4.7 Article

Evaluation of the environmental and economic impacts of electric propulsion systems onboard ships: case study passenger vessel

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 28, Issue 28, Pages 37851-37866

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-13271-4

Keywords

Passenger ships; IMO regulations; Diesel electric propulsion; COGES propulsion; Ship emissions; Cost-effectiveness analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study investigates the environmental and economic impact of using electric propulsion systems, focusing on passenger ships. Results show that COGES propulsion system has specific environmental benefits over DE option and is more energy efficient by 9.3% and 27.55%. Economically, COGES system has a lower life cycle cost compared to DE system.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) announced that maritime transport share by 2.89% in global greenhouse gases. Electric propulsion system appears as a promising option for reducing ship emissions, especially for high-powered vessels. The aim of the current paper is to investigate the environmental and economic impact of using electric propulsion systems. Simple eco-environmental model was presented to assess the best propulsion system for passenger ships. A comparison between diesel electric (DE) and combined gas turbine electric and steam (COGES) propulsion systems is conducted. As a case study, one of the cruise ships is selected. The results showed specific environmental benefits of COGES over DE propulsion option. From the design and operational viewpoints, COGES propulsion system is more energy efficient than DE by 9.3% and 27.55%, respectively. Economically, the values of the life cycle costs are 5,013 and 6,042 $/kW for DE and COGES systems, respectively. Finally, COGES seems as a greener option with a life-cycle cost-effectiveness of 612, 1970, and 6 $/ton for NOx, SOx, and CO2 emissions, respectively.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available