Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels S. Brynolf a,⇑ , M. Magnusson a , E. Fridell a,b , K. Andersson a a Shipping and Marine Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden b IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Box 5302, 400 14 Gothenburg, Sweden article info Keywords: ECA Marine fuels SCR Scrubbers LCA abstract The upcoming stricter emission control area (ECA) regulations on sulphur and nitrogen oxi- des (NO X ) emissions from shipping can be handled by different strategies. In this study, three alternatives complying with the ECA regulations for sulphur as well as Tier III for NO X are presented and compared using life cycle assessment. None of the three alternatives will significantly reduce the life cycle impact on climate change compared to heavy fuel oil (HFO). However, all alternatives will reduce the impact on particulate matter, photochem- ical ozone formation, acidification and terrestrial eutrophication potential. The assessment also highlighted two important regulatory aspects. Firstly, the need to regulate the ammo- nia slip from use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and secondly the need to regulate the methane slip from LNG engines. In addition, an analysis of the use of SCR in Swedish waters is presented showing that SCRs have been used on a number of ships already giving significantly reduced NO X emissions. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The upcoming stricter emission control area (ECA) regulations on sulphur and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) emissions from ship- ping can be handled by different strategies. The most obvious reduction strategy is to avoid the problem by not introducing an impurity to the system. For sulphur oxides (SO X ) this can be achieved by using low sulphur marine fuels that fulfil the regulations, i.e. below 0.10 wt% S (IMO, 2013a). There are a number of possible fuels, with advantages and constraints of dif- ferent kinds. The most obvious is to use marine gas oil (MGO), but there are also trials with liquefied natural gas (LNG), meth- anol and biofuels (Bruckner-Menchelli, 2011; Einemo, 2013; Gallagher, 2010). LNG is, after MGO, the most tested low sulphur fuel in shipping, and there are about 20 ships operating on LNG in Norwegian waters (IMO, 2013d). For NO X the situation is somewhat different. The majority of the emitted NO X from ships originates from atmospheric nitrogen (N 2 ), which forms NO at the high temperatures prevailing during combustion in the diesel engines. A fuel change will influence the NO X formation to different degrees depending on the fuel: LNG will give significant reductions compared to HFO (about 90% for lean burn engines), while a switch to MGO only gives a reduction of a few per cent. In order to lower the formation of NO there are a number of techniques that reduce peak temperatures in the cylinder, e.g. exhaust gas recir- culation (EGR) or introduction of water either in the fuel or directly in the cylinders. The most stringent NO X legislation, IMO Tier III, will be enforced for all newbuildings trafficking inside ECAs from the period 2016 to 2021 and onwards (IMO, 2013a, 2013e). This reduction may be difficult to reach without using ‘‘end of pipe’’ abatement technology. 1361-9209/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.001 ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 (0)31 772 26 57. E-mail address: selma.brynolf@chalmers.se (S. Brynolf). Transportation Research Part D 28 (2014) 6–18 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part D journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd