IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute

ivl.se
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The costs and benefits of a nitrogen emission control area in the Baltic and North Seas
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute.
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute.
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute.
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, ISSN 1361-9209, E-ISSN 1879-2340, Vol. 59, p. 223-236Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Air pollution is the largest health risk from environmental causes, mainly driven by human exposure to fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <2.5 µm (PM2.5). Emissions from combustion engines (including ship engines) contribute to PM2.5 in ambient air both with primary particles (black carbon), organic carbon, and other particles) and with secondary particles formed from exhaust gases – mainly nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur oxides (SOX). NOx and SOx react with ammonia (NH3) in the atmosphere to form secondary inorganic aerosols, which have been shown to constitute ∼30–50% of PM2.5 levels in ambient air in northern and central European countries.

We analyse the potential for emission reduction, emission control costs, and monetised benefits following the introduction of a NECA. Costs and benefits are compared for 2030. We compile new data on emission control costs for shipping, use the GAINS model for calculations of emission dispersion, and the Alpha-RiskPoll model for estimating monetary values of health impacts. The model results show that costs to conform to the NOX regulations of a NECA in the Baltic Sea, North Sea or both sea regions would be 111 (100–123), 181 (157–209), and 230 (195–273) million € per year, respectively.

Corresponding benefits from reduced emissions are estimated to be 139 (56–294), 869 (335–1882), and 1007 (392–2177) million € per year, respectively. Calculated benefits surpass costs for most scenarios, but less convincingly for a Baltic Sea NECA. Conforming to the NECA regulations by using Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) propulsion engines is estimated to give the highest net benefits but also the largest variation (costs: 153 (88–238), benefits: 1556 (49–3795) million €/year). The variations are mainly due to uncertainties in the valuation of avoided fatalities and climate impacts. It is concluded that the NECAs for the Baltic and North Seas can be justified using CBA under all but extreme assumptions.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. Vol. 59, p. 223-236
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ivl:diva-3695OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ivl-3695DiVA, id: diva2:1572905
Note
A-rapport, A2334Available from: 2021-06-24 Created: 2021-06-24

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Åström, StefanYaramenka, KatarinaWinnes, HuldaFridell, Erik
By organisation
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute
In the same journal
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 6 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf