臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

聯合國國際海事組織(International Maritime Organization，IMO)為了降低航運汙染，制訂《防止船舶污染國際公約》(MARPOL 73/78)附則Ⅵ管制船舶廢氣排放，自2020年1月1日實施船舶燃油硫氧化物(SOx)含量不得超過0.5% m/m的規定。面臨IMO硫排放新規貨櫃航商目前主要以安裝脫硫器(SOx scrubber)與使用低硫油(Low Sulfur Marine Gas Oil，LSMGO)兩種措施來因應。

相較過去研究安裝脫硫器效益問題主要探討單一船型船速，本研究考量了不同船型不同船速以及不同油價差，並設立三種情境：不同船型情境、不同船速情境與不同油價差情境，探討貨櫃航商現有船舶安裝脫硫器主要受何種因素影響，以及在各個特定條件下船舶安裝脫硫器成本回收期為何，分析以成本而言安裝脫硫器與使用低硫油何者較具經濟效益。

研究結果發現，大多數情況安裝脫硫器成本得以回收並且回收期受船速與油價差影響，船速愈快或油價差愈大安裝脫硫器效益愈高，最後本研究建議在實務上貨櫃航商決策船舶是否安裝脫硫器必須將船齡也納入評估，因為在某一些情況下船齡較高的船舶使用低硫燃油較具有經濟效益。

In order to reduce shipping pollution, International Maritime Organization (IMO) of UN formulated "International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships" (MARPOL 73/78) Annex VI to control emissions from ships. IMO has implemented the regulation of prohibiting sulfur oxides (SOx) content higher than 0.5% m/m in ship fuel since January 1, 2020. Facing the new regulation, container carriers mainly adopt two measures: installing SOx scrubber or using low sulfur marine gas oil (LSMGO).

Compared with the previous research on the cost-benefit of installing scrubber mainly discussing single ship and speed, this research considers several ship types and speeds on different fuel price differences, sets up three scenarios: ship types, speeds and fuel price differences, analyses the main factors affecting installation of scrubber, payback period under each specific condition and the economic benefits between scrubber and LSMGO.

The results indicate that in most cases, the cost of installing scrubber can be recovered and the payback period is affected by ship speeds and fuel price differences, the faster the ship speed or the greater the fuel price difference, the higher the economic benefits of installing scrubber. Moreover, the research suggests that in practice, container carriers must also take the age of ship into assessment when deciding whether to install scrubber because in some cases, it is more economical for older ships to use LSMGO.

摘要
ABSTRACT
誌謝
目錄
表目錄
圖目錄
一、緒論
1.1 研究背景與動機
1.2 研究目的
1.3 研究流程
二、文獻探討
2.1 IMO硫排放新規
2.2 脫硫器成本結構
2.2.1 脫硫器之壽命期
2.2.2 脫硫器資本成本
2.2.3 脫硫器運維成本
2.2.4 因安裝而衍生之成本
2.3 油耗與船速關係
2.4 重油與低硫燃油
三、研究方法
3.1 成本式之建構
3.2 成本效益分析因素
3.3 成本效益分析架構
四、實證分析
4.1 研究實證案例
4.2 成本效益分析
4.2.1 不同船型情境
4.2.2 不同船速情境
4.2.3 不同油價差情境
4.3 成本效益分析結論
五、結論與建議
5.1 研究結論
5.2 管理實務建議
5.3 後續研究建議
參考文獻

1.Andersson, K., Jeong, B., & Jang, H. (2020). Life cycle and cost assessment of a marine scrubber installation. Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping, 4(4), 162-176.
2.Brynolf, S., Magnusson, M., Fridell, E., & Andersson, K. (2014). Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 6-18.
3.Cariou, P. (2011). Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO2 emissions from container shipping? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(3), 260-264.
4.Cariou, P., & Cheaitou, A. (2014). Cascading effects, network configurations and optimal transshipment volumes in liner shipping. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 16(3), 321-342.
5.Corbett, J.J., Winebrake, J.J., & Green, E.H. (2010). An assessment of technologies for reducing regional short-lived climate forcers emitted by ships with implications for Arctic shipping. Carbon Management, 1(2), 207-225.
6.Cullinane, K., & Khanna, M. (1999). Economies of scale in large container ships. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 33(2), 185-208.
7.Cullinane, K., & Khanna, M. (2000). Economies of scale in large containerships: Optimal size and geographical implications. Journal of Transport Geography, 8(3), 181-195.
8.Entec (2005a). European Commission Directorate General Environment Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments. Task 1 - 64, Preliminary Assignment of Ship Emissions to European Countries. Final Report. London: Entec UK Limited.
9.Entec (2005b). European Commission Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments. Task 2 – General Report, Final Report. London: Entec UK Limited.
10.Entec (2005c). European Commission Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments. Task 2b – NOx Abatement, Final Report. London: Entec UK Limited.
11.Entec (2005d). European Commission Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-based Instruments. Task 2c – SO2 Abatement, Final Report. London: Entec UK Limited.
12.Fan, L., & Gu, B. (2020). Impacts of the increasingly strict sulfur limit on compliance option choices: The case study of Chinese SECA. Sustainability, 12(1), 165.
13.Fan, L., Gu, B., & Luo, M. (2020). A cost-benefit analysis of fuel-switching vs. hybrid scrubber installation: A container route through the Chinese SECA case. Transport Policy, 99, 336-344.
14.Gu, Y., & Wallace, S.W. (2017). Scrubber: A potentially overestimated compliance method for the Emission Control Areas: The importance of involving a ship’s sailing pattern in the evaluation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 55, 51-66.
15.Jee, J. (2020). Comparative economic analysis on SOx scrubber operation for ECA sailing vessel. Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety, 26(3), 262-268
16.Jiang, L., Kronbak, J., & Christensen, L.P. (2014). The costs and benefits of sulphur reduction measures: Sulphur scrubbers versus marine gas oil. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 19-27.
17.Kontovas, C.A., & Psaraftis, H.N. (2011). Reduction of emissions along the maritime intermodal container chain: Operational models and policies. Maritime Policy & Management, 38(4), 451-469.
18.Lindstad, H.E., & Eskeland, G. (2016). Environmental regulations in shipping: Policies leaning towards globalization of scrubbers deserve scrutiny. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 47, 67-76.
19.Lindstad, H.E., Rehn, C.F., & Eskeland, G.S. (2017). Sulphur abatement globally in maritime shipping. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 57, 303-313.
20.Lloyd's Loading List (2020). Top 10 box lines report record positive quarter. Retrieved from https://www.lloydsloadinglist.com/freight-directory/news/Top-10-box-lines-report-record-positive-quarter/77343.htm#.YONLgOgzaUn
21.MABUX (2020). Bunker prices will rise, regardless of type, at 2020 start. Retrieved from https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/bunker-prices-will-rise-regardless-of-type-at-2020-start-mabux/
22.MAN Diesel & Turbo (2013). Propulsion Trends in Container Vessels Two-stroke Engines. Retrieved from https://www.mandieselturbo.com/
23.Merien-Paul, R.H., Enshaei, H., & Jayasinghe, S. (2019). Effects of fuel-specific energy and operational demands on cost/emission estimates: A case study on heavy fuel-oil vs liquefied natural gas. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 69, 77-89.
24.Notteboom, T.E., & Cariou, P. (2009, June 24-26). Fuel surcharge practices of container shipping lines: Is it about cost recovery or revenue-making? International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Conference, Copenhagen.
25.Nooteboom, T.E., & Cariou, P. (2011). Are Bunker Adjustment Factors aimed at revenue-making or cost recovery? Empirical evidence on the pricing strategies of shipping lines. International Handbook of Maritime Economics, chapter 11.
26.Notteboom, T.E., & Vernimmen, B. (2009). The effect of high fuel costs on liner service configuration in container shipping. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(5), 325-337.
27.Nuka Research & Planning Group, LCC. (2018). Phasing out the use and carriage for use of heavy fuel oil in the Canadian Arctic: Impacts to northern communities. Retrieved from https://nukaresearch.com/projects/
28.Panasiuk, I., & Turkina, L. (2015). The evaluation of investments efficiency of SOX scrubber installation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 40, 87-96.
29.Psaraftis, H.N., & Kontovas, C.A. (2013). Speed models for energy-efficient maritime transportation: A taxonomy and survey. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 26, 331-351.
30.Ronen, D. (1982). The effect of oil price on the optimal speed of ships. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 33(11), 1035-1040.
31.Ronen, D. (2011). The effect of oil price on containership speed and fleet size. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(1), 211-216.
32.Ship&Bunker (2020). Benchmark Bunker Prices: Our Methodology. Retrieved from https://shipandbunker.com/about/about-sb-prices
33.Shu, S. (2013). A Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Marine Scrubber Technologies (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://matheo.uliege.be/handle/2268.2/6127
34.Solakivi, T., Laari, S., Kiiski, T., Töyli, J., & Ojala, L. (2019). How shipowners have adapted to sulphur regulations – Evidence from Finnish seaborne trade. Case studies on transport policy, 7(2), 338-345.
35.Splash 247 (2020). Turkish yard spent record 149 days installing a scrubber. Retrieved from https://splash247.com/turkish-yard-spent-record-149-days-installing-a-scrubber/
36.The Loadstar (2020). Scrubber pioneer MSC the worst-hit by delay as ships queue at yards for retrofitting. Retrieved from https://theloadstar.com/scrubber-pioneer-msc-the-worst-hit-by-delay-as-ships-queue-at-yards-for-retrofitting/
37.Topali, D., & Psaraftis, H.N. (2019). The enforcement of the global sulfur cap in maritime transport. Maritime Business Review, 4(2), 199-216.
38.TradeWinds (2020). South Korean scrubber startup takes aim at crowded market. Retrieved from https://www.tradewindsnews.com/sponsor-content/south-korean-scrubber-startup-takes-aim-at-crowded-market/2-1-757957
39.Van, T.C., Ramirez, J.A., Rainey, T., Ristovski, Z., & Brown, R.J. (2019). Global impacts of recent IMO regulations on marine fuel oil refining processes and ship emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 70, 123-134.
40.Veenstra, A., & Ludema, M. (2006). The relationship between design and economic performance of ships. Maritime Policy & Management, 33(2), 159-171.
41.Vis, R. (2018). Industry insight: Viability of scrubbers for different type of vessels. Retrieved from https://shipandbunker.com/news/features/industry-insight
42.Wu, W.M. (2020). The optimal speed in container shipping: Theory and empirical evidence. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 136, 101903.
43.Zhou, K. (2012). Optimization of container liner speed and deployment based on new environment and bunkering regulation (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/7096
44.Zhu, M., Li, K.X., Lin, K.C., Shi, W., & Yang, J. (2020). How can shipowners comply with the 2020 global sulphur limit economically? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 79, 102234.
45.Zhu, M., Li, K.X., Shi, W., & Lam, J.S.L. (2017). Incentive policy for reduction of emission from ships: A case study of China. Marine Policy, 86, 253-258.
46.Zis, T., Angeloudis, P., Bell, M.G., & Psaraftis, H.N. (2016). Payback period for emissions abatement alternatives: Role of regulation and fuel prices. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2549(1), 37-44.
47.Zis, T., & Cullinane, K. (2020). The desulphurisation of shipping: Past, present and the future under a global cap. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 82, 102316.