Abstract
Since 2020, ocean-going vessels must comply with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) mandate to reduce the sulfur content of marine fuels (outside emission control areas) to no more than 0.5%. This paper analyzes the cost of different approaches for the U.S. fleet, which has special cost considerations because of the Jones Act, to comply with the regulation. We perform a cost analysis for a suite of options for compliance by U.S. shippers, including low-sulfur petroleum-based fuels and alternative fuels (liquefied natural gas [LNG], ammonia, methanol, and ethanol). The cost analysis compares the average annual costs (capital and fuel) out to 2050 of each compliance approach for a representative U.S. tanker and U.S. containership under alternative scenarios with regard to fuel prices, policy, and technology innovation. We also consider the sensitivity of results with respect to vessel age, interest rates, and scrubber fuel efficiency penalties. We find the least costly compliance strategies across future fuel price scenarios and vessel types. The lower-cost compliance pathways typically deliver limited improvement in CO2 emissions which makes them riskier in the context of potential more ambitious emissions targets by IMO. This paper is derived from a technical report (ORNL/SPR-2021/2088) first prepared for the U.S. Maritime Administration.
