Liquefied Natural Gas as an Alternative Fuel: a Regional-Level Social Cost-Benefit Appraisal

 

 

Paulo Pires Moreira, Fernando Caetano

 

Moreira P.P., Caetano F. 2017. Liquefied Natural Gas as an Alternative Fuel: a Regional-Level Social Cost-Benefit Appraisal. Eastern European Business and Economics Journal 3(2): 122-161.

 

Full text

 

Abstract:

 

The impact from traditional marine fuels has the potential of causing health and non-health damages and contributes to climate change. Here, the introduction of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) as an energy end-use fuel for marine purposes is analysed. The aim of this study is to verify LNG’s policy implementation feasibility as a step-change for a low carbon perspective for shipping by means of developing a social cost-benefit analysis on a regional basis. Emissions from the Portuguese merchant fleet, weighted by their contribution to the National Inventory, were used to quantify and monetise climate, health and non-health externalities compared with benefits from LNG as a substitute fuel. Benefits from the policy implementation are those related to the reduction of external environmental, health and non-health impacts. Costs are those that nationals are willing to pay for. In this sense, to estimate the value of the atmospheric air - a non-market commodity - people were asked about the price they hypothetically are willing to pay by responding to a specific questionnaire. The present study, based on a social cost-benefit analysis, indicates that benefits are almost 8 times superior to the costs and is consistent with real world efficiency gains. Although it addresses Portuguese particularities, this methodology should be applied elsewhere.

 

Keywords:

Environmental, health and non-health impacts; Liquefied Natural Gas; Contingent valuation; Social Cost-benefit Analysis; Portuguese merchant fleet

 

JEL classification:

H5; N7; R4

 

Language:

English

 

References:

Amman, M., Derwent, D., Forsberg, B., Hänninen, O., Hurley, F., Krzyzanowski, M., de Leeuw, F., Liu, S., Mandin, C., Schneider, S., Schwarze, P., Simpson, D. (2008). Health risks of ozone from long-range transboundary air pollution. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe
Barbier, E., Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N. (2015). Is the income elasticity of the willingness to pay for pollution control constant? University of Warsaw, faculty of Economic Sciences. Working Papers No. 7/2015 (155)
Bateman, I. Langford, I., Jones, A., Kerr, G. (2001). Bound and Path Effects in Double and Triple Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 23, 191-213
Baumgärtner, S., Drupp, M., Munz, J., Meya, J., Quaas, M. 2011 (2011). Income Distribution and Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services. Retrieved January 29, 2016 from www.bioecon-network.org/pages/13th_2011/Baumgaertner.pdf
Belhaj, M. (2003). Estimating the Benefits of Clean Air. Contingent Valuation and Hedonic Price Methods. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 3(1), 30-46
Bickel, P., Friedrich, R. (2001). Estimating Environmental Costs using the Impact Pathway Approach. Unification of accounts and marginal costs for Transport Efficiency. Retrieved October, 10, 2016 from www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/unite/paris/bickel.pdf
 Bleichrodt, H., Crainich, D., Eeckhoudt, L. (2002). Comorbidities and the willingness to pay for health improvements. Journal of Public Economics, 87  2399–2406.
Cameron, J., Hunter, P., Jagals, P., Pond, K. (ed.), (2011). World Health Organization (WHO). Valuing Water, Valuing Livelihoods. London: London: IWA Publishing on behalf of the World Health Organization
Carson, R. Flores, N., Meade, N. (2000). Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19: 173–210
Carson, R. (2012). Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative when Prices Aren’t Available. Prices Aren’t Available. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27-42
Carson, R., Czajkowski, M. (2012). The Discrete Choice Experiment Approach to Environmental Contingent Valuation. Retrieved November, 21, 2017 from econweb.ucsd.edu/~rcarson/papers/dceapproach.pdf
Carson, R., Groves, T. (2011). Incentive and information properties of preference questions: commentary and extensions. In Bennet, J. (ed.) The international handbook on non- market environmental valuation. Cheltenham: Edward  Elgar Publishing
Carson, R,, Louviere, J. (2010). A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49(4), 539-559
Chryssakis, C., Balland, O., Tvete, H., Brandsaeter, A. (2014). Alternative Fuels for Shipping. Dnv Gl Strategic Research, Innovation Position Paper 1-2014. DNV GL
Corbett, J., Fischbeck, P., Pandis, S. (1999). Global nitrogen and sulfur inventories for oceangoing ships. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104(3), 3457-3470
Corbett, J., Thomson, H.,, Winebrake, J.  (2014). Natural Gas for Waterborne Freight Transport: A Life Cycle Emissions Assessment with Case Studies. University of Delaware and RIT, prepared for US Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration. Retrieved May, 5, 2016 from https://www.marad.dot.gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Total_Fuel_Cycle_Analysis_for_LNG.pdf
Decision N. 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020. Retrieved August, 18, 2016 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009D0406
Couper, M. (2000) Review: web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 64 (4), 464–94
 Det Norske Veritas – Germanischer Lloyd (DNV-GL) (2015). LOT-1: Analysis and evaluation of identified gaps and of the remaining aspects to completing an EUwide framework for marine LNG distribution, bunkering and use. Retrieved February, 22, 2017 from ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/maritime/studies/doc/2015-12-lng-lot1.pdf
European Commission. Directive 2012/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels European Commission. Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. Retrieved May, 25, 2017 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012L0033
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), 2010. The 0.1% sulphur in fuel requirement as from 1 January 2015 in SECAs - An assessment of available impact studies and alternative means of compliance. Retrieved March, 25, 2017 from www.emsa.europa.eu/main/air-pollution/sulphur-directive.html
Evtyugina, M., Pio, C., Nunes, T., Pinho, P., Costa, C. (2007). Photochemical ozone formation at Portugal West Coast under sea breeze conditions as assessed by master chemical mechanism model. Atmospheric Environment, 41:2171-2182
Fowler, D. Brunekreef, B., Fuzzi, S., Monks, P., Sutton, M., Brasseur, G., Friedrich, R.,, Mingo, J.  (2013). Research Findings in support of the EU Air Quality. Review. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J., Ackerman, J., Delton, A., Robertson, T., White, A.(2012). The financial consequences of too many men: sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 69-80
Holland, M. (2014). Cost-benefit Analysis of Final Policy Scenarios for the EU Clean Air Package. Retrieved January, 11, 2016 from ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/TSAP%20CBA.pdf
Holland, M., Watkiss, P. (2002). BeTa Version E1.02a. Benefits Table database: Estimates of the marginal external costs of air pollution in Europe Created for European Commission DG Environment by netcen. Retrieved, January, 11, 2016 from ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/air/pdf/betaec02a.pdf
Itaoka, K., Krupnick, A., Akai, M., Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Simon, N. (2005). Age, Health, and the Willingness to Pay for Mortality Risk Reductions: A Contingent Valuation Survey in Japan. Discussion Paper. August 2005 (updated September 2005). RFF DP 05-34. Resources for the Future.
Kołwzan, K., Narewski, M. (2012). Alternative Fuels for Marine Application. Latvian Journal of Chemistry, No 4, 2012, 398–406. Retrieved, March, 25, 2016 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264972038_Alternative_Fuels_for_Marine_Applications
Korzhenevych, A., Dehnen, N., Bröcker, J., Holtkamp, M., Meier, H., Gibson, G., Varma A., Cox, V. 2014 (2014). Update of the Handbook on External Costs of Transport. Report for the European Commission: DG MOVE. Retrieved, March, 25, 2016 from ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/handbook_on_external_costs_of_transport_2014_0.pdf
Kotchen, M. (2010). Cost-Benefit Analysis. In Schneider, H., Root, T. L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather (2nd Edition), 312-315. New York: Oxford University Press
 Laugen, L. (2013). An Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of LNG and HFO as Marine Fuels. Master Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Department of Marine Technology
Lowell, D., Wang, H., Lutsey, N. (2013). Assessment of the Fuel Cycle Impact of Liquefied Natural Gas as used in International Shipping. ICCT Whipe Paper
Miola, A. Paccagnan, V., Mannino, I., Massarutto, A., Perujo A., Turvani, M. (2008). Review of the measurement of external costs of transportation in theory and practice. Maritime Transport-Report 1. European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Retrieved, March, 28, 2016 from publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC49328/reqno_jrc49328_external_costs1.pdf[1].pdf
Moreira, P. (2016). Liquefied Natural Gas as an Alternative Fuel: A Voyage-based Model. Transport, Logistics: the International Journal, 16(41), 1-10
Portuguese Environmental Agency (APA). Portuguese National Inventory Report on Greenhouse Gases, 1990-2014. Submitted under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. May, 27th 2016
Perman, R., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J., Common, M. (2003). Natural Resource and Environmental Economics. Pearson Education Limited. Third Edition
Rahman, A., Mashud K. (2015). Overview of Alternative Fuels and Their Drivers to Reduce Emissions in the Shipping Industry. International Conference on Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, (ICMAIE’ 2015), Kuala Lumpur, 67-72
Rebelo, C. (2016). Exclusão digital senior: Histórias de vida, gerações e cultura geracional. Revista Comunicando, 5(11), 144-158
Wang, K., Wu, J., Wang, R., Yang, Y., Chen, R., Maddock, J., Lu, Y. (2015). Analysis of residents’ willingness to pay to reduce air pollution to improve children’s health in community and hospital settings in Shanghai, China. Science of the Total Environment, 533, 283–289
Wang, H,, Whittington, D. (2000). Willingness to Pay for Air Quality Improvements in Sofia, Bulgaria. Policy Research Working Paper 2280. The World Bank
Wang, Y.,, Zhang, Y. (2009). Air quality assessment by contingent valuation in Ji’ nan, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 1022-1029  
Winnes, H., Styhre, L., Fridell, E. (2015). Reducing GHG emissions from ships in port areas. Research in Transportation Business, Management, 17, 73-82
World Health Organization (2013). Health risks of air pollution in Europe – HRAPIE project. Recommendations for concentration-response functions for cost-benefit analysis of particulate matter, ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe
Wurster, R., Weindorf, W., Zittel, W., Schmidt, P., Heidt, C., Lambrecht, U., A. Lischke, A., Müller, S. (2014). LNG as an alternative fuel for the operation of ships and heavy duty vehicles. Retrieved September, 08, 2016 from www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/Documents/MKS/mfs-short-study-lng-as-alternative-fuels.pdf?__blob=publicationFile