The Energy Efficiency Gap in Turkish Maritime Transportation

Open access

Abstract

The Turkish Merchant Shipping Industry has recently witnessed an increasing awareness of the importance to minimize environmental pollution and fuel oil consumption. Together with certain non-governmental organizations and media concerns about environmental protection, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has been strict on controlling undesirable effects on the environment and, consequently, forcing shipping companies to minimize their emissions. Besides, today’s highly advanced technology companies over the world have developed various innovative systems that can be utilized to minimize carbon emission, thus giving assurance to relevant investors that their investments are most likely to turn out well with a considerable financial gain in the short or long term. Despite all such favorable developments, in a general look, shipping companies seem reluctant in making use of technologies providing efficiency in energy consumption. This reluctance has eventually brought about the term “Energy Efficiency Gap”. This research conducts a questionnaire, created by Acciaro et al. [1], among the shipping companies in Turkey. 20 respondent companies, who represent 26 percent of the Turkish owned merchant marine fleet of over 1000 gross tonnage in terms of deadweight cargo capacity, participated in the research. The Pearson correlation analysis was used, and interpretations were made according to the obtained statistical values. The aim of the research was to identify reasons and points restraining the use of new technologies regarding energy efficiency, as well as to develop proposals for the innovators in this field about how to overcome this handicap concerning technical and managerial aspects of gaining energy efficiency.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Acciaro M. Hoffmann P.N. Eide M.S. 2013. The energy efficiency gap in maritime transport. Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering. 3(2013) 1-10.

  • 2. Adland R. Cariou P. Jia H. Wolff F.C. 2018. The energy efficiency effects of periodic ship hull cleaning. J. Clean. Prod. 178 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.247.

  • 3. Bedford F. Rutland C. Dittrich P. Raab A. Wirbeleit F. 2000. Effects of direct water injection on DI diesel engine combustion. No. 2000-01-2938. SAE Technical Paper.

  • 4. Bergmann A. Rotzek J.N. Wetzel M. Guenther E. 2017. Hang the low-hanging fruit even lower - evidence that energy efficiency matters for corporate financial performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 147(2017) 66-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.074.

  • 5. Boylston J.W. 2011. LNG as a fuel for vessels some design notes. http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/LNG/LNGFuelDesignNotes_060911.pdf. (Accessed 20 October 2017)

  • 6. Buhaug O. Corbett J.J. Eyring V. Endresen O. Faber J. Hanayama S. Lee D.S. Lee D. Lindstad H. Markowska A.Z. Mjelde A. Nelissen D. Nilsen J. Palsson C. Wanquing W. Winebrake J.J. Yoshida K. 2009. Prevention of air pollution from ships - Second IMO GHG Study. MEPC 59/INF.10. International Maritime Organization London UK.

  • 7. Chryssakis C. Balland O. Tvete H.A. Brandsæter A. 2014. Alternative fuels for shipping chain. Position paper: 17-2014. https://transportemaritimoglobal.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/dnv-gl-alternative-fuel-2014-positionpaper.pdf. (Accessed 09 November 2017)

  • 8. Deal A.L. 2013. Liquefied natural gas as a marine fuel. NEPI Working Paper. http://www.glmri.org/downloads/lngMisc/NEPI%20LNG%20as%20a%20Marine%20Fuel%205-7-13.pdf. (Accessed 18 October 2017)

  • 9. DeCanio S.J. Watkins W.E. 1998. Investment in energy efficiency: do the characteristics of firms matter? The review of economics and statistics. 80(1) 95-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003465398557366.

  • 10. DNV GL 2019. Current price development oil and gas. https://www.dnvgl.com/maritime/lng/current-price-development-oil-and-gas.html. (Accessed 12 March 2019)

  • 11. Eide M.S. Longva T. Hoffmann P. Endresen Ø. Dalsøren S.B. 2011. Future cost scenarios for reduction of ship CO2 emissions. Maritime Policy & Management 38(1) 11-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2010.533711.

  • 12. Fridell E. Winnes H. Styhre L. 2013. Measures to improve energy efficiency in shipping. FAL Bulletin 324(8). http://www.transportportal.se/energieffektivitet/measures%20to%20improve%20energy%20efficiency%20in%20shipping.pdf. (Accessed 09 May 2017)

  • 13. Genesis Energy 2010. Solar energy. http://www.electrocity.co.nz/images/factsheets/solar%20energy.pdf. (Accessed 12 November 2017)

  • 14. Gromicko N. 2012. Disadvantages of Solar Energy. https://www.nachi.org/disadvantages-solar-energy.htm. (Accessed 12 November 2017)

  • 15. Gupta P. Anand S. Gupta H. 2017. Developing a roadmap to overcome barriers to energy efficiency in buildings using best worst method. Sustainable Cities and Society 31(2017) 244–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.005.

  • 16. Hoeven V.D.M. 2011. Solar energy perspectives. https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/solar_energy_perspectives2011.pdf. (Accessed 12 November 2017)

  • 17. IMO 2014. Third IMO GHG study 2014: executive summary and final report. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/Third%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Study/GHG3%20Executive%20Summary%20and%20Report.pdf. (Accessed 15 October 2017)

  • 18. IMO 2017. MARPOL73-78: brief history - list of amendments to date and where to find them. http://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/ReferencesAndArchives/HistoryofMARPOL/Documents/MARPOL%2073-78%20Brief%20History%20-%20List%20of%20amendments%20and%20how%20to%20find%20them.htm. (Accessed 04 January 2018)

  • 19. IMO 2019. Energy efficiency measures. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/Technical-and-Operational-Measures.aspx. (Accessed 13 March 2019)

  • 20. International Gas Union 2015. World LNG report-2015 edition. http://www.igu.org/sites/default/files/node-page-field_file/IGUWorld%20LNG%20Report-2015%20Edition.pdf. (Accessed 14 November 2017)

  • 21. International Renewable Energy Agency 2012. Wind power. https://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-WIND_POWER.pdf. (Accessed 11 November 2017)

  • 22. Jafarzadeh S. Utne I.B. 2014. A framework to bridge the energy efficiency gap in shipping. Energy 69(2014) 603-612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.056.

  • 23. Johnson H. Andersson K. 2011. The energy efficiency gap in shipping: barriers to improvement. Paper presented at International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) 2011 Annual Conference Santiago de Chile.

  • 24. Johnson H. Johansson M. Andersson K. 2014. Barriers to improving energy efficiency in short sea shipping: an action research case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 66(2014) 317-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.046.

  • 25. Karvonen M. Kapoor R. Uusitalo A. Ojanen V. 2016. Technology competition in the internal combustion engine waste heat recovery: A patent landscape analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 112 3735–3743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.031.

  • 26. Klemick H. Wolverton A. 2013. Energy-efficiency gap. In Encyclopedia of Energy Natural Resource and Environmental Economics ed. Jason Shogren 74-81.

  • 27. Kristensen H.O. 2012. Energy demand and exhaust gas emissions of marine engines. Clean Shipping Currents 1(6) 18-26.

  • 28. Larsen U. Pierobon L. Haglind F. Gabrielii C. 2013. Design and optimisation of organic Rankine cycles for waste heat recovery in marine applications using the principles of natural selection. Energy 55 803–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.03.021.

  • 29. Lele A. Rao K.V.S. 2016. Ship propulsion strategies by using wind energy. In 2016 International Conference on Emerging Technological Trends (ICETT) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETT.2016.7873693

  • 30. Marine Pollution Annex VI 2018 EEDI and SEEMP https://www.marpol-annex-vi.com/eedi-seemp/ (Accessed 19 February 2019)

  • 31. Manrique R. Vásquez D. Vallejo G. Chejne F. Amell A.A. Herrera B. 2018. Analysis of barriers to the implementation of energy efficiency actions in the production of ceramics in Colombia. Energy 143(2018) 575-584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.023.

  • 32. Mickwitz P. Hyvättinen H. Kivimaa P. 2008. The role of policy instruments in the innovation and diffusion of environmentally friendlier technologies: popular claims versus case study experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production 16S1 (2008) 162-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.10.012.

  • 33. Ministry of Transport Maritime Affairs and Communications (Ulaştırma Denizcilik ve Haberleşme Bakanlığı) 2017. 1978 Protokolü ile Değişik 1973 Tarihli Denizlerin Gemiler Tarafından Kirletilmesinin Önlenmesine Ait Uluslararası Sözleşme (MARPOL 73/78). http://imo.udhb.gov.tr/TR/19Marpol.aspx. (Accessed 05 November 2017).

  • 34. Nehler T. Rasmussen J. 2016. How do firms consider non-energy benefits? empirical findings on energy-efficiency investments in Swedish industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 113(2016) 472-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.070.

  • 35. Pearson K. 1895. Notes on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 58 240–242.

  • 36. Polzin F. 2017. Mobilizing private finance for low-carbon innovation – a systematic review of barriers and solutions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 77(2017) 525–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.007

  • 37. Poulsen R.T. Sornn-Friese H. 2015. Achieving energy efficient ship operations under third party management: How do ship management models influence energy efficiency? Research in Transportation Business & Management 17(2015) 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.10.001

  • 38. Reddy B.S. 2003. Overcoming the energy efficiency gap in India’s household sector. Energy Policy 31(2003) 1117–1127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00220-3.

  • 39. Rehmatullaa N. Calleyab J. Smith T. 2017. The implementation of technical energy efficiency and CO2 emission reduction measures in shipping. Ocean Engineering 139(2017) 184–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.04.029.

  • 40. Ruan Y. Hang C.C. Wang Y.M. 2014. Government’s role in disruptive innovation and industry emergence: the case of the electric bike in China. Technovation 34(2014) 785–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.09.003.

  • 41. Styhre L. Winnes H. 2013. Energy efficient shipping – between research and implementation. Paper presented at IAME2013 Conference Marseille France.

  • 42. Thollander P. Ottosson M. 2008. An energy efficient Swedish pulp and paper industry-exploring barriers to and driving forces for cost-effective energy efficiency investments. Energy Efficiency 1(1) 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-007-9001-7.

  • 43. Thomson P.B. 1997. Evaluating energy efficiency investments: accounting for risk in the discounting process. Energy Policy 25(12) 989-996. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(97)00125-0.

  • 44. Trianni A. Cagno E. 2012. Dealing with barriers to energy efficiency and SMEs: Some empirical evidences. Energy 37(2012) 494-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.11.005.

  • 45. Wärtsilä Encyclopedia of Marine Technology 2017. Direct Water Injection (DWI). https://www.wartsila.com/encyclopedia/term/direct-water-injection-(dwi). (Accessed 19 December 2017)

  • 46. Ycharts 2019. Henry hub natural gas spot price chart. https://ycharts.com/indicators/natural_gas_spot_price. (Accessed 12 March 2019)

  • 47. Yoon B. Shin J. Lee S. 2018. Technology assessment model for sustainable development of LNG terminals. J. Clean. Prod. 172 927–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.187.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.214
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.086

CiteScore 2018: 1.48

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.391
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.141

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 43 43 9
PDF Downloads 35 35 20