficiency in shipping could be reached by known measures compared to the emission levels in A combination of measures of a different character is needed to reach these levels, but effects from combining measures are poorly investigated. It is important to note that there are no formal demands on the shipping industry to relate to the target of keeping the global temperature increase below 2 C. The discussion in this paper will be presented from two perspectives: 1) Implementation of measures, and 2) the gap between research and development and implementation by users. 5.1 Implementation of measures Energy efficiency measures of operational character such as slow steaming, efficient cargo handling and route planning have been adopted by many companies in liner shipping, especially in deep sea container traffic but also by other segments to a lesser extent. The results of this study emphasise that the reason for the lack of implementation of the measures is not necessarily a lack of knowledge among users, but rather it is related to the time constraints in decision making, absence of planning and few incentives. A selection of 2 A voyage with no cargo on board 3 Parties of the UNFCC commit in the Copenhagen Accord (and Cancun Agreement) the international community to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 C, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 7

8 important examples of these reasons is included below in Contracts and market, Organisation and planning horizons and Economic conditions Contracts and market In a discussion on ship energy efficiency measures it is important to stress the different premises for liner shipping and tramp shipping. Ships in liner traffic have in many cases been subject to careful logistic arrangements, including long-term cooperation with few ports and developed fixed time tables and designated berths. Ships in tramp traffic will seldom have dedicated berths and port slots and will most often visit several different ports, which all have specific procedures and administration related to a port call (MarNIS, 2006). Furthermore, ships on the spot market are subject to agreements between ship operators and charters, which may limit the implementation of technical and logistic measures (Faber et al., 2009). For example, the contracts between a ship charterer and a ship operator in tramp shipping will stipulate who pays for the fuel at different times during the ship s journey. Special contracts, charter-parties, are used, which state the conditions for the use of a vessel during the period of chartering. The agreements contain a number of clauses that in different ways include the voyage, the cargo to be transported and the time frame. There are also clauses on performance and guarantees for speed and bunker consumption and regulations of delays. Such clauses can affect energy efficiency since they provide incentives to save fuel to varying degrees. In a voyage charter party agreement, there can even be an incentive for the crew or ship owner to sail at high speeds since the charterer pays rent for the ship in port, demurrage 4. In economic recessions, the demurrage can be even higher than freight earnings for the ship operators. Thus, a voyage with demurrage may be a more attractive option for the individual operator than to sail at a reduced speed and save bunker. A ship operator highlighted the lack of incentives for reducing speed when the ship is managed by a third party, because lower speeds can involve increased maintenance costs Organizations and planning horizons Most shipping companies are relatively small and have limited resources (see, e.g., Johnson et al., 2012). Many organisations are also slim with a strong focus on daily operations and on keeping the ships in motion. More long-term analyses are seldom feasible. During interviews with several shipping companies it was revealed that ship operators are often stressed because they have many responsibilities and operate several vessels in parallel. The lack of time makes the planning and analysis of ship movements difficult. An operator claimed that with more time, it would be possible to plan better and to compare the voyage with previous ones in order to calculate the savings potential for lower speed and later arrival. 4 Demurrage refers to the period when the charterer remains in possession of the vessel IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 8

9 Another operator described the difficulty of operating vessels in tramp shipping where new contracts and port calls constantly require replanning. He emphasised that in tramp shipping, the routes are always changing, which means it often becomes very urgent. It is much easier to plan the activities in liner shipping with fixed schedules. The information sent from the ships and ports to the shore organisation is extensive, including noon-reports, voyage reports, Statement of Facts, etc. However, there is little time to analyse it. From the interviews with crew members and ship operators it was clear that the crew seldom or never received feedback, unless bunker consumption might have been too high. The importance of involving the crew in the long-term work reducing energy consumption was stressed in interviews with ship operators Economic conditions Another aspect of short-term planning is that a new investment often requires a very short amortization period. Many companies do not wish to or cannot invest in techniques that have more than a few years of depreciation due to cost reasons, despite the fact that the ship's service life is much longer (Faber et al., 2011a). In general, ships also have a second hand value that does not reflect investments in energy efficient equipment. Faber et al. (2011b) refers to low second-hand values and prices to charter a ship that does not reflect the ship's energy efficiency as highly important institutional barriers to the implementation of energy efficiency measures in the ship industry. Smith (2012) points out that low charter prices and high fuel prices are effective drivers for energy efficiency efforts among shipping companies. This explains the ship operators recently increased interests in energy efficiency in shipping. Institutional barriers also include, according to Faber et al. (2011b), shipyards opportunity to influence the design of new vessels. The yards do not necessarily have a life cycle approach and are not always able to change an existing design, or the changes are very costly to the owner. It is difficult for the ship owner to possess the skill and the power to plan for life cycle costs under such conditions. Further, an important factor that affects the ability to implement energy efficiency measures is associated with transaction costs and difficulties of allocating costs and profits between different companies for an investment that benefits multiple stakeholders (Kesicki and Strachan, 2011). Consequently, there is an additional, nonnegligible cost associated with the measures, which can have the effect of capital not being allocated to the business where it is most needed. 5.2 A gap between R&D and implementation by users Research in the field of alternative power sources, technical-, operational-, and structural energy saving measures exists. However, there are gaps between present knowledge and implementation of available energy efficient measures among shipping companies. It is clear IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 9

10 from maritime studies with a holistic approach to energy efficiency that single specific actions can never realise the EU White Paper target on CO2 emissions from shipping in Rather, multiple actions of different characters should interact for a sustainable reduction in energy use in shipping. Thus, increased knowledge about how improvement actions affect each other and interact is necessary for significant improvement of energy efficiency in shipping. The translation of knowledge on energy efficiency measures into practical use is facing several challenges. This study has identified a number of conditions that facilitate implementation. There is considerable theoretical knowledge in most core technical areas impacting ship energy efficiency. However, equipment to measure fuel consumption and other operating data is still missing on a large part of all vessels. This affects the ability to monitor how various factors influence energy use. The equipment can also improve understanding of how systems on board interact, which in practice is often missing. Surveys on a shipping company level have been carried out by Johnson et al. (2012), which showed that mapping the energy use of different systems on board and understanding the interaction between the different systems are of direct interest to the shipping companies in order to reduce energy. Financial risks by investing in new technology and work methods delay the implementation of new knowledge. Faber et al. (2011b) identify perceived and real financial risks as a major barrier to adoption of energy efficiency measures in shipping. Applied research and pilot and demonstration projects in close cooperation between the research community and the shipping industry would facilitate knowledge transfer in both directions. Successful demonstration projects contribute to lower the perceived risks. In order to maintain high energy efficiency, incentives can be used for key actors in the industry, e.g., crew, ship agents and ports. Examples of such incentives are better payment, training, or feedback to the individual navigator on how much bunker is consumed during his command. There is a lack of research on how incentives can be used to guide the development of more general implementation of measures in all the areas mentioned. In addition to decision support directed at the industry, it is also important to monitor the impact of the regulatory developments taking place in the area (Johnson et al., 2012). 6. Conclusions Alternative power sources, technical-, operational-, and structural measures are key issues in the important goal of reducing emissions from shipping. Previous research shows that up to a 75% increase in CO2 efficiency in shipping could be reached with known measures. The reasons why energy efficient measures are not implemented to a larger extent are not purely economic. On the contrary, implementation of many measures is a saving for the shipping companies. Implementation of operational and structural measures faces many challenges. A IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 10

11 lack of time to plan, control and follow-up on voyages has been identified in the study as well as a lack of incentives among crew and on shore staff in the shipping companies to actually save bunker. Some shipping companies have started to analyse the energy systems onboard and measure fuel consumption in real-time. However, this work needs to be more widely spread and complemented with crew motivation and better communication between ship and the commercial and technical organisation on-shore, as well as between ship, shore and port management. In general, there is a need for studies on higher system levels that investigate interactions between measures of different characters. This study has pointed out some of the important reasons why energy efficient measures are not implemented in shipping. Further research should be directed towards understanding the gap between knowledge and implementation and promoting further adoptions of energy efficiency measures among shipping companies and ports in order to better harness the potential. Acknowledgements This paper is based on the study Energy-efficient Swedish Shipping that was financed by the Swedish Energy Agency. The project was carried out by IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Chalmers University of Technology and SSPA. References ANDERSON K. and BOWS A., 2012, Executing a Scharnow turn: reconciling shipping emissions with international commitments on climate change. Carbon management, 3 (6), BAZARI Z. and LONGVA T., 2011, Assessment of IMO mandated energy efficiency measures for international shipping. International Maritime Organization. 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. and YOSHIDA K., 2009, Second IMO GHG study. International Maritime Organization, London, UK. CARIOU P., 2011, Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO2 emissions from container shipping? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16, CHRISTIANSEN M., FAGERHOLT K. and RONEN D., 2004, Ship routing and scheduling: Status and perspectives. Transportation Science, 38, IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 11

12 CHRZANOWSKI I., 1980, Shipping in the 1980s a future with uncertainty? Maritime Policy & Management, 7, 1-8. CORBETT, J., WANG H, and J. WINEBRAKE J., 2009, The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14 (8) DAVIES, J. E., 1983, An Analysis of Cost and Supply Conditions in the Liner Shipping Industry, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 31(4), DET NORSKE VERITAS, 2009, Pathways to low carbon shipping Abatement potential towards Memo prepared by S. Alvik, M. S. Eide, Ø. Endresen, P. Hoffmann and T. Longva. Approved by: H. O. Madsen and T. E. Svensen. EIDE M. S., LONGVA T., HOFFMAN P., ENDRESEN Ø. and DALSØREN S. B., 2011, Future cost scenarios for reduction of ship CO 2 emissions. Maritime Policy & Management, 38, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2011, White paper on Transport: Roadmap to a single European transport area Towards a competitive and resource-efficient transport system. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2012, Analysis of market barriers to cost effective GHG emission reductions in the maritime transport sector. CLIMA. B.3/SER/2011/0014 EYRING V., ISAKSEN I. S. A., BERNTSEN T., COLLINS W. J., CORBETT J. J., ENDRESEN Ø., GRAINGER R. G., MOLDANOVA J., SCHLAGER H., and STEVENSON D. S., 2009, Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Shipping. Atmospheric Environment 37 (44), FABER J., MARKOWSKA A., NELISSEN D., DAVIDSON M., EYRING V., CIONNI I., SELSTAD E., KÅGESON P, LEE D., BUHAUG Ø., LINDSTAD H., ROCHE P, HUMPRIES E., GRAICHEN J., CAMES M. and SCHWARZ W., 2009, Technical support for European action to reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from international maritime transport. CE Delft, Delft, Netherlands. FABER J., WANG H., NELISSEN D., RUSSELL B. and AMAND D., 2011a, Marginal Abatement Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Energy-Efficiency Measures. MEPC 62/INF. 7. CE Delft, Delft, Netherlands. FABER J., BEHRENDS B. and NELISSEN D., 2011b, Analysis of GHG Marginal Abatement Cost Curves. CE Delft, Delft, Netherlands. FABER J., NELISSEN D., HON G., WANG H. and TSIMPLIS M., 2012, Regulated slow steaming in maritime transport an assessment of options, costs and benefits. CE Delft. Delft, Netherlands. IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 12

13 FUSILLO M., 2004, Is liner shipping supply fixed? Maritime Economics & Logistics, 6, HARALAMBIDES H. E., 2004, Determinants of price and price stability in liner shipping. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Industrial Organization of Shipping and Ports. 5-6 March 2004, National University of Singapore, Singapore. HENNINGSEN R.F., 2000, Study of greenhouse gas emissions from ships. Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute, Trondheim, Norway, and the International Maritime Organisation, London, UK. HIGGINSON J. K. and DUMITRASCU T., 2007, Great Lakes short sea shipping and the domestic cargocarrying fleet. Transportation Journal, 46 (1), JOHNSON H., JOHANSSON M. and ANDERSSON K., 2012, Barriers for improving energy efficiency in short sea shipping A case study. Proceedings of the Short Sea Shipping Conference, April 2-3, 2012, Lisbon, Portugal. JOHNSON H. and STYHRE L., 2013, Increased energy efficiency in short sea shipping through increased port efficiency, in manuscript. KESICKI F. and EKINS P., 2012, Marginal abatement cost curves: a call for caution. Climate policy, 12, KESICKI F. and STRACHAN N., 2011, Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves: confronting theory and practice. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, KONTOVAS C. and PSARAFTIS N., 2011, Reduction of emissions along the maritime intermodal container chain: operational models and policies. Maritime Policy & Management, 38, LINDSTAD H., ASBJÖRNSLETT B. E. and STRÖMMAN A. H., 2011, Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and cost by shipping at lower speeds. Energy Policy, 39, MANGAN J., LALWANI C. and GARDNER B., 2002, Modelling port/ferry choice in RoRo freight transportation. International Journal of Transport Management, 1 (2), MarNIS, 2006, Simplification of information flows, EU-project MarNIS, Deliverable reference number: D1.3.C. Main author Styhre, L. NGUYEN D. B., 2009, Impact of high fuel costs on the shipping industry and the world trade. Proceeding of the Globalization and its implications for shipping in the 21st Century, 22 January, 2009, Cardiff, UK. IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 13

14 RONEN D., 1982, The effect of oil price on the optimal speed of ships. Journal of the Operational Research Society, SMITH, T W P., 2012, Technical energy efficiency, its interaction with optimal operating speeds and the implications for the management of shipping s carbon emissions, Carbon Management, 3 (6), STYHRE L., and LUMSDEN K., 2007, Vessel capacity utilisation in ferry services and the bridge substitute dilemma. Journal of Maritime Research, 4 (3) STYHRE L., 2010, Capacity utilisation in short sea shipping, PhD thesis. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. SWEDISH TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION, 2012, Potential fuel savings from operational measures in sea transport, No: 2012:205. UNCTAD, 2011, Review of Maritime Transport. WU, W.-M., 2009, An approach for measuring the optimal fleet capacity: Evidence from the container shipping lines in Taiwan. International Journal of Production Economics, 122, IAME 2013 Conference, July 3-5, Marseille, France 14