IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i9p2213-d353532.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ship Emission Mitigation Strategies Choice Under Uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Jun Yuan

    (China Institute of Free Trade Zone Supply Chain, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai 201306, China)

  • Haowei Wang

    (Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Management, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117576, Singapore)

  • Szu Hui Ng

    (Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Management, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117576, Singapore)

  • Victor Nian

    (Energy Studies Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119620, Singapore)

Abstract

Various mitigation strategies have been proposed to reduce the CO 2 emissions from ships, which have become a major contributor to global emissions. The fuel consumption under different mitigation strategies can be evaluated based on two data sources, real data from the real ship systems and simulated data from the simulation models. In practice, the uncertainties in the obtained data may have non-negligible impacts on the evaluation of mitigation strategies. In this paper, a Gaussian process metamodel-based approach is proposed to evaluate the ship fuel consumption under different mitigation strategies. The proposed method not only can incorporate different data sources but also consider the uncertainties in the data to obtain a more reliable evaluation. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on the fuel consumption prediction is then applied to rank the mitigation strategies under uncertainty. The accuracy and efficiency of the proposed method is illustrated in a chemical tanker case study, and the results indicate that it is critical to consider the uncertainty, as they can lead to suboptimal decisions when ignored. Here, trim optimisation is ranked more effective than draft optimisation when the uncertainty is ignored, but the reverse is the case when the uncertainty in the estimations are fully accounted for.

Suggested Citation

  • Jun Yuan & Haowei Wang & Szu Hui Ng & Victor Nian, 2020. "Ship Emission Mitigation Strategies Choice Under Uncertainty," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:9:p:2213-:d:353532
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/9/2213/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/9/2213/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacques Maritz & Foster Lubbe & Louis Lagrange, 2018. "A Practical Guide to Gaussian Process Regression for Energy Measurement and Verification within the Bayesian Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12, April.
    2. Breuer, Péter & Major, Péter, 1983. "Central limit theorems for non-linear functionals of Gaussian fields," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 425-441, September.
    3. Baldi, Francesco & Gabrielii, Cecilia, 2015. "A feasibility analysis of waste heat recovery systems for marine applications," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 654-665.
    4. Matthew Plumlee, 2017. "Bayesian Calibration of Inexact Computer Models," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(519), pages 1274-1285, July.
    5. Yuan, Jun & Ng, Szu Hui, 2017. "Emission reduction measures ranking under uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 270-279.
    6. Yuan, Jun & Nian, Victor & Su, Bin, 2019. "Evaluation of cost-effective building retrofit strategies through soft-linking a metamodel-based Bayesian method and a life cycle cost assessment method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 253(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Yuan, Jun & Nian, Victor & He, Junliang & Yan, Wei, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of energy efficiency measures for maritime shipping using a metamodel based approach with different data sources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    8. Russell R. Barton & Barry L. Nelson & Wei Xie, 2014. "Quantifying Input Uncertainty via Simulation Confidence Intervals," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 74-87, February.
    9. Marc C. Kennedy & Anthony O'Hagan, 2001. "Bayesian calibration of computer models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(3), pages 425-464.
    10. Levihn, F. & Nuur, C. & Laestadius, S., 2014. "Marginal abatement cost curves and abatement strategies: Taking option interdependency and investments unrelated to climate change into account," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 336-344.
    11. Wei Xie & Barry L. Nelson & Russell R. Barton, 2014. "A Bayesian Framework for Quantifying Uncertainty in Stochastic Simulation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1439-1452, December.
    12. De Oliveira, Victor & Kone, Bazoumana, 2015. "Prediction intervals for integrals of Gaussian random fields," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 37-51.
    13. Yuan, Jun & Ng, Szu Hui & Sou, Weng Sut, 2016. "Uncertainty quantification of CO2 emission reduction for maritime shipping," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 113-130.
    14. Hu, Hongtao & Yuan, Jun & Nian, Victor, 2019. "Development of a multi-objective decision-making method to evaluate correlated decarbonization measures under uncertainty – The example of international shipping," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 148-157.
    15. Nian, Victor & Yuan, Jun, 2017. "A method for analysis of maritime transportation systems in the life cycle approach – The oil tanker example," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 1579-1589.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shang, Gang & Xu, Liyun & Tian, Jinzhu & Cai, Dongwei & Xu, Zhun & Zhou, Zhuo, 2023. "A real-time green construction optimization strategy for engineering vessels considering fuel consumption and productivity: A case study on a cutter suction dredger," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 274(C).
    2. Jun Yuan & Jiang Zhu & Victor Nian, 2020. "Neural Network Modeling Based on the Bayesian Method for Evaluating Shipping Mitigation Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-14, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yuan, Jun & Nian, Victor & He, Junliang & Yan, Wei, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of energy efficiency measures for maritime shipping using a metamodel based approach with different data sources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Jun Yuan & Jiang Zhu & Victor Nian, 2020. "Neural Network Modeling Based on the Bayesian Method for Evaluating Shipping Mitigation Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Weiwei Fan & L. Jeff Hong & Xiaowei Zhang, 2020. "Distributionally Robust Selection of the Best," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 190-208, January.
    4. Na, Wei & Wang, Mingming, 2022. "A Bayesian approach with urban-scale energy model to calibrate building energy consumption for space heating: A case study of application in Beijing," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    5. Levihn, Fabian, 2016. "On the problem of optimizing through least cost per unit, when costs are negative: Implications for cost curves and the definition of economic efficiency," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1155-1163.
    6. Hu, Hongtao & Yuan, Jun & Nian, Victor, 2019. "Development of a multi-objective decision-making method to evaluate correlated decarbonization measures under uncertainty – The example of international shipping," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 148-157.
    7. Hou, D. & Hassan, I.G. & Wang, L., 2021. "Review on building energy model calibration by Bayesian inference," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    8. Simon Rouchier, 2022. "Bayesian Workflow and Hidden Markov Energy-Signature Model for Measurement and Verification," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, May.
    9. Maupin, Kathryn A. & Swiler, Laura P., 2020. "Model discrepancy calibration across experimental settings," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    10. Bühler, Fabian & Guminski, Andrej & Gruber, Anna & Nguyen, Tuong-Van & von Roon, Serafin & Elmegaard, Brian, 2018. "Evaluation of energy saving potentials, costs and uncertainties in the chemical industry in Germany," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 2037-2049.
    11. Zhaolin Hu & L. Jeff Hong, 2022. "Robust Simulation with Likelihood-Ratio Constrained Input Uncertainty," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 2350-2367, July.
    12. Wang, Bo & Zhang, Qiong & Xie, Wei, 2019. "Bayesian sequential data collection for stochastic simulation calibration," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(1), pages 300-316.
    13. Vanslette, Kevin & Tohme, Tony & Youcef-Toumi, Kamal, 2020. "A general model validation and testing tool," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    14. Matthias Katzfuss & Joseph Guinness & Wenlong Gong & Daniel Zilber, 2020. "Vecchia Approximations of Gaussian-Process Predictions," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 25(3), pages 383-414, September.
    15. Kerstin Gärtner & Mark Podolskij, 2014. "On non-standard limits of Brownian semi-stationary," CREATES Research Papers 2014-50, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    16. Nourdin, Ivan & Peccati, Giovanni & Podolskij, Mark, 2011. "Quantitative Breuer-Major theorems," Stochastic Processes and their Applications, Elsevier, vol. 121(4), pages 793-812, April.
    17. Jakub Bijak & Jason D. Hilton & Eric Silverman & Viet Dung Cao, 2013. "Reforging the Wedding Ring," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(27), pages 729-766.
    18. Hao Wu & Michael Browne, 2015. "Random Model Discrepancy: Interpretations and Technicalities (A Rejoinder)," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 619-624, September.
    19. Wen Shi & Xi Chen & Jennifer Shang, 2019. "An Efficient Morris Method-Based Framework for Simulation Factor Screening," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 745-770, October.
    20. Debashis Mondal & Donald Percival, 2010. "Wavelet variance analysis for gappy time series," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 62(5), pages 943-966, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:9:p:2213-:d:353532. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.