Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Reports 00 (2020) 000–000

6th International Conference on Advances on Clean Energy Research, ICACER 2021

April 15-17, 2021, Barcelona, Spain

Green Fuels- A New Challenge For Marine Industry

Abstract

According with the new European Regulations the supply chain sustainability became more and more challenging for
the shipping companies. They must adapt their ships to respect the new regulations, but this means economic
investment for environmental and social scopes? Or replacement of traditional fuel with a green one, will make the
companies more competitive, will reduce costs and will improve the operational performance? It can be difficult for
the top management to take and assume a decision like this. In this paper we will use the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP), like a management instrument, based on Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) to see what solution brings
more advantages for the ship owners and for the community. An illustrative case with two alternative marine fuels,
LNG and oil gas, was presented and analysed in this paper using the proposed method. The most sustainable scenario
being the one in which is used natural liquefied gas like marine fuel. The results obtained demonstrate that the method
used to prioritize alternative marine fuels is feasible and helps decision makers.

© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 6th International Conference on Advances on Clean Energy Research.

Keywords: green fuel; analityc hieterarchy process; Multi-Criteria Decision Making; oil gas, liquefied natural gas

1. Introduction

According with the strategy adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and imposed by the
European Union, until 2050 the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be reduced at least 80- 95% (IMO 2018, Ren
and Liang, 2017). That decision must be applied by all European countries and it is necessary to develop a strategy to
support the shipping companies, port administrations and all actors involved in the maritime industry to adapt their
 Turcanu (Marcu)Andra Luciana et al./ Energy Reports 00 (2020) 000–000 2

boats/ships to the new conditions. The most important changes that the government must do is to allow funds to new
infrastructure required by the new green fuel, new energy for mobility.
As it has mentioned by a group of experts from Det Norske Veritas GL, fuels like Methanol, Electricity, Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) and Electricity are usually used in shipping today (Chryssakis and Balland 2014). Of course, there
are also other fuels that can be used in the future like liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), synthetic fuels, Hydrogen etc. It
is difficult to select the best solution, to face the new regulations. There are many alternatives with different attributes
(Brunelli, 2015). It is necessary that the owners from shipping industry to make an analysis of each alternative and to
take the right decision, considering the environmental impact, economic impact for the company, infrastructure needed
and fuel availability.
In this paper we have selected two types of fuel, oil gas that is usually used and the LNG, that is a green fuel. The
main objective was to identify the best ranked marine fuel, between LNG and oil gas. We will consider the
performance on various aspects, but also the importance for different actors, using AHP like a flexible and efficient
tool in approaching the complex decision process. In this case we will analyze six criteria: acquisition cost,
infrastructure achievement, vessel safety, environmental impact, fuel availability and social responsibility.

1.1 Literature review

Taking decision is part of a complex process and is important to know how to approach it. If cost-benefit analyze
does not offer the proper results, then MCDM is more specific and helps decision makers to solve the problems more
rationally. Although there are studies in the literature on environmental and economic assessments of various solutions
to ecological trade-offs, there is little research on coherent decisions between conflicting alternatives for compliance
(Olcer and Ballini, 2015).
MCDM method was used in different fields, including marine fuels (Hansson et al., 2019; Deniz and Zincir, 2016;
Ren and Lützen, 2017) and various stakeholders were asked to prioritize the criteria for selecting marine fuel. Of
these, whether we refer to industry representatives, manufacturers of engines and fuel, they found that the price of fuel
(economic criteria) is the most important parameter. Hansson et al. (2019) conducted a formal MCDM study in which
it included several criteria: economic, technical, environmental and social. He has ranked the criteria, based on
expected performance of fuel and inputs emanating from maritime stakeholders that were presented to the owners,
authorities, manufacturers of engines and fuels.
AHP method was utilized in many studies to analyze the alternative marine fuels (Olcer and Ballini, 2015; Gamper
et al., 2006; Ren and Liang, 2017; Ren and Lutzen, 2017; Osorio-Tejada et al., 2017; Tsita and Pilavachi, 2013;
Lanjewar et al., 2015).
In 2009, Eide et al. suggested that the assessment of the cost effectiveness of technical and operational measures
for reducing CO2 emissions from shipping, will be achieved using a methodology that involves the development of a
decision parameter.
In their paper Lai et al. (2011), referring to environmental assessment shipping practices, proposed a conceptual
framework and political and managerial implications of this framework for promoting environmentally friendly
shipping practices.
Analysis of energy consumption and emission of greenhouse gases of several alternatives for reducing SOx (fuels
with low content of sulfur and scrubbers), was performed by Ma et al. (2012). To comply with the rules on sulfur
emissions in the shipbuilding industry, Jiang et al., (2014), examined the costs/benefits of measures to reduce sulfur
scrubbers and marine diesel. Using a real options analysis methodology, Acciaro (2014) studied the uncertainty
associated with capital expenditures and price differences between fuels, to understand the trade-off between capital
investments in LNG modernization and fuel prices.
Eyring et al. (2005) states that a significant impact on the air quality have emissions of exhaust gases emanated
from the transport (carbon dioxide, oxides, nitrates, hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide/carbon dioxide,
nitric oxides, hydrocarbons, oxides of sulfur, carbon monoxide). Welaya et al. (2011) brings attention to the possibility
of replacing traditional fossil fuels with renewable or ecological energy sources, as a way that promises to achieve
ecological transport. That possibility led to increased attention to environmental protection and improved air quality.
Adamchak and Adede (2013) stated that many alternative marine fuels have been considered as promising scenarios
for reducing air pollution from ships. Winebrake et al. (2019) evaluated the environmental impact of some marine
 Turcanu (Marcu)Andra Luciana et al./ Energy Reports 00 (2020) 000–000 3

fuels (distilled fuels, compared to natural gas-based methanol, bio-methanol and LNG/distilled fuels compared to
natural gas-based methanol, bio-methanol, and LNG), highlighting that marine fuels based on natural gas offer
significant environmental benefits compared to conventional fuels.

1.2 Research Methodology

A management tool used very often by the managers when they must take difficult decisions, taking into
account qualitative and quantitative criteria, is the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA), also known as Multi-Criteria
Decision Making (MCDM) or Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). This method can be implemented through
many techniques, the most popular being the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), to find the optimal solution, the
most suitable with the interests and preferences of the stakeholders (Linkov and Moberg, 2011; Gamper et al., 2006).
We have used this technique because it is used in the transportation problems and it have allowed us to use a number
of independent criteria taking into account the views of the parties involved in solving the problem (Osorio-Tejada et
al., 2017; Ziolkowska, 2013).
According to Saaty (2008) the researcher who introduced and developed this method, we done the selection
process that we had to consider the steps being presented in Figure 1. These are the steps to follow in the AHP selection
process.

Fig 1. Steps to be respected in AHP selection process

After structuring the decision-making process and obtaining the decomposed model on top-down levels
(objective, criteria, competing alternatives or options that offer the problem solution), the alternatives can be ranked
and after that compared (Figure 2). Their ranking is based on (i) the relative performance of one alternative compared
to the others for certain established criteria and (ii) the relative importance of the criteria in achieving the decision
objective (Winebrake et al., 2019). For this it is necessary first to establish the relative importance of the considered
criteria, using the numerical scale of Saaty. In this stage the n (n-1)/2 pairs of criteria are compared, where n is the
number of criteria considered, in order to obtain the relative weights for each criterion, depending on the importance
of each one using the eigen value.

Fig.2. Decision hierarchy for investment in an alternative fuel

 Turcanu (Marcu)Andra Luciana et al./ Energy Reports 00 (2020) 000–000 4

Based on the relative judgment of the decision factors regarding the compared pairs, the decision matrix is
obtained, which contains in each cell the values from the Saaty scale (Table 1). We may have situations in which the
corresponding score is not accurate, assigning in this case an intermediate value (Gasparotti and Domnisoru, 2020).
Dividing each entry in this matrix by the sum in that column gives the normalized matrix that allows determining the
column vector Wj (n-dimensional) that contains the weights of each criterion, calculated as the average of the entries
in each row.

Table 1 Saaty's scale for pairwise comparisons

Value Interpretation judgment
1 equally as importance
3 slightly more important
5 more important than another one
7 strongly more important
9 absolutely more important

2,4,6,8 adjacent judgments

Given that the values obtained are based on subjective perceptions of the factors involved in the evaluation
of alternatives, calculate the consistency ratio CR, which provides information on the consistency of these
assessments. This is possible using the consistency index for a randomly created matrix (IR) (Table 2), in which the
entered judgments are very inconsistent, compared to the consistency index (CI) obtained for the judgment of the
decision makers in the analyzed case. The C.I. can be expressed as:

C.I. = (λmax - n)/(n -1) (1)

where λmax is the highest eigenvalue, and n are the criteria compared on pairs.
The ratio CR = CI / RI determined as follows, sets the analysis AHP if its value is less than or equal to 0.1. Over this
value it is necessary to revise judgments.

Table 2 Consistency indices for the randomly generated matrix

n 3 4 5 6
RI 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24

For the calculation of the value λmax we start from the values obtained in the decision matrix which are
multiplied by the weight of the criterion in the corresponding column and then the summation on each line of the
values obtained resulting in the weighted sum vector. The value of λmax represents the average of the values obtained
by dividing the weighted amounts by the weight of each criterion.
To derive local priorities for the two alternatives (LNG and gas oil), they are evaluated according to the
decision criteria, by a similar judgment criteria, resulting in matrices of order (mxm). The same numerical scale of
Saaty is used to compare the two alternatives in relation to each criterion.
We obtain n • m (m-1)/2 comparisons for alternatives, where m is the number of compared alternatives. If
we note the score vectors of the alternatives in relation to the criteria chosen with s (i), i = 1,2..n, the matrix of scores
is of type mxn, and is of the form S = [s (i) ..... s (n)].
The derivation of the global priorities (scores) of the alternatives achieved by weighting the local priorities
with the weight of each criterion leads to obtaining the vector V = S x W of the global scores, based on which the
selection of the best alternative takes place.
 Turcanu (Marcu)Andra Luciana et al./ Energy Reports 00 (2020) 000–000 5

1.3 Selection of the alternative marine fuels and criteria

It is important to notice that not only the overall impact that a fuel give to environment is to take into
considerations. There are many other aspects that we must consider like emissions related to transport pathway and
fuel’s production. From the huge number of fuels that today cand be used in shipping, the most known is LNG
(Sihvonen, 2018). This gas is preferred to be used because it has no sulfur content, and its combustion produces low
NOx compared to fuel oil and marine diesel oil (Adamchak, 2015).
European Union attaches great importance to European LNG Infrastructure. In January 2020 are operational
17 LNG terminal and 24 in extension, in countries part of European Union as seen in Figure 3. In July 2020 have
approved grants for its states member to increase the LNG utilization on ships, trucks and cars (Nissimov, 2020).

Fig.3. European LNG Infrastructure

Source: European Commission (Comission, 2020 )

For the assessment of an alternative fuels, it is necessary to set some relevant criteria. It is important to select
criteria that will provide essential information in taking decision regarding aspects like sustainability and economic
investment and rentability on long term (Andersson et al., 2020). In this paper we will consider acquisition cost,
infrastructure achievement, vessel safety, environmental impact, fuel availability and social responsibility, relevant
criteria.
Selected criteria represent different aspects of sustainability alternative maritime fuels and this paper does not
claim to present a complete sustainability assessment.

1.4 Aspects analyzed

At a time when Europe's transport sector accounts for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions and is heavily
dependent on 94% oil, LNG and the most abundant source of fossil energy which can be used as fuel can bring
improvements to the European transport sector. Moreover, as an alternative to the natural gas supply chain, the security
of supply of the major energy carrier in general may also increase. In Table 3 we have detailed which aspect was
analyzed, each criteria.

Table 3 Aspects to be analyzed

Criteria Aspects analyzed

Acquisition We will consider the cost of the ship, adapted to function with green fuels. According with a group of experts
Cost from Sea- LNG Ltd., the order for LNG vessel is extending, in June 2019 there were 163 LNG-fuelled ships
in operation (excluding over 500 LNG carriers) and a further 155 ships on order. In February 2020, the
 Turcanu (Marcu)Andra Luciana et al./ Energy Reports 00 (2020) 000–000 6

numbers have increased to a total of 175 LNG-fuelled ships in operation, with 203 on order and a further 141
LNG-ready vessels in operation and sitting on the order books (SEA/LNG, 2020).

Infrastructure We will consider the compatibility with ports to facilitate the operation of storage, distribution and bunkering.
Needed To meet the requirements of EU Directive 2014/94/EU "on the deployment of alternative fuels infra-
structure" (Union, 2014), ports, has started to develop LNG infrastructure, storage and LNG as cargo.
Vessel We will consider the risk of fire, explosion that depends on fuel properties. There are well designed, their
Safety construction has a strong influence on how are operated and are considered the safest vessels (Vanem, 2007).
Environmental Using LNG as fuel offers clear environmental benefits: elimination of SOX emissions, significant reduction
Impact of NOX and particulate matter, and a small reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Chryssakis, 2014).
Also, LNG in ships is promoted, to meet the requirements of the Emission Control Areas (ECA) and the
0.5% global Sulphur cap coming into force in 2020 (Sihvonen, 2018).
Fuel The requirement for LNG infrastructure in maritime transport is to have sufficient infrastructure for LNG
Availability refueling in inland waterways and for ocean-going vessels, to enable the circulation of LNG ships throughout
the TEN-T Core Network, by 31 December 2030 (Sihvonen, 2018).
Social Respecting the new regulations will contribute to a safer and healthy planet. In the longer term, the European
Responsibility Union is committed to fulfilling the Paris Agreement, for which the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR), now
called the Climate Action Regulation (CAR)sectors must decarbonize almost completely by 2050 (Sihvonen,
2018).

2 Results and discussions

An illustrative case with two alternative marine fuels, LNG and oil gas, was presented and analyzed by the proposed
method, the most sustainable scenario being the one in which LNG is used as marine fuel. The obtained results
demonstrate that the method used for prioritizing alternative marine fuels is feasible and helps decision makers in
selecting the best option.
Decision matrix was made starting from the reasoning that, the acquisition cost is slightly more important than fuel
availability and infrastructure needed, more important than social responsibility and equally as importance with vessel
safety. In the same way we have considered environmental impact criteria, equally as importance with vessel safety,
slightly more important than acquisition cost and infrastructure needed, more important than fuel availability and
strongly important than social responsibility (Table 4). Normalized matrix is presented in Table 5.

Table 4 Decision matrix regarding the criteria

Environmental Acquisition Fuel Vessel Infrastructure Social
Goal Impact Cost Availability Safety Needed Responsibility
Environmental
Impact 1.00 3.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 7.00
Acquisition
Cost 0.33 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 5.00
Fuel
Availability 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.2 0.33 3.00
Vessel
Safety 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 0.14 0.33
Infrastructure
Needed 0.33 0.33 3 0.33 1.00 3.00
Social
Responsibility 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.2 0.33 1.00

Sum 3.01 5.87 17.33 3.73 10.67 24.00

Table 5 Normalized matrix

Environmental Acquisition Fuel Vessel Infrastructure Social
Goal Impact Cost Availability Safety Needed Responsibility
Environmental
Impact 0.33 0.51 0.288 0.27 0.28 0.29
Acquisition
Cost 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.27 0.28 0.21
Fuel
Availability 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.13
Vessel 0.33 0.17 0.29 0.27 0.28 0.21
 Turcanu (Marcu)Andra Luciana et al./ Energy Reports 00 (2020) 000–000 7

Safety
Infrastructure
Needed 0.11 0.06 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.13
Social
Responsibility 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.04

Determining the order of importance based on the criteria considered, judgment was done according to the priorities
calculated for each criterion (Table 6). Using the data presented in Table 6, which includes the weights of the criteria
and the information from decision matrix, the vector "weighted columns" was determined and then weighted sum
(Table 7), which was used to determine the value λmax (eigenvalue) (Table 8).

Table 6 Criteria weights

Environmental Acquisition Fuel Vessel Infrastructure Social
Goal Impact Cost Availability Safety Needed Responsibility
Criteria weights
0.33 0.20 0.07 0.26 0.11 0.07
Environmental
Impact 1.00 3 5.00 1 3.00 7
Acquisition
Cost 0.33 1.00 3.00 1 3.00 5
Fuel
Availability 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.2 0.33 3
Vessel
Safety 1 1 5 1.00 3 5
Infrastructure
Needed 0.33 0.33 3 0.33 1.00 3.00
Social
Responsibility 0.14 0.20 0.33 0.2 0.33 1.00

Table 7 Weighted sum

Environmental Acquisition Fuel Vessel Infrastructure Social Weighted
Goal Impact Cost Availability Safety Needed Responsibility sum
Criteria weights
0.33 0.20 0.07 0.26 0.11 0.07
Environmental
Impact 0.33 0.61 0.33 0.26 0.32 0.27 2.11
Acquisition
Cost 0.11 0.20 0.195 0.26 0.32 0.19 1.68
Fuel
Availability 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.4
Vessel
Safety 0.33 0.20 0.33 0.26 0.32 0.19 1.63
Infrastructure
Needed 0.11 0.07 0.20 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.68
Social
Responsibility 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.23

Table 8 Eigen value

Criteria Weighted sum Priority Weighted sum/Priority
Environmental
6.41
Impact 2.11 0.33
Acquisition
8.3
Cost 1.68 0.20
Fuel
6.13
Availability 0.4 0.07
Vessel
6.31
Safety 1.63 0.26
Infrastructure
6.29
Needed 0.68 0.11
Social
6.19
Responsibility 0.23 0.07
 Turcanu (Marcu)Andra Luciana et al./ Energy Reports 00 (2020) 000–000 8

Total 39.65
ʎmax 6.61

CI=(ʎmax-n)/(n-1)=(6.61-6)/5=0.122; (2)

CR= CI/RI=0.122/1.24=0,09<0.1, (3)

which demonstrates the consistency of judgment, which means that AHP process may be continued. The same
reasoning used for the analysis of the six criteria, was also used in order to determine the scores for the two alternatives
(LNG and oil gas).
According with the dates from Table 9, we have established which marine fuel alternative is prefered in
relation with each criteria. For this relation we have considerated that:
- in relation to Environmental Impact, LNG is strongly more important than oil gas;
- in relation to Acquisition Cost, LNG is slightly more important than oil gas;
- in relation to Fuel Availability, the oil gas is strongly more important than LNG;
- in relation to Vessel Safety, LNG is slightly more important than oil gas;
- in relation to Infrastructure Needed, oil gas is strongly important than LNG;
- in relation to Social Responsibility, LNG is strongly more important than oil gas.

Table 9 Calculation of local priorities for the two marine fuels

Environmental Acquisition Fuel Vessel Infrastructure Social
Impact Cost Availability Safety Needed Responsibility
Criteria
weights 0.33 0.20 0.07 0.26 0.11 0.04
LNG 0.875 0.75 0.17 0.75 0.17 0.83
Oil gas 0.125 0.25 0.83 0.25 0.83 0.17

Knowing the criteria weights from Table 6 and the local priorities for the two marine fuels (Table 9), the overall
priorities were determined (Table 10).

Table 10 Overall priorities

Environmental Acquisition Fuel Vessel Infrastructure Social Overall
Impact Cost Availability Safety Needed Responsibility priorities
Criteria
weights 0.33 0.20 0.07 0.26 0.11 0.04
LNG 0.288 0.151 0.011 0.194 0.018 0.032 0.693
Oil gas 0.041 0.050 0.054 0.065 0.090 0.006 0.307

According to the values obtained for overall priorities in the case of the two alternatives (LNG and Oil gas), the
LNG type marine fuel with the highest value (0.693) was selected.
In the next step, the sensitivity analysis was performed in order to be able to establish if the initial decision is robust
and absolutely necessary to make a final decision. The scenarios chosen were: a) what is the final choice if the weight
of the criteria is the same (Table 11) and b) what is the final choice if the environmental impact criterion has a weight
of 50% (Table 12).

Scenario a)
Table 11 Overall priorities when the criteria weights have the same values
Environmental Acquisition Fuel Vessel Infrastructure Social Overall
Impact Cost Availability Safety Needed Responsibility priorities
Criteria
weights 0.166 0.166 0.166 0.166 0.166 0.166
LNG 0.145 0.125 0.028 0.125 0.028 0.138 0.588
Oil gas 0.021 0.041 0.140 0.042 0.140 0.028 0.412
 Turcanu (Marcu)Andra Luciana et al./ Energy Reports 00 (2020) 000–000 9

Scenario b)
Table 12 Overall priorities when the environmental impact criterion has a weight of 50%
Environmental Acquisition Fuel Vessel Infrastructure Social Overall
Impact Cost Availability Safety Needed Responsibility priorities
Criteria
weights 0.500 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100
LNG 0.438 0.075 0.017 0.075 0.017 0.083 0.704
Oil gas 0.063 0.025 0.083 0.025 0.083 0.017 0.296

The sensitivity analysis shows that for a share of the environmental impact criterion in the range 0.166-0,500, the
preferred marine fuel option is LNG, which means that it can be chosen as the final decision.

3 Conclusion

The study conducted in this paper starts from the approach to the decision-making process, which led to a series
of methods that support this process. In this study, the MADM method was implemented through AHP technique
often used in transport problems, which allows the use of independent criteria, taking into account the views of the
parties involved in solving the identified problem. Two alternatives were evaluated (LNG and Oil gas), being
selected the one that achieves a compromise between the proposed criteria.
The application of the AHP technique was presented by describing the steps to be followed and demonstrated by
means of an illustrative case with two alternative marine fuels. They were generated weighting of the criteria for
ranking them and assigning scores of the two alternatives in relation to selected criteria. By combining the scores of
the two competing alternatives with the weights of each criterion, the global scores were obtained according to
which the ranks of the alternatives were established. In order to check the decision factor evaluation consistency, the
consistency index was calculated (CR = 0.09), which demonstrated the consistency of method results.
Sensitivity analysis was performed using two scenarios. In the first scenario, equal weights were considered for
all criteria and in the second, a weight of 50% was considered for the criterion that initially obtained the best
classification (environmental impact). The analysis showed that the changes in the weight of the criteria did not lead
to a change in the rank of the proposed alternatives.
In order to decide, based on the AHP technique, which one of the two marine fuels represents the solution in
relation to the proposed criteria, it was obtained:
- the weights of the six criteria (environmental impact = 0.33; acquisition cost = 0.2; fuel availability = 0.07;
vessel safety = 0.26; infrastructure needed = 0.11; social responsibility = 0.04), following comparisons by pairs;
- local priorities for the two marine fuels compared to the proposed criteria (Table 9);
- the overall scores for the two marine fuels: LNG is preferable (overall priority = 0.693) compared to Oil gas
(overall priority = 0.307) (Table 10).

References

[1] Acciaro Michele. (2014) “A real option application to investment in low-sulphur maritime transport”, International Journal of Shipping
and Transport Logistics 6(2):ng and Transport Logistics
[2] Adamchak Frederick., and Adede Amokeye ., (2013) “LNG as a marine fuel”, 17th International conference and exhibition on Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG 17), Houston, 17th April 2013.
[3] Adamchak, Frederick. (2015). “LNG as marine fuel”. Retrieved from https://www.mcst-rmiusp.org/index.php/resources/reference-
library/send/14-lng-maritime-fuel/132-adamchak-frederick-2015-lng-as-marine-fuel
[4] Andersson Karin, Brynolf Selma, Hansson Julia and Grahn, Maria. (2020) “Criteria and Decision Support for A Sustainable Choice of
Alternative Marine Fuels”. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3623, 1-23.
 Turcanu (Marcu)Andra Luciana et al./ Energy Reports 00 (2020) 000–000 10

[5] Brunelli, Matteo, (2015) “Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London,
Springer International Publishing, 2015. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/15146
[6] Chryssakis, Christos and Balland Océane. (2014) “Alternative Fuels for Shipping”. Norway: Det Norske Veritas GL Strategic Research
& Innovation Position Paper. https://transportemaritimoglobal.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/dnv-gl-alternative-fuel-2014-
positionpaper.pdf
[7] Commission, European. (2020). EU-U.S. LNG TRADE . Bruxelles, Belgium.
[8] Deniz, Cengiz.; Zincir, Burak. (2016) “Environmental and Economical Assessment of Alternative Marine Fuels”. Journal of Cleaner
Production 2016, 113, 438–449.
[9] Eide, Magnus S., Endresen, Øyvind., Skjong Rolf., Longva, Tore., Alvik S. (2009) “Cost-effectiveness assessment of CO2 reducing
measures in verre shipping”, Maritime Policy & Management 36(4):367-384
[10] Eyring, V., Köhler H. W., Lauer A., Lemper B. (2005). “Emissions from international shipping: 2. Impact of future technologies on
scenarios until 2050.” J. Geophys. Res. 110 fuels, J. Clean. Prod. 113 (2016) 438–449.
[11] Gamper, C.D., Thoni, M., Weck-Hannemann, H. (2006) “A conceptual approach to the use of Cost Benefit and Multi Criteria Analysis
in natural hazard management”, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 6 (2) (2006) 293–302.
[12] Gasparotti, Carmen and Domnisoru, Leonard (2020). “Decision making in engineering applications based on analytic hierarchy process”,
20th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference-SGEM 2020, 18-24 August, Albena, Bulgaria, Section Informatics,
pp.103-110, https://sgem.org/proceedings2020/book_2_1_contents.pd
[13] Hansson, Julia, Månsson, Stina, Brynolf, Selma, Grahn, Maria. (2019) “Alternative Marine Fuels: Prospects Based on Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis Involving Swedish Stakeholders”. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 126, 159–173.
[14] IMO. (2018). Note by the International Maritime Organization to the UNFCCC Talanoa Dialogue adoption of the initial IMO strategy
on reduction of GHG emissions from ships and existing IMO activity related to reducing GHG emissions in the shipping sector.
[15] Jiang, Liping., Kronbak, Jacob, & Christensen, Leise. (2014) “The costs and benefits of sulphur reduction measures: Sulphur scrubbers
versus marine gas oil”. Transportation Research. Part D: Transport & Environment, 28, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.005
[16] Lanjewar Pramod B., Rao, Ravipudi Venkata, Kale, A.V. (2015) “Assessment of alternative fuels for transportation using a hybrid graph
theory and analytic hierarchy process method”, Fuel 154 (2015) 9–16.
[17] Lai Kee-hung, Lun, Venus Y.H., Wong Christina W.Y., Cheng T. C. E. (2011) “ Green shipping practices in the shipping industry:
Conceptualization, adoption, and implications”, Resources Conservation and Recycling 55(6):631-638
[18] Linkov, Igor and Moberg, Emily A. (2011) “Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: Environmental Applications and Case Studies”, 1 ed., CRC
Press, New York, 2011.
[19] Ma, Hongrui., Steernberg, Koen., Riera-Palou, Xavier., Tait, Nigel., (2012) “Well-to-wake energy and greenhouse gas analysis of SOX
abatement options for the marine industry”. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 17, 301-308.
[20] Nissimov, Ron. (2020). EU Grants Promote Use of LNG as Transportation Fuel, https://www.naturalgasintel.com/eu-grants-promote-
use-of-lng-as-transportation-fuel/
[21] Olcer, A. and Ballini, Fabio (2015) “The development of a decision making framework for evaluating the trade-off solutions of cleaner
seaborne transportation”, Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 37 (2015) 150–170:
[22] Osorio-Tejada, Jose Luis, Llera-Sastresa, Eva, Scarpellini, Sabina (2017) “A multi-criteria sustainability assessment for biodiesel and
liquefied natural gas as alternative fuels in transport systems”, Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering. 42 (2017) 169–186.
[23] Ren, Jingzheng and Liang, Hanwei. (2017) “Measuring the Sustainability of Marine Fuels: A Fuzzy Group Multi-Criteria Decision
Making Approach”. Transp. Res. Part. D Transp. Environ. (2017), 54, 12–29.
[24] Ren, Jingzheng and Lützen, Marie. (2017) “Selection of Sustainable Alternative Energy Source for Shipping: Multi-Criteria Decision
Making under Incomplete Information”. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. (2017), 74, 1003–1019.
[25] Saaty, Thomas. (2008) “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process”, Int. J. Serv. Sci. 1 (1) (2008) 83–98.
[26] SEA/LNG. (2020). SEA-LNG’S view from the bridge report. United Kindom.
[27] Sihvonen, Jori, (2018) “CNG and LNG for vehicles and ships- the facts”. Bruxelles, Belgium: Transport & Environment.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2018_10_TE_CNG_and_LNG_for_vehicles_and_ships_the_facts_EN.
pdf
[28] Tsita Katerina G., and Pilavachi, Petros A. (2013) “Evaluation of next generation biomass derived fuels for the transport sec tor”, Energy
Policy 62 (2013) 443–455.
[29] Union, T. E. (2014, october 2012). “Directive 2014/94/eu of the european parliament and of the council on the deployment of alternative
fuels infrastructure”. Official Journal of the European Union. Bruxelles, Belgium.
[30] Vanem, Erik and Antão, Pedro. (2007). “Formal Safety Assessment of LNG Tankers”. 10th International Symposium on Practical Design
of Ships and Other Floating Structures. Houston, Texas, United States of America: American Bureau of Shipping.
[31] Ziolkowska, Jad R., (2013) “Evaluating sustainability of biofuels feedstocks: a multi-objective framework for supporting decision
making”, Biomass Bioenergy 59 (2013) 425–440.
[32] Welaya, Yousri M.A., Gohary, Morsy M., Ammar, Nader R. (2011). “A comparison between fuel cells and other alternatives for marine
electric power generation”. International Journal Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 3(2), 141-149
[33] Winebrake, James J., Corbett, James .J.; Umar, Fatima.; Yuska, Daniel. (2019) “Pollution Tradeo_s for Conventional and Natural Gas-
Based Marine Fuels”. Sustainability (Switzerland) (2019), 11, 2235.