PAPER

A Study of the Performance of Ship

Diesel-Electric Propulsion Systems From
an Environmental, Energy Efficiency,
and Economic Perspective
AUTHORS
Ahmed G. Elkafas
Department of Naval Architecture
and Marine Engineering, Alexandria
University; and Thermochemical Power
Group, DIME, University of Genoa
Mohamed R. Shouman
Department of Marine Engineering
Technology, Arab Academy for
Science, Technology and Maritime
Transport
Introduction
ABSTRACT
Climate change and air pollution that are enormously impacted by ship emis-
sions have become an intriguing issue, drawing consideration from the shipping
industry. The ship’s propulsion system is the main contributor to energy efficiency
and ship emissions. This research paper presents a solution to this issue through
propelling the ship by using a diesel-electric propulsion system instead of the con-
ventional one. As a case study, a passenger ship is investigated. The results showed
that the proposed electric propulsion system has lower emission rates than the con-
ventional one by 10%, 21%, and 88% for Carbon dioxide, Nitrogen oxides and Sulfur
dioxide emissions, respectively. From an energy efficiency point of view, the diesel-
electric propulsion system enhances the energy efficiency and complies with the re-
quired International Maritime Organization (IMO) values, as actual energy efficiency is
about 66%, 70%, 83%, and 95% of the required IMO values at baseline, Phase 1,
Phase 2, and Phase 3, respectively. From the economic point of view, the annual
costs are $2.5 and $3.05 million for both diesel-electric and conventional propulsion

R ecent regulations set by the In-

ternational Maritime Organization
(IMO) and financial challenges that
arose from the COVID-19 pandemic
have made the shipping industry face
numerous difficulties (Ammar &
Seddiek, 2020; Lee et al., 2014). Ac-
cording to the most recent IMO data,
ships emitted 2.6% of the total global
carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions
(Ammar & Seddiek, 2021; El-Gohary,
2012). Therefore, IMO has given a
few enactments to lessen the un-
friendly ecological effect (Ammar et al.,
2019; Halff et al., 2019). The Inter-
national Convention for the Preven-
tion of Pollution from Ships (Maritime
Pollution [MARPOL]) applies a new
limit for the sulfur content of fuel oil
utilized in the available vessels outside
the emission control areas that should
not exceed 0.5% rather than the past
systems, respectively. This shows that the annual cost of the diesel-electric option is
less than that of the conventional by 22%.
Keywords: environmental protection, diesel-electric propulsion, energy efficiency,
passenger ships, ship exhaust emissions
restriction of 3.5% (IMO, 2016).
Furthermore, the IMO limits nitro-
gen oxide (NOx) emissions by mandat-
ing that installed engines onboard ships
built on or after January 2021 with a
power of more than 130 kW be Tier III
certified.
To adapt to expanding natural re-
quests and environmental issues, gas
emanations from operated vessels’
engines powered by fossil fuels
must be decreased. Utilizing low car-
bon fuels, modification of engines,
add-on retrofits, and different mea-
sures can be utilized to decrease ex-
haust gas emissions. Methods like
selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
or exhaust gas recirculation may be
needed to decrease NOx emissions.
Exhaust scrubbers can be intro-
duced to reduce sulfur dioxide
(SOx) emissions (Burel et al.,
2013). Alternative fuels like hydro-
gen and natural gas can be chosen to
operate marine engines (El Gohary
et al., 2015). Hydrogen is shown to
be efficient and harmless to the eco-
system. It has high explicit energy,
low starting energy, magnificent
fire speed, and an expansive com-
bustibility range. However, engines
that run solely on hydrogen require

52 Marine Technology Society Journal

costly hydrogen aging, limiting their
use (Bellaby et al., 2016; Mukherjee
et al., 2015).
Mohseni et al. (2019) pointed out
that the propulsion system has a huge
influence on the level of ship emis-
sions. The solution is to propose a
more efficient system than a conven-
tional propulsion system (Elgohary,
2009; Geertsma et al., 2017). The
most efficient solution is an electric
propulsion system, as it can be adapted
to different vessel types at different
speeds (Nuchturee et al., 2020).
Lim et al. (2019) presented an ap-
plication of an electric system in a
ship to reduce NOx that was accepted
with the regulations released by IMO.
Offshore supply vessels and liquefied
natural gas ships can use the electric
propulsion system incorporated
with the Azipod propeller as shown
in Bassam et al. (2016). Other re-
search investigated the evaluation
of power and other dynamic specifi-
cations for electric propulsion sys-
tems (Prempraneerach et al., 2009).
Zahedi and Norum (2013) validate
the electric propulsion system com-
ponents and their design through
simulation software. Moreover,
Bassam et al. (2017) investigated
the hybrid system, including the
electric system, and found environ-
mental and economic benefits from
the application. Zahedi and Norum
(2013) introduced electric system
simulation through the use of its
components. Lim et al. (2019) con-
ducted a study on the analysis of
ship electric systems to propel the
ship, which depends on load factor
and the maritime industry. Further-
more, Dedes et al. (2012) discussed
the applicability of using the electric
concept as a part of the hybrid pro-
pulsion system for a certain ship
type. Therefore, the application of
TABLE 1 of greenhouse gas emissions. As a
Main specifications of the studied passenger ship.
case study, a passenger ship will be
investigated.
Ship Name MS Westerdam
IMO number 9226891
Length overall, [m] 285
Case Study Description
The case study for the assessment
Beam, [m] 32
process of energy efficiency and en-
Draft, [m] 7.8 vironmental impacts has been select-
Service speed, [knots] 22 ed to be a passenger ship. The ship
Number of passengers 2,366 is operated by Holland America
Line passenger vessels under the
Gross tonnage, [ton] 82,897
name “MS Westerdam,” with a capac-
Electric power, [kW] 51,840
ity of 2,366 passengers and 820 crew
members. The ship was built in
electric propulsion systems onboard 2004 and sailed under the flag of
ships is a very hot research issue be- the Netherlands. The principal spec-
cause of the economic and environ- ifications of the ship are shown in
mental benefits resulting from the Table 1 (Hollandamerica, 2021).
previous literature survey. The ship is suggested to be operated
The present research aims to pro- by a diesel-electric propulsion system
pose an electric propulsion system as shown in Figure 1, with a total
to drive the ship instead of the con- power of 51,840 kW, covering both
ventional system to reduce ship the electric propulsion and auxiliary/
emissions and enhance energy effi- hotel power requirements for the
ciency. The environmental assessment ship.
will be based on a comparative anal- The propulsion system can be pro-
ysis between the proposed electric vided with the required electric power
propulsion system and the conven- from six generators (G) through trans-
tional system through an evaluation formers. The convertor regulates the
FIGURE 1
Proposed electric propulsion system arrangements for the case study.
January/February 2022 Volume 56 Number 1 53
frequency according to the required
propulsion motor speed (M). The
diesel generator will run on ultra-low
sulfur heavy fuel oil (ULSHFO) with
0.1 sulfur and a specific fuel con-
sumption (SFC) of 155.6 g/kWh, a
load factor of 90%, and an efficiency
of 41.3%.
The ship is sailing from Canada
(Vancouver port) to Japan (Tokyo
port) to attract more passengers and
increase its financial benefit. This sail-
ing route is 10,560 nautical miles
(NM) and takes 20 days in one trip.
The average number of trips per year
is five.
Performance Evaluation
Methodology
Environmental performance can
be assessed by evaluating the exhaust
emissions from ships. The energy effi-
ciency can be assessed by using the
procedure recommended by IMO by
using the Energy Efficiency Design
Index (EEDI) procedure (Elkafas
et al., 2021b).
Firstly, the total emissions during
ship cruising can be evaluated by
using Equation (1), which also de-
pends on the type of engines (Eng)
like the main engine and auxiliary
engine.
 
Mtrip;n ¼ ∑: T  ∑Eng ðP × L × Fn Þ
Where (P) is the power of the en-
gine in [kW], L is the load factor of
the engine, T is the operating time
of the ship in [hour], (n) is the type
of pollutant, and (F) is the fuel emission
factor in [g/kWh]. The emission factors
for NOx, SOx, and CO2 are 13, 0.4,
and 485 [g/kWh], respectively, for
diesel-electric engines operated
with ULSHFO 0.1%S (Ammar &
54 Marine Technology Society Journal
Seddiek, 2020). On the other hand, the emission factors are 539 g/kWh,
16.4 g/kWh, and 3.29 g/kWh for CO2, NOx, and SOx, respectively, for
conventional diesel engines operated with marine diesel oil (MDO) with
1%S (Elkafas et al., 2021a).
Furthermore, the energy efficiency of the case study can be assessed by using
the EEDI procedure (Ammar & Seddiek, 2021). EEDI can be assessed by cal-
culating the reference value (EEDIref) through Equation (2) and the attained
value (EEDIatt) set by IMO through Equation (3) and measured in [gCO2/
GT-NM] (Ammar & Seddiek, 2021; Elkafas, Khalil, et al., 2021).
  
170:84 X
EEDIref ¼ 1− ð2Þ
GT0:214 100
Where (GT) is the gross tonnage of the passenger ship, (X) is the reduction
rate set by IMO as follows: 10% in Phase 1 (2015–2019), 20% in Phase 2
(2020–2024), and 30% in Phase 3 (2025–onwards) (El Gohary & Ammar,
2016; Elkafas et al., 2019).
 
HL max:
ηgen: þ
∑ni¼1 ð0:75:MPPðiÞÞ
ηPTI ⋅ηgen: ⋅ðCF ⋅SFCAE Þ
EEDIatt ¼ ð3Þ
GT⋅vref :
The previous equation depends on the electric power during ship cruise in
kW (HLmax), the efficiency of the generator (ⴄgen), the electric propulsion motor
power in kW (MPP), the electric propulsion systems efficiencies at 75% of the
electric motor output rated power PTI, the fuel conversion factors of the con-
sumed fuel to CO2 (CF), the average SFC for all engines (SFCAE ) at 75% of the
maximum continuous rating power in [g/kWh] and (Vref. ), which is the oper-
ational vessel speed in knots.
To evaluate certain propulsion systems from the economic point of view, both
the annual life cost (ALC) and the corresponding gains should be calculated. The
value of the annual life cost could be evaluated as shown in Equation (4):
ALC ¼ Pi :UCi þ CM&O þ CFuel þ CCO2 ð4Þ
Where, (Pi) is the power of each system’s component in kW, (UCi) is the
system power’s unit cost in $/kW, (CM&O) is the maintenance and operating
ð1Þ
costs, (CFuel) is the fuel cost, and (CCO2) is the carbon tax cost. The fuel cost
sharing by a high percentage of the total operating cost and could be determined
as shown in Equation (5) (Elgohary et al., 2015).
CFuel ¼ ∑iAE¼1 LF :Tp : FC :Cf ð5Þ
Where (LF) is engine load factor, (Tp) is the operation time of the propulsion
system expressed in h/year, (FC) is the fuel consumption in ton/h, (Cf) is the
specific fuel price in US$/ton, and (k) is the number of working diesel-electric
generators. Maintenance and operation costs can be evaluated depending on the
installation costs of the ship (Elkafas & Shouman, 2021).
 The previous cost elements are FIGURE 2
considered as internal costs; however,
Exhaust emission rates for diesel electric engine compared with the conventional one.
there is an external cost that appears
in the form of the carbon tax, which
is related to greenhouse gas emissions.
The external costs of carbon emission
were added to the ALC to demon-
strate to what extent they would affect
the economic feasibility, and may be
estimated as shown in Equation (6):

CCO2 ¼ mCO2 :RTax :Tp ð6Þ

Where, (mCO2) is the CO2 gener-

ated per round trip in ton/h and
(RTax) is the specific charge of CO2
in US$/ton. FIGURE 3
Nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions for the diesel electric engine compared with IMO limit.

Results and Discussion

The environmental performance
can be assessed by evaluating the ex-
haust emission rates per trip. The ex-
amined emission types are NOx,
SOx, and CO2 as these types are related
to IMO regulations. The assessment
process depends on the comparative
study between the proposed diesel-
electric propulsion system operated
with ULSHFO (0.1%S) and the con-
ventional one operated with MDO
(1%S). Therefore, the different emis-
sions rates can be compared in Figure 2. FIGURE 4
The emissions rates are in tons/trip as Reference EEDI values for passenger ship.
discussed in Equation (1). As shown
in Figure 2, the conventional diesel
engine emitted more NOx emission
rates than the diesel-electric engine,
as NOx emissions have a solid rela-
tionship with the combustion tem-
perature inside the engine, and the
combustion of MDO (1%S) will pro-
duce higher NOx rates than ULSHFO
(Mrzljak & Mrakovčić, 2016). The
conventional diesel engine will produce
higher SOx emissions than the diesel-
electric as SOx emissions depend on

January/February 2022 Volume 56 Number 1 55

the sulfur content of the combustion FIGURE 5
fuel. On the other hand, the CO2 emis-
Relative values of attained EEDI to the reference values at different phases for the case study.
sion rates of the two options are very
close as it depends on the carbon con-
tent of the fuel, but the diesel-electric
will produce fewer CO 2 emissions
than the conventional one.
The NOx and SOx emission rates
have been compared with the IMO
2016 and 2020 emission-limit rates,
respectively. The IMO 2020 SOx
and Tier III 2016 NOx limits are
1.555 kg/min and 2.008 kg/min, re-
spectively. Figure 3 shows a compara-
tive diagram between the IMO limit
and the SOx and NOx emission
of CO 2 /GT-NM. The relative at- Also, from an economic perspec-
rates for diesel-electric propulsion sys-
tained EEDI value to the reference tive, cruising time, vessel’s age, and
tems. It can be noticed that SOx
value at different phases for the pro- various components of the vessel’s
emissions rates for the diesel-electric
posed diesel-electric propulsion sys- life cycle are assessed for every impe-
engine comply with the IMO 2020
tem can be described in Figure 5. tus framework. The upsides of life
limits because they use ULSHFO
It was shown that the proposed cycle cost for the proposed diesel-
with a small amount of sulfur. On
diesel-electric propulsion system will electric framework and the convention-
the other hand, it can be noticed that
comply with the required IMO al diesel engine are also assessed. For
NOx emissions from diesel-electric
phases now and in the future, as the estimation, the accompanying bound-
engines don’t comply with IMO
attained EEDI is about 66%, 70%, aries are thought about: The unit
2016 limits. Therefore, it is recom-
83%, and 95% of the reference expenses of the installation power
mended to use the SCR technique,
EEDI value at baseline, Phase 1, plant are $400 and $560 for both
which can reduce the NOx emission
Phase 2, and Phase 3, respectively. diesel-electric and conventional
rate from the proposed diesel-electric
engine by up to 90% (Ammar &
Seddiek, 2020). FIGURE 6
Finally, the energy efficiency can be Annual cost of diesel-electric and conventional propulsion system with highlighting the fuel
assessed by the calculation of the EEDI price trend over years.
for the electric propulsion system as
recommended by IMO. By using
Equation (2), the reference EEDI
and its value in the three phases can
be calculated based on the gross ton-
nage of the passenger ship as investi-
gated in Figure 4.
This reference value will be com-
pared with the actual attained EEDI,
which can be calculated by using
Equation (3) based on 22 knots of
service speed, 3.114 ton-CO2 /ton-
fuel conversion factor of fuel to
CO 2 , and 82,897 gross tonnages.
The attained EEDI will be 10.03 g

56 Marine Technology Society Journal

frameworks (Altosole et al., 2017). Fuel
costs are $350 and $510 per ton for
ULSHFO and MDO, separately
(BUNKERWORLD, 2021). Because
of the intricacy of the expensive compo-
nents of the monetary review, there are
a few components, for example, main-
tenance and operation costs and CO2
charge. These costs were thought to
be fixed during the vessel life cycle pe-
riod because of the absence of genu-
ine anticipated qualities and to work
with the computations. The opera-
tion and maintenance costs are ex-
pected to be at a pace of $5.2/kW
(Altosole et al., 2017). The expense
of the CO2 charge is expected to be
$32/ton (Ahn et al., 2017). By allud-
ing to the information in the case
study, the upsides of yearly expense
are $2.5 and $3.05 million each
year for both the diesel-electric and
conventional drive frameworks, respec-
tively, as displayed in Figure 6. This re-
veals that the yearly expense of the
diesel-electric choice is not exactly that
conventional by 22%.
This reveals that the annual cost of
the diesel-electric option is less than
that of the conventional by 22%.
Depending on the collected data re-
lated to the operation and mainte-
nance activities of each propulsion
system, the values of ALC are estimat-
ed to be $140.8 and $170.9 million
for diesel-electric and conventional
propulsion systems, respectively.
Moreover, the values of the life cycle
per power unit are $2,716 and
$3,296.7 per kW for both diesel-electric
and conventional propulsion systems,
respectively.
Conclusions
The present research discusses the
electric propulsion system for a pas-
senger ship from an environmental
and energy efficiency point of view.
The diesel-electric propulsion system
operated by ULSHFO (0.1%S) is pro-
posed to propel the ship instead of the
conventional diesel engine operated by
MDO (1%S). The main conclusions
from the current paper are:
■ From an environmental point of
view, diesel-electric engines operat-
ed by ULSHFO (0.1%S) comply
with IMO SOx and do not com-
ply with NOx emissions. By com-
paring the exhaust emissions rates
between diesel-electric and con-
ventional engines, it is shown
that diesel-electric has lower emis-
sion rates than the conventional
ones by 10%, 21%, and 88% for
CO2, NOx, and SOx emissions,
respectively.
■ From an energy efficiency point of
view, the diesel-electric propulsion
system enhances the attained
EEDI and complies with the re-
quired IMO values as it is about
66%, 70%, 83%, and 95% of
the reference EEDI values at base-
line, Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3,
respectively.
■ From the economic point of view,
the annual costs are $2.5 and
$3.05 million for both diesel-electric
and conventional propulsion systems,
respectively. The values of the life
cycle costs per unit of power are
$2,716 and $3,296.7 per kW, with
total life cycle costs of $140.8 and
$170.9 million, respectively.
Corresponding Author:
Ahmed G. Elkafas
Department of Naval Architecture
and Marine Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering,
Alexandria University
Alexandria, 21544, Egypt
Email: ahmed.gamal.elkafas@gmail.com
January/February 2022
References
Ahn, J., You, H., Ryu, J., & Chang, D. 2017.
Strategy for selecting an optimal propulsion
system of a liquefied hydrogen tanker. Int J
Hydrogen Energ. 42(8):5366–80. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.037.
Altosole, M., Benvenuto, G., Campora, U.,
Laviola, M., & Trucco, A. 2017. Waste heat
recovery from marine gas turbines and diesel
engines. Energies. 10(5):718. https://doi.
org/10.3390/en10050718.
Ammar, N.R., Elkafas, A.G., Elgohary, M.M.,
& Zeid, A. 2019. Prediction of shallow water
resistance for a new ship model using CFD
simulation: Case study container barge. J Ship
Prod Des. 35(2):198–206. https://doi.org/10.
5957/jspd.11170051.
Ammar, N.R., & Seddiek, I.S. 2020. En-
hancing energy efficiency for new generations
of containerized shipping. Ocean Eng.
215:107887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
oceaneng.2020.107887.
Ammar, N.R., & Seddiek, I.S. 2021. Evalu-
ation of the environmental and economic
impacts of electric propulsion systems on-
board ships: Case study passenger vessel.
Environ Sci Pollut R. 28:37851–66. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13271-4.
Bassam, A.M., Phillips, A.B., Turnock, S. R.,
& Wilson, P.A. 2016. An improved energy
management strategy for a hybrid fuel cell/
battery passenger vessel. Int J Hydrogen
Energ. 41(47):22453–64. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.08.049.
Bassam, A.M., Phillips, A.B., Turnock, S.R.,
& Wilson, P.A. 2017. Development of a
multi-scheme energy management strategy
for a hybrid fuel cell driven passenger ship.
Int J Hydrogen Energ. 42(1):623–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.
08.209.
Bellaby, P., Upham, P., Flynn, R., & Ricci,
M. 2016. Unfamiliar fuel: How the UK
public views the infrastructure required to
supply hydrogen for road transport. Int J
Hydrogen Energ. 41:6534–43. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.03.024.
Volume 56 Number 1 57
BUNKERWORLD. 2021. Bunkerworld fuel
prices. Retrieved from fuel prices website:
https://www.bunkerworld.com/prices/
(accessed August 27, 2021).
Burel, F., Taccani, R., & Zuliani, N. 2013.
Improving sustainability of maritime transport
through utilization of liquefied natural gas
(LNG) for propulsion. Energy. 57:412–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.002.
Dedes, E.K., Hudson, D.A., & Turnock, S.R.
2012. Assessing the potential of hybrid en-
ergy technology to reduce exhaust emis-
sions from global shipping. Energ Policy.
40:204–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2011.09.046.
El-Gohary, M.M. 2012. The future of natural
gas as a fuel in marine gas turbine for LNG
carriers. P I Mech Eng M-J Eng. 226(4):371–7.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1475090212441444.
El Gohary, M.M., & Ammar, N.R. 2016.
Thermodynamic analysis of alternative marine
fuels for marine gas turbine power plants.
Journal of Marine Science and Application.
15(1):95–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11804-016-1346-x.
El Gohary, M.M., Ammar, N.R., & Seddiek,
I.S. 2015. Steam and sofc based reforming
options of pem fuel cells for marine applica-
tions. Brodogradnja. 66(2):61–76. https://
hrcak.srce.hr/140057.
Elgohary, M.M. 2009. Energy conservation:
Passenger and container ships case studies.
Alexandria Eng J. 48(2):151–9.
Elgohary, M.M., Seddiek, I.S., & Salem, A.M.
2015. Overview of alternative fuels with
emphasis on the potential of liquefied natural
gas as future marine fuel. P I Mech Eng M-J
Eng. 229(4):365–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1475090214522778.
Elkafas, A.G., & Shouman, M.R. 2021. As-
sessment of energy efficiency and ship emis-
sions from speed reduction measures on a
medium sized container ship. Transactions of
the Royal Institution of Naval Architects,
International Journal of Maritime Engineering.
163(A3). https://doi.org/10.5750/ijme.
v163iA3.805.
58 Marine Technology Society Journal
Elkafas, A.G., Elgohary, M.M., & Shouman,
M.R. 2021a. Numerical analysis of economic
and environmental benefits of marine fuel
conversion from diesel oil to natural gas for con-
tainer ships. Environ Sci Pollut R. 28(12):
15210–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-
020-11639-6.
Elkafas, A.G., Elgohary, M.M., & Zeid, A.E.
2019. Numerical study on the hydrodynamic
drag force of a container ship model. Alexan-
dria Eng J. 58(3):849–59. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.aej.2019.07.004.
Elkafas, A.G., Khalil, M., Shouman, M.R., &
Elgohary, M.M. 2021b. Environmental pro-
tection and energy efficiency improvement by
using natural gas fuel in maritime transporta-
tion. Environ Sci Pollut R. 28:60585–96.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14859-6.
Geertsma, R.D., Negenborn, R.R., Visser, K.,
& Hopman, J.J. 2017. Design and control of
hybrid power and propulsion systems for
smart ships: A review of developments. Appl
Energ. 194:30–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2017.02.060.
Halff, A., Younes, L., & Boersma, T. 2019.
The likely implications of the new IMO
standards on the shipping industry. Energ
Policy. 126:277–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2018.11.033.
Hollandamerica. 2021. MS Westerdam.
Retrieved from cruise ships website: https://
www.hollandamerica.com/en_US/cruise-ships/
ms-westerdam/5.html (accessed June 1, 2021).
International Maritime Organization. 2016.
Annex 6: Resolution MEPC.280(70), adopted
on 28 October 2016—Effective date of im-
plementation of the fuel oil standard in regu-
lation 14.1.3 of MARPOL Annex VI. 280.
Lee, D.K., Jeong, Y.K., Shin, J.G., & Oh, D.K.
2014. Optimized design of electric propulsion
system for small crafts using the differential
evolution algorithm. Int J Pr Eng Man–GT.
1(3):229–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40684-014-0029-9.
Lim, C.-O., Park, B.C., Lee, J.-C., Kim, E.S.,
& Shin, S.-C. 2019. Electric power con-
sumption predictive modeling of an electric
propulsion ship considering the marine envi-
ronment. Int J Nav Arch Ocean. 11(2):765–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2019.02.011.
Mohseni, S.A., van Hassel, E., Sys, C., &
Vanelslander, T. 2019. Economic evaluation
of alternative technologies to mitigate sulphur
emissions in maritime container transport
from both the vessel owner and shipper per-
spective. Journal of Shipping and Trade. 4:15.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-019-0051-8.
Mrzljak, V., & Mrakovčić, T. 2016. Com-
parison of COGES and diesel-electric ship
propulsion systems. Journal of Maritime &
Transportation Science. 1:131–48. https://
doi.org/10.18048/2016-00.131.
Mukherjee, U., Elsholkami, M., Walker, S.,
Fowler, M., Elkamel, A., & Hajimiragha, A.
2015. Optimal sizing of an electrolytic hy-
drogen production system using an existing
natural gas infrastructure. Int J Hydrogen
Energ. 40(31):9760–72. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.05.102.
Nuchturee, C., Li, T., & Xia, H. 2020. En-
ergy efficiency of integrated electric propulsion
for ships—A review. Renew Sust Energ Rev.
134:110145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2020.110145.
Prempraneerach, P., Kirtley, J., Chryssostomidis,
C., Triantafyllou, M.S., & Karniadakis, G.E.
2009. Design of the All-Electric Ship: Focus on
Integrated Power System Coupled to Hydro-
dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sea Grant
College Program. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.
1/97024.
Zahedi, B., & Norum, L.E. 2013. Modeling
and simulation of all-electric ships with low-
voltage DC hybrid power systems. IEEE T
Power Electr. 28(10):4525–37. https://doi.
org/10.1109/TPEL.2012.2231884.