Yayın:
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT SHIP EMISSION ESTIMATION METHODOLOGIES FOR ANNUAL EMISSION FOOTPRINT AND REDUCTION TECHNIQUES OF A BULK CARRIER

dc.contributor.authorBilgili, Levent
dc.contributor.authorCelebi, Ugur Bugra
dc.contributor.authorAlkan, Guler Bilen
dc.contributor.authorCaglak, Sibel Bayar
dc.contributor.authorKoralturk, Gulsum
dc.date.accessioned2026-06-27T13:28:53Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.description.abstractShips have an indispensable role in trading and transportation. Due to the growth of population and the new demands of the growing economies, the need for shipping but also its harmful effects are increasing and emission problems will grow further in the future. The main harmful effects caused by shipping are carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOx), particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and black carbon (BC). The emissions have global effects on the health of a large number of people, especially those living in cities with a harbour. Although emissions caused by shipping are comparatively small, they must be in focus. With the increasing importance of global warming and social awareness, ship manufacturing industry should behave in parallel with the new rules. International organizations, such as International Maritime Organization (IMO), and several governments brought strict rules to reduce the emissions to an acceptable level. Besides, innovative and effective technologies are developed by some companies under the support of international organizations and national authorities. In this study, we aimed to investigate the current regulations and emission reduction technologies. Annual emission footprint estimation is calculated in order to remark the potential danger of shipping emissions. Two methodologies are used for calculations, namely, fuel consumption approach and engine power approach. Emission factors are taken from three different studies. In fuel consumption approach, the total emission amounts were 10115.7 and 9213.7 tons (according to Cooper and Gustafsson [35] as well as Eyring et al. [18] emission factors). For engine power approach, three different results are reached: 11503.1, 11191.2 and 11546.4 tons of Cooper and Gustafsson [35], Eyring et al. [18] and CALEPA [36] emission factors.en
dc.identifier.eissn1610-2304
dc.identifier.endpage1509
dc.identifier.issn1018-4619
dc.identifier.issue7
dc.identifier.startpage1497
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14981/53086
dc.identifier.volume23
dc.identifier.wos000338692300008
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherPARLAR SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS (P S P)
dc.relation.ispartofFRESENIUS ENVIRONMENTAL BULLETIN
dc.subjectEmission footprint
dc.subjectship emissions
dc.subjectInternational Maritime Organization
dc.subjectair pollution
dc.subjectemission estimation
dc.subjectTURBINE COMBINED CYCLES
dc.subjectPRIME MOVERS
dc.subjectIMPACT
dc.subjectCO2
dc.subjectSIMULATIONS
dc.subjectGAS
dc.subjectEnvironmental Sciences & Ecology
dc.titleCOMPARISON OF DIFFERENT SHIP EMISSION ESTIMATION METHODOLOGIES FOR ANNUAL EMISSION FOOTPRINT AND REDUCTION TECHNIQUES OF A BULK CARRIER
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.import.sourceWOS

Dosyalar

Koleksiyonlar