Northern sea route vs. suez canal route: effects of emission control measures

Abstract

Retreat of Arctic Sea ice makes the Northern Sea Route (NSR) an alternative maritime corridor over the Suez Canal Route (SCR), although more NSR voyages generate vessel-based emissions to the fragile Arctic Sea. Thus, emissions-control measures (ECM) are considered for sustainable NSR navigation, although they would harm NSR’s feasibility. This study analyzes NSR’s feasibility with the effect of speed optimization as an operational ECM, heavy fuel oil (HFO)-banned area and emission tax as regulatory ECMs and an emission trading system (ETS) as a market-based ECM compared to SCR. An optimization model decides vessel speeds and HFO-banned areas for minimizing cost and emissions of voyages. Free-ice, medium-ice, and heavy-ice scenarios are analyzed considering spatial-temporal variation of ice conditions. Several scenarios indicate fewer emissions and costs with NSR than SCR. Ice-breaking requirement, slow steaming potential, and fuel prices significantly influence on NSR’s feasibility. Effect of ETS is analyzed considering 174 voyages via NSR over SCR. An optimization model decides optimum route considering marginal abatement cost. Results found 37 and 81 voyages for NSR if SCR’s speed equals 10 and 15 knots, respectively. NSR voyages increase at high prices of carbon allowance and results vary based on the free-emissions quota and navigation month.