Journal of Cleaner Production 441 (2024) 140707

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Low-carbon technology selection and carbon reduction potential

assessment in the shipbuilding industry with dynamically changing grid
emission factors
Jiancheng Liu a, b, 1, Ruilan Liao c, *, 1, Fang Dong b, Chaojun Huang b, Haiwen Li c, d, Junying Liu c,
Tian Zhao e
a
School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China
b
China Merchants Marine and Offshore Research Institute CO., LTD., Shenzhen, 518000, China
c
College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China
d
School of Civil Engineering, Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou, 730070, China
e
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Kathleen Aviso The shipbuilding industry is a vital sector involved in manufacturing ships and marine structures. It serves
critical roles in shipping, maritime development, and national defense, which contributes significantly to
Keywords: employment, international trade, and national security. Nevertheless, the shipbuilding industry is under enor­
Shipbuilding industry mous pressure to curtail carbon emissions. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) requires a 40%
Low-carbon technologies
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from both existing and new ships by 2030 compared to the 2008
Carbon reduction potential
baseline. This stems from the industry’s high-carbon emission nature, making it imperative to adopt sustainable
Grid emission factors
solutions that minimize its environmental impact. Given the capital- and energy-intensive nature of the ship­
building industry, the implementation of suitable technologies can also improve the overall operational effi­
ciency while meeting shipowners’ sustainability standards and enhancing competitiveness. We selected a typical
shipbuilding company in South China and categorized the 11 key low-carbon technologies into four categories
based on their principles and application scenarios, i.e., equipment improvement, process upgrading, intelligent
upgrading, and fuel alternative. The Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning system (LEAP) model was
employed in this study to simulate the energy consumption structure of this shipbuilding enterprise and explore
pathways to reach carbon emissions peak under six low-carbon technology scenarios. In addition, the impact of
dynamically changing grid emission factors on long-term carbon emission reduction is taken into consideration.
The results show that a sustained reduction in grid emission factors will have a positive impact on carbon
emission reduction. The shipyard’s planned requirements to achieve carbon peak before 2030 and reduce its
carbon intensity by 18% from 2020 are only achievable under the application of all low-carbon technologies. The
shipyard will achieve carbon peak in 2026, with a maximum emission reduction potential of 13.2 thousand tons.
The primary contributors are equipment improvement and process upgrading technologies, with reductions of
6.73 and 3.11 thousand tons, respectively. Therefore, from a technical point of view, these can be prioritized for
development, although some of the equipment has a high upfront investment. Notably, the technology diffusion
is rapid, with most technologies projected to reach penetration saturation by 2025, leading to a payback period
of 3–4 years thereafter.

* Corresponding author. No.92 Weijin Road, Nankai District, Tianjin, China.

E-mail addresses: liujiancheng@cmhk.com (J. Liu), liao_rl@tju.edu.cn (R. Liao), dongfang2@cmhk.com (F. Dong), huangchaojun@cmhk.com (C. Huang),
lihaiwen@tju.edu.cn (H. Li), liujunying@tju.edu.cn (J. Liu), zhaotian@tju.edu.cn (T. Zhao).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140707
Received 14 August 2023; Received in revised form 9 January 2024; Accepted 9 January 2024
Available online 10 January 2024
0959-6526/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Liu et al.
1. Introduction
Shipbuilding, as one of the world’s crucial industries, not only carries
the foundation of international trade but also plays an important role in
global greenhouse gas emissions. A recent study by Statista and Allied
Market Research shows that the global shipbuilding market was esti­
mated at nearly 152 billion US dollars in 2022, which is projected to
increase to over 195 billion by 2030. China is one of the largest ship­
building countries in the world. According to statistics from the China
Shipbuilding Industry Association, 2022 witnessed China taking the
largest share of the international market of shipbuilding for 13 consec­
utive years. In 2022, China’s shipbuilding completion, new orders, and
orders in hand by deadweight tons accounted for 47.3%, 55.2%, and
49.0% of the world total, respectively. Although shipping is considered
to have the lowest energy consumption per unit among the modes of
commodity transportation (Barreiro et al., 2022), the issue of carbon
emissions during the shipbuilding phase has not received sufficient
attention. Under the pressure of global climate change and environ­
mental sustainability, it has become crucial to reduce carbon emissions
from the shipbuilding industry. The IMO has proposed scientific mea­
sures such as the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and the Energy
Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI), as well as the Enhanced Ship
Energy Efficiency Management Plan (ESEEMP) (Ölçer et al., 2018; Vakili
et al., 2021a). Especially in China, the realization of the reduction target
not only promotes the implementation of the "dual carbon strategic goal"
but also has strategic significance for the success of the global GHG
reduction target. The "dual carbon strategic goal" requires the ship­
building industry to adopt sustainable technologies and measures in
order to achieve the goal of reaching carbon peak by 2030 and carbon
neutrality by 2060.
Shipbuilding is a complex system that integrates the hull, engine, and
electrical fields and involves multiple processes such as cutting, finish­
ing, welding, painting, and coating. The main materials are steel, paint,
welding materials, etc., which have a significant impact on environ­
mental pollution and climate change (Vakili et al., 2021b). There are no
international regulations to monitor, control, and reduce emissions
during the manufacturing phase (Vakili et al., 2022b). Therefore, it is
important to improve the energy efficiency of shipbuilding facilities in
order to reduce the energy emissions associated with the shipbuilding
phase (Uyan et al., 2023). Promoting energy management and cleaner
production in the industry by improving energy efficiency, implement­
ing electrification measures, and changing behavioral patterns is
considered a key element in achieving a carbon-neutral economic
transition and addressing environmental concerns (IEA, 2021;
Roman-Collado and Economidou, 2021; Trianni et al., 2014).
In the whole life cycle of a ship, there is a large amount of carbon
emission in the manufacturing phase, although smaller than that in the
operation phase (Trivyza et al., 2018). Indeed, bulk carriers’ average
manufacturing carbon emissions with capacities of <100,000 DWT are
35,419 metric tons, which is more than four times the full life cycle
carbon emissions (8357t) of a kindergarten in Beijing with a floor area of
4204.12 m2 (Zhang et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2023). The main carbon
emission pressure in the shipbuilding industry is the high proportion of
purchased electricity (up to 70% or more), mainly from energy-intensive
air compressors, dehumidifier equipment, and processes such as dehu­
midification. Therefore, there is an urgent need to implement techno­
logical innovation and development optimization to reduce energy
consumption and carbon emissions. From a technical point of view, the
shipbuilding industry has a variety of energy-saving and
emission-reduction technologies to choose from, including equipment
improvement, process upgrading, intelligent upgrading, fuel alternative,
resource recycling, and other technologies. Low-carbon technologies
differ significantly in carbon reduction capacity and cost. Therefore, it is
essential to evaluate the development path of low-carbon technologies,
future carbon reduction potential, and associated economic costs.
Meanwhile, due to the increase in clean energy generation, the grid
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 441 (2024) 140707
emission factor will change over time, which will in turn affect carbon
emissions. Driven by dual-carbon policies and technological advances,
the penetration of clean energy generation will continue to increase (Lou
et al., 2022). Therefore, it is also necessary to consider the decrease in
grid emission factors due to the growing proportion of non-fossil energy
in the energy mix.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that systemati­
cally analyzed the impact of various low-carbon technologies and their
combinations on energy intensity and greenhouse gas emissions in the
shipbuilding industry. This study aims to assess the emission reduction
potential and development path of low-carbon technologies in the
shipbuilding industry while considering the impact of dynamic grid
emission factors. Specifically, future grid emission factors are predicted
through the grey prediction model and parameterized into the bottom-
up LEAP model to assess the four major categories of low-carbon tech­
nologies. Our study is unique because it supports the selection of energy-
saving and emission-reduction technology options for the shipbuilding
industry from a new technology assessment perspective. Moreover, it
considers future changes in grid emission factors from a dynamic
perspective rather than using a constant grid emission factor. In terms of
theory, this study classifies technologies into four categories according
to their different principles and characteristics and expands the appli­
cation of the LEAP model to the field of shipbuilding, analyzing the
development paths and emission reduction potentials of various low-
carbon technologies. In practice, this study can provide suitable solu­
tions and policies for the development of energy transition and the se­
lection of carbon emission reduction technologies in the shipbuilding
industry. It also proposes an economically feasible and applicable path
for the development of energy-saving and emission-reduction technol­
ogies, considering the actual development of shipyards, which can guide
relevant government departments and shipbuilding enterprises. It can
also provide a reference for the low-carbon and intelligent development
of the shipbuilding industry in other countries.
2. Literature review
Shipbuilding is a labor-, capital- and energy-intensive industry that
generates large amounts of carbon emissions, utilizing energy and ma­
terials for the entire process of ship design, manufacturing, repair,
maintenance, and dismantling (Vakili et al., 2021a,b; Mandal, 2017;
Vishnevskiy et al., 2017). The main processes of shipbuilding consist of
several working stages, including cutting/forming, block assembling,
pre-outfitting/painting, pre-erection, erection, and quay (Park et al.,
2014). The general flow of the shipbuilding process is shown in Fig. 1.
Green shipbuilding is receiving increasing attention and becoming an
inevitable trend. Low-carbon technologies, evaluation methods, and the
impact of grid emission factors are also receiving increasing attention.
2.1. Low-carbon technologies in the shipbuilding industry
Current technological research in the shipbuilding industry is mainly
focused on specific process improvements, with a focus on engineering
studies analyzing a specific type of technical performance, including
material and mechanical performance enhancements (Milyuts et al.,
2013; Campbell et al., 2013). However, there is a lack of research related
to carbon emission reduction, energy efficiency improvement, and sus­
tainability in the shipbuilding industry (Vakili et al., 2023). According to
Tan et al. (2019), as of 2020, there are only 27 papers focusing on
sustainability concepts in shipyards. In the last two years, there has been
an increased focus on carbon emission reduction from ships, but more
scholars are still focusing on fuel alternatives in the shipping phase.
Since carbon emissions from the shipbuilding also include the sea trial
phase, fuel alternative technologies in the manufacturing phase also
warrant attention. Most of the studies on the assessment of alternative
fuels compare horizontally the availability, economy, and safety of
various types of fuels (Elgohary et al., 2015), with a focus on assessing
J. Liu et al.
Fig. 1. Shipbuilding process.
energy efficiency and carbon reduction potential (Dettner and Hilpert,
2023; Lee and Nam, 2017). Wang et al., 2023 established key compre­
hensive indicators, including the energy efficiency design index (EEDI),
energy efficiency operational index (EEOI), and carbon footprint design
index (CFDI), to evaluate the energy efficiency and environmental im­
pacts of marine fuel cell technologies. Existing studies examined the fuel
selection strategies for ships at different stages of the cycle (Hong et al.,
2023).
Despite the significant effect of low-carbon technologies on energy
saving and emission reduction in the shipbuilding industry, relatively
few studies have been conducted in this area. Vakili et al., 2022b eval­
uated the significant emission reduction potential of using solar power
and wind power in a hybrid stand-alone and grid-connected system for a
large Italian shipyard from the perspective of clean energy generation.
Uyan et al. (2023) found that energy-saving modifications to the lighting
system from the perspective of equipment improvement resulted in a
60.6% reduction in overall lighting energy consumption. In addition,
about 3.2% of the total energy consumption reduction and related
benefits could be achieved through energy-saving behaviors of the em­
ployees. Uyan, 2023 also evaluated the energy-saving potential of an
optimized system consisting of a fixed-speed baseload compressor and a
variable-speed trim compressor. Di Bella et al. (2022) carried out a life
cycle assessment of the impact of typical welding processes in ship­
building from a process enhancement perspective. It can be seen that
most of the studies focus only on the effect of a certain type of tech­
nology. This study will systematically assess the emission reduction
potential of four categories of low-carbon technologies.
2.2. Low-carbon technology assessment methods
Some studies have explored different energy system analysis
modeling methods for selecting and making decisions about low-carbon
technologies, including the LEAP model and optimization models. It can
generally be analyzed in either top-down or bottom-up dimensions, with
the top-down approach usually analyzing at the macro level and aiming
to fit historical time series of national energy consumption and carbon
emissions data (Johnston, 2011). In contrast, bottom-up approaches
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 441 (2024) 140707
simulate the development of technologies and forecast emission reduc­
tion potential at the micro level. Bottom-up approaches, based on in­
dustry detail-level modeling, are more valuable than top-down
approaches for evaluating the contribution of various types of energy
efficiency measures to energy conservation and emission reduction,
which can identify the most cost-effective options for achieving emission
reduction targets based on available technologies (Rivers and Jaccard,
2005). The Market Allocation (MARKAL), Asia-Pacific Integrated Model
(AIM), and LEAP models are the main models used in bottom-up ap­
proaches (Tan et al., 2019). Xu et al. (2016) established a multi-stage
technology selection model to analyze optimal technological develop­
ment pathways, CO2 abatement potentials, and costs in the cement in­
dustry. Some researchers used scenario analysis to conduct
techno-economic-environmental analyses for decarbonizing ship
power plants using hybrid power systems and ammonia fuel (Karvounis
et al., 2022).
The LEAP model is a long-term energy alternatives planning system
developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute and Boston Univer­
sity in the United States (Park et al., 2013). It is an
energy-environment-cost scenario analysis model, which has been
widely used in industrial structure and carbon emission reduction, car­
bon emission scenario prediction, carbon capture, and other research
directions (Cai et al., 2022; Song et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2018; Hong et al.,
2016). It has some salient advantages of the flexibility to use a scenario
analysis framework to analyze the pathways of energy alternatives im­
pacts while enabling GHG reduction strategies (Cai et al., 2022). The
LEAP model is applicable to energy policy analysis and climate change
mitigation assessment, and many scholars have previously used this
model to carry out related studies. Based on the LEAP model, Cai et al.
(2022) explored the pathway to achieve carbon peak and carbon
neutrality for a state-owned power generation enterprise as an example.
Therefore, this study evaluates the reduction pathways of different
low-carbon technologies based on the LEAP model.
2.3. Dynamic grid emission factors
Effective abatement strategies rely on accurate accounting of GHG
J. Liu et al.
emissions, which helps to identify high-emission processes, facilitate
abatement strategies, and evaluate abatement performance. In the in­
dustrial sector, among the various sources of GHG emissions, electricity
consumption typically dominates the life-cycle GHG emissions of
products (Spork et al., 2015; Ryan et al., 2016; Yuan et al., 2015; Zhang
et al., 2022). In current practice, GHG emissions from electricity con­
sumption are calculated by multiplying the amount of electricity
consumed by a grid emission factor (GEF). Thus, grid emission factors
are the key to GHG accounting and effective assessment of emission
reduction strategies (Chen et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2018, 2019).
Addressing the impact of changes in grid emission factors is currently
focused on areas that are more sensitive to time precision, such as
buildings and electric vehicle charging, and it generally considers
changes in carbon emissions at hourly time precision (St-Jacques et al.,
2020; Tseng and Hsieh, 2023). Research on the assessment of
low-carbon technologies is mainly measured in terms of annual time
precision, and it is worthwhile to explore the positive impacts of grid
integration of renewable energy on reducing carbon emissions (Peng
et al., 2021). According to the latest data from BP’s Statistical Review of
World Energy, China’s renewable energy generation accounted for as
high as 31.5% of total power generation in 2021. Some scholars have
also considered dynamically changing grid emission factors in their
assessment of energy-intensive industries such as electricity, steel, and
cement (Fan et al., 2017). Xu et al. (2016) considered changes in grid
emission factors in the study of cement emission reduction pathways,
and they referred to a study of projections of future energy development
trends in China (Zhou et al., 2010). However, the impact of dynamically
changing grid emission factors on long-term technological carbon
emission reduction has yet to be considered in the current studies of
shipbuilding. The national grid emission factor only started to publish
data annually in 2016 and only started to have changes in 2019, with a
small amount of data and uncertain information. Therefore, we adopt a
single variable grey prediction model to predict the future changes in the
GEF for such a "grey" system.
The grey prediction model, which was first proposed by Professor
Deng Julong, is one of the most widely used branches of grey system
theory. A "grey" system represents a system in which part of the infor­
mation is clear and part of it is unclear, and the research object of the
Fig. 2. Main sources of carbon emissions from shipbuilding.
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 441 (2024) 140707
grey prediction model is such an uncertain grey system. (Deng, 1982).
Grey prediction models have obvious advantages in dealing with prob­
lems of small samples and uncertainty, and they have been widely used
in energy (Duan and Luo, 2022), transportation (Cai et al., 2022), eco­
nomic management (Yan et al., 2022) and other fields. It can identify the
degree of variation in the trends of system factors through a small
amount of incomplete information, find patterns of system change and
make predictions, which are divided into single variable and multivar­
iable grey prediction models according to the number of variables (Yin
et al., 2023).
Therefore, this study innovatively applies the LEAP model to the
shipbuilding industry to quantitatively assess the emission reduction
potential and associated costs of various low-carbon technologies from a
bottom-up perspective. In addition, dynamically changing grid emission
factors derived from a grey prediction model are used in the discussion
of technology pathways and potential under different technology com­
bination scenarios.
3. Low-carbon technologies
The sources of carbon emissions from shipbuilding are mainly from
the following four processes: cutting, welding, painting, in-field trans­
portation, and the sea trial, as shown in Fig. 2. Existing studies have
shown that purchased electricity emission accounts for approximately
70% of the carbon emission of the shipbuilding cycle, and the primary
electricity consumption comes from steel plate painting and air
compressor equipment. Therefore, focusing on these processes and
equipment is crucial when considering which suitable low-carbon
technologies or measures to be adopted.
This study critically reviews eleven typical low-carbon technologies
widely used in the shipbuilding industry by conducting field research in
shipyards and seeking expert advice. The parameters of these technol­
ogies are also obtained, as shown in Table 1. The range of boundaries for
the selection of low-carbon technologies is aligned with carbon ac­
counting, from the time the shipyard receives the order through to sea
trial and delivery. According to the differential characteristics and scope
of application, we divide the above eleven technologies into four cate­
gories: equipment improvement, process upgrading, intelligent
J. Liu et al.
Table 1
All technologies description in the model.
Category Specific technology
Equipment The frequency conversion technology in air compressor reform
improvement The frequency conversion of dehumidifier equipment
technology
The inverter welding machine renewal technology
Process upgrading The energy-saving technology of the welding production line
Energy-saving technology of dehumidification system for
sectional painting workshop
Intelligent The intelligent monitoring system technology of air compressor
upgrading station
The intelligent monitoring system for welding equipment and
production process
Intelligent manufacturing upgrade system
Alternative fuels The engineering vehicle conversion from oil to electricity
technology
Clean fuel alternative to diesel
Photovoltaic power generation
upgrading, and alternative fuels. A detailed description of every cate­
gory of technology is provided below.
3.1. Equipment improvement technology (EI)
Equipment improvement technology utilizes higher efficiency
equipment to reduce the electricity or heat consumption of the equip­
ment to achieve energy savings (Sun et al., 2018). The air compressor
station circulating cooling water waste heat recovery technology is to
recycle the available heat through a water source heat pump, which is
not only energy efficient but also stable and reliable in operation. The
case selected for this study is in the southern region of China, without
winter heating. While this technology mainly saves on heating costs, it is
not considered in this study. The frequency conversion technology in air
compressor reform can adjust the power in time according to the need of
gas consumption, significantly reducing the workless loss and power
waste (Liang and Li, 2011). Taking the pressure as the control object, the
automatic control of the output pressure of the air compressor is ach­
ieved through the frequency conversion adjustment of the motor speed.
As a result, the output pressure of the air compressor and the change of
the air consumption of the pipeline network can reach the ideal opera­
tion state of dynamic matching. The frequency conversion of dehu­
midifier equipment technology has a similar principle but is only applied
to dehumidifier equipment. By controlling the humidity, the dehumid­
ifier is able to adaptively adjust its operation under different humidity
conditions. The inverter welding machine renewal technology is applied
to welding equipment, which has a better energy-saving and
carbon-reducing effect. Its full name is inverter carbon dioxide gas
shielded welding machine, which is mainly used for welding metal
materials such as steel plates.
3.2. Process upgrading technology (PU)
Process upgrading technology includes new fundamental production
process technologies in welding, painting, and other processes (Sun
et al., 2018). The energy-saving technology of the welding production
line is applicable to the welding process. The principle is to suppress the
transient flow and minimize the interference of transient flow to the
electric equipment, thus improving the efficiency of the electric equip­
ment. The three parts of dehumidification that consume the most elec­
tricity are regenerative heating, post-heating, and compressor, and the
most obvious energy-saving effect is to modify the regenerative heating
method and reduce the regenerative heating power. The energy-saving
technology of dehumidification systems for sectional painting work­
shop mainly optimizes the regenerative heating method of the dehu­
midifier rotor and adopts a regenerative heat pump unit instead of
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 441 (2024) 140707
For process/ Electricity saving rate(%) Fuel saving
equipment rate(%)
Air compressor 5.0
Dehumidifier 10.0
Welding 16.7
Welding 8.0
Dehumidification 22.4
Air compressor 4.0
Welding 3.8
5.0
In-field 20.0
transportation
Sea trial 10.0
Replacement of 12 million kWh/year of
purchased electricity
electric heating to heat the regenerated air. The basic principle of energy
saving is to utilize the residual heat of the regenerated air after passing
through the rotor and make it circulated for use.
3.3. Intelligent upgrading technology (IU)
Intelligent upgrading technology is the use of modern information
technology such as data, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and
intelligent manufacturing to develop corresponding intelligent equip­
ment or systems (Wang et al., 2020). The intelligent monitoring system
technology of air compressor station realizes real-time online moni­
toring of air compressor operation parameters through Internet tech­
nology to avoid power wastage. The intelligent monitoring system for
welding equipment and production process uses an intelligent moni­
toring system to monitor all welding equipment in real-time to reduce
standby power consumption and enhance management level.
3.4. Alternative fuel technology (AF)
Alternative fuel technologies in this study refer to converting engi­
neering vehicles from oil to electricity, replacing diesel fuel with clean
fuels such as liquefied natural gas in sea trials, and using solar power
generation. Shipyard photovoltaic technology can reasonably use the
remaining vacant areas of the yard to install photovoltaic equipment,
bringing clean energy to replace the original fossil energy generation
part and reduce carbon emissions. Alternative fuel technology can
change the energy structure by using clean energy sources, such as
ammonia, biofuels, dimethyl ether, ethanol, hydrogen, liquefied natural
gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and methanol, which can significantly
reduce the carbon emissions generated during the ship’s sea trial (Lev­
ent, 2023; Vakili et al., 2022).
4. Methodology
4.1. Model framework
Taking a typical shipbuilding enterprise in southern China as an
example, this study uses the LEAP model from a bottom-up perspective
to assess the carbon reduction potential and future development costs of
different types of technologies. This shipyard facility encompasses
approximately 2 million square meters, featuring four outfitting
wharves, inclusive of a 500,000-ton and a 100,000-ton dry dock,
alongside three slipways. Specializing in shipbuilding, its strategic tra­
jectory is oriented toward the predominant production of Liquefied
Natural Gas vessels and Pure Car and Truck Carrier (PCTC) auto ro-ro
ships in its future manufacturing endeavors. The shipyard also
J. Liu et al.
anticipates developing a 12 MW roof-mounted distributed PV project,
covering a planned construction area of 132,000 square meters. The
study takes 2021 as the base year, and the planning horizon is from 2021
to 2040. Firstly, eleven low-carbon technologies are sorted out and
identified for the study through field research and seeking opinions from
shipbuilding experts. Future changing grid emission factors are pre­
dicted using the grey prediction model and incorporated into the
modeling process. We then utilized the LEAP model to simulate the
structure of energy demand, CO2 emissions generated, and costs of the
shipyard, including investment cost, operation and maintenance (O&M)
cost, fuel cost, and carbon cost. Finally, this study constructs six sce­
narios with different technology categories to simulate and calculate the
carbon emissions and corresponding carbon reduction costs for each
type of technology for each year of the planning period. The model
structure is shown in Fig. 3. Please see the supplementary information
for the detailed formula.
4.2. Scenario design
To analyze the cost-effectiveness potential of different low-carbon
technologies, six scenarios are set up in this study, based on different
technology categories and technology combinations: Baseline scenario,
Technology Frozen scenario, Alternative Fuel scenario, Equipment
Improvement scenario, Process Upgrading scenario, and Comprehensive
Emission Reduction scenario. The latter four technology scenarios
incorporate different low-carbon technologies to compare the emission
reduction potential of different technology combinations. The scenario
descriptions are as shown in Table 2.
(1) Baseline scenario
Using 2021 as the base year, this study analyzes carbon emissions
and related reduction costs under different scenarios from 2021 to 2040.
The Baseline scenario assumes that penetration of all low-carbon tech­
nologies within the planning horizon will be maintained at the same
level as in the base year. The different energy demands are calculated at
a specific annual growth rate, as shown in the table above. The future
electricity demand is calculated at an annual growth rate of 8% before
2025, 5% before 2030, and 4% before 2040. The annual growth rate of
Fig. 3. Illustrative structure of the model.
6
Journal of Cleaner Production 441 (2024) 140707
future natural gas demand is 7% before 2025, 4% before 2030, and 3%
before 2040. The annual growth rate for diesel demand is calculated as
7% by 2025, 5% by 2030, 3% by 2035, and 2% by 2040. The annual
growth rate for future direct carbon dioxide emissions is calculated as
7% by 2025, 3% by 2030, and 2% by 2040. The grid emission factor is
kept constant.
(2) Technology Frozen scenario (Sun et al., 2018)
Based on the Baseline scenario, all low-carbon technologies remain
at the same penetration rate in the base year. The dynamic changing grid
emission factors will be considered, mainly to study the impact of
gradually decreasing grid emission factors in the carbon reduction
process. The 2019 national grid emission factor data are derived from
the Notice on the Preparation of Carbon Emission Reporting and Veri­
fication and Emission Monitoring Plans for 2016 and 2017. The 2020
data are retrieved from the Public Solicitation of Corporate Greenhouse
Gas Emission Accounting Methods and Reporting Guidelines for Power
Generation Facilities (2021 Revision); 2021 data from the Guidelines on
Accounting Methods and Reporting of Corporate Greenhouse Gas
Emissions for Power Generation Facilities (2022 Revision); and 2022
data from the Notice on the Reporting and Verification of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions of Enterprises in Some Key Industries from 2023 to 2025.
According to the grey prediction results in the previous section, the grid
emission factor for 2023 to 2040 is shown in Table 3, where the relative
error test result is 0.0015 < 0.10, indicating that the model fit meets
high requirements. It can be observed from the table that the dynamics
of the grid emission factors do merit consideration, with a 24.1%
decrease in 2040 compared to 2019.
(3) Alternative Fuel scenario
Based on the TF scenario, diesel will be gradually replaced by clean
fuels, and purchased coal power will be replaced by solar power. The
estimated penetration of electric engineering vehicles will be 50.0% in
2025 and 61.1% in 2035, while clean fuel vessel penetration will in­
crease from 20.0% in 2025 to 33.3% in 2035. 12 MW of PV projects are
expected to be completed by 2023.
J. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 441 (2024) 140707

Table 2
Scenario descriptions.
Scenario Description Specific parameters

Baseline scenario
Technology Frozen scenario
(TF)
Alternative Fuel scenario (AF)
Equipment Improvement
scenario (EI)
Process Upgrading scenario
(PU)
Comprehensive Emission
Reduction scenario (CER)
All low-carbon technologies remain at the same penetration rate in the base year.
The energy demand continues to grow while the grid emission factor remains
constant.
Based on the Baseline scenario considering dynamically changing grid emission
factors.
Based on the Technology Frozen scenario, diesel will gradually be replaced by clean
fuels, and the purchase of coal power will also be replaced by photovoltaic power in
2021.
Based on the Alternative Fuel scenario, inverter air compressors, dehumidifiers,
and new inverter welding equipment will be gradually applied in 2021.
Based on the Equipment Improvement scenario, the energy-saving technology of
the welding production line and dehumidification system for sectional painting
workshop will be gradually adopted in 2021.
Based on the Process Upgrading scenario, intelligent monitoring and management
system will be gradually improved in 2021. All types of available low-carbon
technologies can be applied in this scenario.
Electricity: (’21) 8% - (’25) 5% - (’30) 4%;
Natural Gas: (’21) 7% - (’25) 4%- (’30)3%;
Diesel: (’21) 7% - (’25) 5% - (’30) 3% - (’35) 2%;
Direct carbon dioxide emissions: (’21) 7% - (’25) 3% - (’30)
2%.
The engineering vehicle conversion from oil to electricity
technology: (’25)50.0% - (’35) 61.1%;
Clean fuel alternative to diesel: (’25) 20.0% - (’35) 33.3%;
Photovoltaic power:12 MW PV to be completed in 2023.
The frequency conversion technology in air compressor
reform: (’23) 50.0% - (’25) 91.7%;
The frequency conversion of dehumidifier equipment
technology: (’23) 45.3% - (’25) 90.6%;
The inverter welding machine renewal technology:(’23)
96.3% - (’25) 98.7%.
The energy-saving technology of the welding production line:
(’23) 46.7% - (’25) 90.0%;
Energy-saving technology of dehumidification system for
sectional painting workshop: (’23) 21.4% - (’25) 50.0% -
(’30) 92.9%.
The intelligent monitoring system technology of air
compressor station: (’23) 30.1% - (’25) 90.2%;
The intelligent monitoring system for welding equipment and
production process: (’23) 29.6% - (’25) 88.9%;
Intelligent manufacturing upgrade system: (’23) 77.5% -
(’25) 93.0%.

(4) Equipment Improvement scenario 77.5% in 2023 and 93.0% in 2025, respectively.

Based on the AF scenario, equipment improvement technology will
be gradually applied from 2021. The penetration rate of variable-
frequency air compressors will increase from 50.0% in 2023 to 91.7%
in 2025. The penetration ratio of variable-frequency dehumidifiers will
increase from 45.3% in 2023 to 90.6% in 2025. The inverter welding
machine renewal technology penetration will increase from 96.3% in
2023 to 98.7% in 2025.
(5) Process Upgrading scenario
Based on the EI scenario, advanced energy-saving and emission-
reduction processes will be applied. The estimated penetration of the
energy-saving technology of the welding production line will grow from
46.7% in 2023 to 90.0% in 2025. Energy-saving technology of dehu­
midification system for sectional painting workshop penetration will be
21.4% in 2023 and 92.9% in 2030, respectively.
(6) Comprehensive Emission Reduction scenario
Based on the PU scenario, intelligent upgrading technologies will be
gradually applied after 2021. The estimated penetration of the intelli­
gent monitoring system technology of air compressor station will in­
crease from 30.1% in 2023 to 90.2% in 2025. At the same time, the
intelligent monitoring system for welding equipment and production
process will increase from 29.6% in 2023 to 88.9% in 2025. The intel­
ligent manufacturing upgrade system penetration will be approximately
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Carbon emission of the shipbuilding cycle
This study applied the process-based life cycle assessment (PLCA)
method developed by Chatzinikolaou and Ventikos (2015). This is
because compared with the input-output life cycle assessment (I-OLCA)
method, which generally accounts for carbon emissions at the macro
level, such as the national and sectoral levels, from a "top-down"
perspective. The PLCA method is more suitable for this case study at the
micro level because it accounts for carbon emissions from the "bot­
tom-up" dimension (Núñez-Cárdenas et al., 2022).
Emission factor data for natural gas and diesel were sourced from the
Guidelines for the Preparation of Provincial Greenhouse Gas In­
ventories. The calculated carbon emissions of this shipyard for the years
2017–2021 are shown in Table 4 below. It is expected that by 2040, with
the development of the ship transportation industry, the overall power
and energy demand of the shipyard will still grow, and the pressure on
energy conservation and emission reduction will remain high. As can be
seen from the data, carbon emissions are on a rising trend year by year,
but the growth rate of carbon emissions slightly decreased after 2019;
the carbon emission intensity has significantly slowed down since 2019,
which is related to a series of energy-saving measures taken by the
shipyard. Moreover, it can be concluded that purchased electricity has
the highest carbon emissions, followed by fossil fuel emissions such as
diesel. In 2021, the shipyard counted fuel consumption during the

Table 3
Grid emission factor.
Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Grid emission factor (tCO2/MWh) 0.6101 0.5839 0.5810 0.5703 0.5650 0.5584 0.5519 0.5454
Year 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
Grid emission factor (tCO2/MWh) 0.5391 0.5328 0.5266 0.5204 0.5144 0.5084 0.5024 0.4966
Year 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
Grid emission factor (tCO2/MWh) 0.4908 0.4851 0.4794 0.4738 0.4683 0.4628

7
J. Liu et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 441 (2024) 140707

Table 4 initial investment in equipment and O&M costs are higher, it can pay
Carbon emissions in 2017–2021. back in a shorter period due to the higher fuel cost savings from its
Year Fossil fuel Emissions Industrial Total Carbon higher emission reduction efficiency, making it a high-investment, high-
combustion from production (tCO2) emission return type of technology. Although intelligent upgrading technology is
Emissions purchased process intensity not as efficient, it has a shorter payback time because of the lower in­
(tCO2) electricity emissions (tCO2/
vestment cost, which it can recover in about three years. Process
(tCO2) (tCO2) 10000
Yuan) upgrading technology has lower upfront investment costs and higher
abatement efficiency, so it can pay back in less than a year. However, the
2017 5011.44 31940.50 3623.76 40575.70 0.12
2018 7465.08 40655.36 4930.69 53051.13 0.16
initial equipment investment cost of clean fuel alternative to diesel
2019 10859.03 33195.05 3861.39 47915.47 0.11 technology is relatively high; for example, the investment cost of
2020 12776.11 45555.29 5584.16 63915.56 0.12 replacing a ship’s single diesel engine with a dual-fuel engine can be as
2021 27377.36 48314.51 6952.28 82644.15 0.13 high as 10 million US dollars, with a relatively long payback period.

commissioning phase, and its diesel carbon emissions rose dramatically
to almost half the carbon emissions of electricity. The field research
revealed that shipyard electricity is mainly consumed in the air pressure
station, painting workshop, terminal commissioning, and total group
area; diesel fuel is mainly consumed in sea trials; and natural gas is
mainly used in the steel cutting process. Therefore, we should focus on
energy-saving measures for equipment such as air compressors, steel
painting, welding, cutting, and other processes that consume large
amounts of electricity.
5.2. Technology development pathway and return on investment
Equipment improvement technology is proliferating relatively fast,
as it is currently quite mature, and shipbuilders just need to choose
suitable suppliers for equipment modification. Intelligent upgrading
technology is also very mature and will be used by enterprises to pro­
mote large-scale applications in the future. Equipment improvement and
intelligent upgrading technologies have been vigorously developed to
the point where penetration will be unchanged by 2025. The slower
diffusion of clean fuel alternatives for ships is not only because of the
higher cost of input transformation and immature technology, but also
because there is more of a demand order scenario pulling LNG and other
clean ship transformation. Moreover, it is found that low-carbon tech­
nology selection and proliferation rate changes will also receive support
from government policies.
Since the most significant impact on the total cost of low-carbon
technology is the fuel costs of electricity, a focus on more power-
consuming equipment and process enhancement can achieve the most
significant emission reduction. Equipment improvement technology
takes about four years to recover the investment cost after the tech­
nology application penetration rate remains unchanged. Although its
5.3. Carbon emission reduction potential
According to the output of the LEAP model, Fig. 4 shows the carbon
emission of the shipyard under different technology scenarios. We
validate the first prediction year 2022; the results found that the actual
GHG emission data of the purchased electricity and the LEAP model
prediction data have an error of 4.9% less than 5%, which indicates that
the error of the model prediction results is small. Carbon emissions in the
TF scenario are significantly less than those in the Baseline scenario, and
the trend will become more evident over time, with a difference of
13.0% in 2040. This indicates that the dynamically changing grid
emission factors significantly affect long-term carbon emission
reduction.
There are significant differences in carbon emission reductions under
different technology scenarios. Under the application of alternative fuel
technologies alone, carbon emissions decline significantly compared to
the TF scenario, with a reduction rate of 9.61% in 2040. The AF scenario
does not yet show a trend towards a flattening out of the carbon emis­
sions towards peaking before 2040, suggesting that the application of
fuel alternative technologies alone is not sufficient. Compared with the
AF scenario, the EI scenario shows a significant decline in carbon
emissions, with the largest rate of decline, but it also fails to meet the
planning requirement of carbon peaking in 2030. Its carbon emission
intensity in 2040 is 0.11 tCO2/10000 Yuan, and its carbon reduction
potential can reach 32.1 thousand tons. The PU scenario, compared with
the EI scenario, also shows a decline in carbon emissions, although the
rate of decline is not as large as that of the EI scenario. It will achieve the
carbon peak in 2030, but its carbon emission intensity in the peak year is
0.10 tCO2/10000 Yuan, which does not meet the target of 18% reduc­
tion compared with 2020. Under the CER scenario covering all types of
low-carbon technologies, carbon emissions will peak in 2026, with a
further reduction of 3.3 thousand tons in absolute emissions compared

Fig. 4. CO2 emissions in each scenario.

8
J. Liu et al.
to the PU scenario. The carbon emission intensity in 2026 is 0.097 tCO2/
10000 Yuan, which is 19.3% lower than that in 2020 and meets the
planning requirement of 18.0%.
Fig. 5 shows the CO2 emission reductions for each technology in the
CER scenario. Analyzing from a technology perspective, we find that
equipment improvement technologies have the highest reduction po­
tential, followed by process upgrading technology. Fuel alternative and
intelligent upgrading technology are less effective in reducing emis­
sions. Equipment improvement and process upgrading technology target
the energy-consuming air compressors, dehumidifiers, and dehumidifi­
cation processes for energy saving and emission reduction with apparent
effect. Since the main source of carbon emissions from the shipyard
comes from a high proportion of electricity emissions, photovoltaic
power generation technology that supplements clean electricity has the
most obvious contribution among alternative fuel technologies; from
2023 onwards, it can provide a supplement of 12 million kWh of power
generation per year, although the initial investment costs are high.
Emission reduction is not so obvious by changing from diesel to elec­
tricity or other green fuel alternatives for engineering vehicles. Because
the amount of diesel consumed by shipyard transportation is limited and
the proportion is low, the fuel-saving effect produced by switching to
electricity is not obvious. The initial investment cost of clean fuel
alternative to diesel technology is relatively high, with more uncertainty
about future development, slower penetration and diffusion of the
technology, and less obvious emission reduction benefits. In the face of
these challenges, shipbuilders can join forces with upstream and
downstream fuel supply enterprises to increase research and develop­
ment on low-carbon fuel technologies for marine use. Since the main
diesel fuel consumption of the shipbuilding comes from the sea trial
stage, if the future large-scale development of alternative fuels, ship­
building fossil fuel combustion part of the carbon emissions will also be
significantly reduced. Intelligent upgrading technology utilizes artificial
intelligence to monitor the overall process flow and reduce unnecessary
power-consuming processes, but the overall emission reduction effi­
ciency is low.
5.4. Sensitivity analysis
In order to assess the impacts of different parameters on carbon
emission reduction benefits, a sensitivity analysis is conducted on the
key unpredictable parameter of fuel price (Clean fuel alternative to
diesel technology in the alternative fuel scenario is not considered for
the time being due to the rather high up-front input costs).
Energy price is an important factor affecting the emission reduction
benefits of low-carbon technologies, but it is difficult to predict future
Fig. 5. CO2 emissions abatement for each type of technology.
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 441 (2024) 140707
changes in the price of fuels such as electricity, natural gas, and diesel.
Therefore, we investigate the sensitivity of energy price changes in the
model and set their annual data growth rate to 0%–6%. Changes in
energy prices significantly affect the marginal GHG abatement costs of
various categories of technologies, and as energy prices rise, the cost
savings of low-carbon technologies increase and thus gain significant
economic advantages. In the case of the intelligent upgrading scenario,
for example, the marginal GHG abatement cost increases by 6.1% from
0% case to 6% case (please see Fig. 1 in the supplementary information).
6. Conclusions and policy implications
6.1. Conclusions
This study analyzes low-carbon technologies in the shipbuilding in­
dustry and selects a large-scale shipbuilding enterprise as a case study.
The LEAP model is used to assess the technology abatement potential
and associated costs for different technology-type scenarios as well as
combined scenarios. The main conclusions are as follows.
The shipyard will be able to meet its carbon reduction target in 2026
with the application of all low-carbon technologies. Compared to the
Technology Frozen scenario, the Comprehensive Emission Reduction
scenario could achieve a carbon reduction of 74.0 thousand tons in
2040. In addition, the dynamics of grid emission factors indeed exert
influence on carbon emissions, and the emission reductions will be more
pronounced over time. The reduction in grid emission factors is some­
what analogous to the supplementation of clean energy electricity with
photovoltaic technology in fuel alternative. Ideally, if the share of non-
fossil energy generation is gradually increased, it is possible to achieve
carbon emission peak in scenarios without applying low-carbon tech­
nologies. However, in the current situation, reasonable low-carbon
technologies are needed to achieve carbon peak.
From a technical point of view:
(1) Equipment improvement technology is a technology that de­
serves to be prioritized, not least because of its significant emis­
sion reduction contribution against high carbon emitting
equipment, which rises from 5.07 thousand tons in 2025 to 23.8
thousand tons in the 2035 CER scenario. Moreover, its technology
diffusion rate is fast enough to enable almost universal develop­
ment by 2025. Combined with the actual situation, it has high
operability and the possibility to test the actual emission re­
ductions of the equipment.
(2) Process upgrading technology is also effective in reducing emis­
sions, contributing 32.8% of carbon emissions in the 2040 CER
J. Liu et al.
scenario. It also has a relatively short payback time (within one
year of full deployment). However, the diffusion of technology is
not as fast as that of equipment improvement because it is more
difficult to consider changing the technology of the whole pro­
duction line than replacing a few pieces of equipment in it.
(3) Although the overall emission reduction effect of intelligent
upgrading technology is limited, it can only contribute 1.25
thousand tons at peak carbon in 2026. However, this is in line
with the inevitable trend of smart shipbuilding development. Its
technology diffusion rate can also be equalized faster by 2025,
with a corresponding recovery of investments within three years.
It is also worthwhile to promote it at an early stage.
(4) Among the fuel alternative technology, photovoltaic power gen­
eration is mature and proliferating fast enough to build a 12 MW
distributed PV project in 2023, which is worthy of large-scale
application in the early stages of development. Clean fuel alter­
native diesel technology is the key to phasing out oil-fired ships;
although the current technology proliferation rate is slow, the
cost of retrofitting the ship fuel is quite high or even as high as
some thousands of millions of US dollars.
6.2. Policy implications
Therefore, based on the findings of this study, we propose the
following policy recommendations for the guidance of other ship­
builders in the shipbuilding industry.
Upgrading of energy-consuming equipment and processes
should be accelerated. Upgrading and remodeling old equipment and
processes are the most direct and fastest means of energy saving and
emission reduction. The key energy-consuming aspects of shipbuilding,
such as air compressor stations, welding, painting, etc., should be sub­
ject to reasonable technological transformation and equipment
upgrading. Therefore, it is necessary to promote the upgrading and
transforming air compressors/stations with frequency conversion or
distributed gas supply and establish welding production line upgrading
technology. For equipment characterized by elevated transformation
costs, shipyards can opt for contract energy hosting model, thus facili­
tating the transfer of the financial risk associated with substantial initial
investments.
The layout of clean alternative fuels should be vigorously pro­
moted. Fuel alternative technology is an essential means of decarbon­
ization, which can fundamentally change the energy structure.
Therefore, the proportion of clean electricity can be increased by
expanding the utilization of solar energy. In addition, the gradual use of
clean fuels such as LNG and ammonia fuels to replace diesel is necessary,
and it can reduce carbon emissions from sea trials. The use of electric
and hydrogen engineering vehicles to replace traditional diesel engi­
neering vehicles should also be promoted.
Intelligent monitoring of energy consumption and indicator
control should be strengthened. Reasonable allocation of energy
measuring instruments, upgrading the energy management center
platform, and promoting intelligent energy monitoring and manage­
ment technologies are needed. This can not only reduce "leakage" in
energy delivery and consumption but also improve the quality of energy
supply and realize systematic energy saving and consumption reduction.
Enhancing the precision of energy consumption monitoring to achieve
meticulous monitoring across each process in the shipbuilding industry,
which will furnish a solid data foundation for the subsequent develop­
ment of the shipyard carbon monitoring system and ship product carbon
footprint model. In addition, accelerating the promotion of energy
consumption KPI assessment indicators is also necessary, which can
guide the energy consumption control work of each department of
shipbuilding enterprises throughout the year.
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 441 (2024) 140707
6.3. Limitations
Although this study provides cost-effective low-carbon technology
options and recommendations for Chinese shipbuilding enterprises,
there are still some shortcomings. The main challenges to the large-scale
adoption of low-carbon technologies are costs and future investment
risks. There are other ways to transfer these risks, such as using an en­
ergy hosting model that transfers the risk of investing in large amounts
of equipment and O&M costs upfront to service providers, especially for
equipment with high unit costs, such as air compressors. The calculation
of the economics of low-carbon technologies in this study considered
technical equipment and O&M costs but not the impact of factors such as
the use of an energy hosting model to influence ground changes.
Therefore, the changes and impacts of technology input costs due to
different risk transfer models adopted by shipbuilders should be
considered in future studies.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jiancheng Liu: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investi­
gation, Data curation, Conceptualization. Ruilan Liao: Writing – review
& editing, Writing – original draft, Software, Methodology, Investiga­
tion, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Fang Dong: Writing – review
& editing, Investigation, Conceptualization. Chaojun Huang: Writing –
review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Formal
analysis, Conceptualization. Haiwen Li: Writing – review & editing,
Conceptualization. Junying Liu: Writing – review & editing, Supervi­
sion. Tian Zhao: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgement
Supports from the National Social Science Foundation of China
under Grant No. 22&ZD104 and National Natural Science Foundation of
China under Grant No. 72243009 are acknowledged.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140707.
References
Barreiro, J., Zaragoza, S., Diaz-Casas, V., 2022. Review of ship energy efficiency. Ocean.
Eng. 257, 111594 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111594.
Cai, J., Cai, K.Y., Huang, S.L., 2022. Early warning method for heavy landing of civil
aircraft based on real-time monitoring parameters. J. Traffic Transport. Eng. 22 (2),
298–309. https://doi.org/10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2022.02.024.
Cai, L., Duan, J., Lu, X., et al., 2022. Pathways for electric power industry to achieve
carbon emissions peak and carbon neutrality based on LEAP model: a case study of
state-owned power generation enterprise in China. Comput. Ind. Eng. 170, 108334
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108334.
Campbell, S.W., Galloway, A.M., McPherson, N.A., 2013. Techno-economic evaluation
on the effects of alternating shielding gases for advanced joining processes. J. Eng.
Manuf. 225, 1863–1872. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405411408353.
Chatzinikolaou, S.D., Ventikos, N.P., 2015. Holistic framework for studying ship air
emissions in a life cycle perspective. Ocean Eng. 110, 113–122. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.05.042.
J. Liu et al.
Chen, H., Yao, S., Peng, K., Zhou, S., Tian, P., 2023. Grid emission factors: the key to
greenhouse gas emission accounting. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 190, 106846 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106846.
Deng, J.L., 1982. Control problems of grey systems. Syst. Control Lett. 1 (5), 288–294.
Dettner, F., Hilpert, S., 2023. Modelling CO2 emissions and mitigation potential of
Northern European shipping. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 119, 103745
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.103745.
Di Bella, G., Alderucci, T., Salmeri, F., et al., 2022. Integrating the sustainability aspects
into the risk analysis for the manufacturing of dissimilar aluminium/steel friction
stir welded single lap joints used in marine applications through a Life Cycle
Assessment. Sustainable Futures. 4, 100101 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sftr.2022.100101.
Duan, H.M., Luo, X.L., 2022. A novel multivariable grey prediction model and its
application in forecasting coal consumption. ISA Trans. 120, 110–127. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.isatra.2021.03.024.
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. Part M.
J. Eng. Marit. Environ. 229 (4), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1475090214522778.
Fan, Y., Peng, B.B., Xu, J.H., 2017. The effect of technology adoption on CO2 abatement
costs under uncertainty in China’s passenger car sector. J. Clean. Prod. 154,
578–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.004.
Hong, B., Wang, C., Zhang, K., Lim, J.S., Varbanov, P.S., Jia, X., Ji, M., Tao, H., Li, Z.,
Wang, B., 2023. Carbon emission pinch analysis for shipping fuel planning
considering multiple periods and fuel conversion rates. J. Clean. Prod. 415, 137759
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137759.
Hong, S., Chung, Y., Kim, J., et al., 2016. Analysis on the level of contribution to the
national greenhouse gas reduction target in Korean transportation sector using LEAP
model. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60, 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.12.164.
IEA, 2021. Energy Efficiency 2021. IEA, Paris. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-effi
ciency-2021.
Johnston, D., 2011. A Physically-Based Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emission Model of
the UK Housing Stock.
Karvounis, P., Dantas Joao, L.D., Tsoumpris, C., et al., 2022. Ship power plant
decarbonisation using hybrid systems and ammonia fuel-a techno-economic-
environmental analysis. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 10, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmse10111675.
Lee, T., Nam, H., 2017. A study on green shipping in major countries: in the view of
shipyards, shipping companies, ports, and policies. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 33 (4),
253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2017.12.009.
Levent, Bilgili., 2023. A systematic review on the acceptance of alternative marine fuels.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 182, 113367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113367.
Liang, H., Li, X., 2011. Applications of frequency conversion technology in air-
compressor units control system. Procedia Eng. 15, 944–948. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.174.
Liu, X., Du, H., Brown, M.A., Zuo, J., Zhang, N., Rong, Q., Mao, G., 2018. Low-carbon
technology diffusion in the decarbonization of the power sector: policy implications.
Energy Pol. 116, 344–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.02.001.
Liu, Y., Xue, S., Guo, X., Zhang, B., Sun, X., Zhang, Q., Wang, Y., Dong, Y., 2023. Towards
the goal of zero-carbon building retrofitting with variant application degrees of low-
carbon technologies: Mitigation potential and cost-benefit analysis for a
kindergarten in Beijing. J. Clean. Prod. 393, 136316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2023.136316.
Lou, Y.L., Ye, Y.Y., Yang, Y.Z., et al., 2022. Long-term carbon emission reduction
potential of building retrofits with dynamically changing electricity emission factors.
Build. Environ. 210, 108683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108683.
Mandal, N.R., 2017. Ship Construction and Welding. Springer, pp. 170–174.
Milyuts, V.G., Tsukanov, V.V., Vladimirov, N.F., 2013. Study of the quality of ultrathick
high-strength shipbuilding steel plate. Metallurgist. 57, 207–214. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11015-013-9714-0.
Núñez-Cárdenas, P., San Miguel, G., Báñales, B., Álvarez, S., Diezma, B., Correa, E.C.,
2022. The carbon footprint of stone fruit production: comparing process-based life
cycle assessment and environmentally extended input-output analysis. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 381, 135130 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135130.
Ölçer, A.I., Kitada, M., Dalaklis, D., et al., 2018. Trends and challenges in maritime
energy management. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
74576-3.
Park, J., Lee, D., Zhu, J., 2014. An integrated approach for ship block manufacturing
process performance evaluation: case from a Korean shipbuilding company. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 156, 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.06.012.
Park, N.B., Yun, S.J., Jeon, E.C., 2013. An analysis of long-term scenarios for the
transition to renewable energy in the Korean electricity sector. Energy Pol. 52,
288–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.021.
Peng, L., Liu, F., Zhou, M., Li, M., Zhang, Q., Mauzerall, D.L., 2021. Alternative-energy-
vehicles deployment delivers climate, air quality, and health co-benefits when
coupled with decarbonizing power generation in China. One Earth 4 (8), 1127–1140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.07.007.
Rivers, N., Jaccard, M., 2005. Combining top-down and bottom-up approaches to energy-
economy modeling using discrete choice methods. Energy J. 26 (1), 83–106. htt
ps://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol26-No1-4.
Roman-Collado, R., Economidou, M., 2021. The role of energy efficiency in assessing the
progress towards the EU energy efficiency targets of 2020: evidence from the
European productive sectors. Energy Pol. 156, 112441 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2021.112441.
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 441 (2024) 140707
Ryan, N.A., Johnson, J.X., Keoleian, G.A., 2016. Comparative assessment of models and
methods to calculate grid electricity emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (17),
8937–8953. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05216.
Song, H., Lee, S., Maken, S., et al., 2007. Environmental and economic assessment of the
chemical absorption process in Korea using the LEAP model. Energy Pol. 35 (10),
5109–5116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.004.
Spork, C.C., Chavez, A., Gabarrell Durany, X., Patel, M.K., Villalba Méndez, G., 2015.
Increasing precision in greenhouse gas accounting using real-time emission factors: a
case study of electricity in Spain. J. Ind. Ecol. 19 (3), 380–390. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jiec.12193.
St-Jacques, M., Bucking, S., O’Brien, W., 2020. Spatially and temporally sensitive
consumption-based emission factors from mixed-use electrical grids for building
electrical use. Energy Build. 224, 110249 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2020.110249.
Sun, D.Q., Yi, B.W., Xu, J.H., et al., 2018. Assessment of CO2 emission reduction
potentials in the Chinese oil and gas extraction industry: from a technical and cost-
effective perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 201, 1101–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.08.044.
Tan, X.C., Li, H., Guo, J.X., et al., 2019. Energy-saving and emission-reduction
technology selection and CO2 emission reduction potential of China’s iron and steel
industry under energy substitution policy. J. Clean. Prod. 222, 823–834. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.133.
Trianni, A., Cagno, E., De Donatis, A., 2014. A framework to characterize energy
efficiency measures. Appl. Energy 118, 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2013.12.042.
Trivyza, N.L., Rentizelas, A., Theotokatos, G., 2018. A novel multi-objective decision
support method for ship energy systems synthesis to enhance sustainability. Energy
Convers. Manag. 168, 128–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.04.020.
Tseng, W.-C., Hsieh, I.-Y.L., 2023. Impacts of electric fleet charging patterns under
different solar power penetration levels: hourly grid variations and operating
emissions. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 122, 103848 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trd.2023.103848.
Uyan, E., Atlar, M., Ölçer, A.I., 2023. Improving the energy efficiency of lighting systems
for a marine equipment manufacturing plant through retrofitting, daylighting, and
behavior change. J. Clean. Prod. 413, 137216 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2023.137216.
Uyan, E., 2023. Energy saving potential analysis of a short cycling industrial air
compressor in a marine equipment manufacturing plant in Türkiye. Cleaner and
Responsible Consumption. 11, 100147 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100147.
Vakili, S., Ölçer, A.I., Ballini, F., 2021a. The development of a transdisciplinary policy
framework for shipping companies to mitigate underwater noise pollution from
commercial vessels. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 171, 112687 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2021.112687.
Vakili, S., Ölçer, A.I., Schönborn, A., 2021b. Identification of shipyard priorities in a
multi-criteria decision-making environment through a Transdisciplinary energy
management framework: a real case study for a Turkish shipyard. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9
(10), 1132. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9101132.
Vakili, S., Ölçer, A.I., Schönborn, A., et al., 2022a. Energy-related clean and green
framework for shipbuilding community towards zero-emissions: a strategic analysis
from concept to case study. Int. J. Energy Res. 46 https://doi.org/10.1002/er.7649.
Vakili, S., Schönborn, A., Ölçer, A.I., 2022b. Techno-economic feasibility of photovoltaic,
wind and hybrid electrification systems for stand-alone and grid-connected shipyard
electrification in Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 366, 132945 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2022.132945.
Vakili, S., Schönborn, A., Ölçer, A.I., 2023. The road to zero emission shipbuilding
Industry: a systematic and transdisciplinary approach to modern multi-energy
shipyards. Energy Convers. Manag. 18, 100365 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecmx.2023.100365.
Vishnevskiy, K., Karasev, O., Meissner, D., et al., 2017. Technology foresight in asset-
intensive industries: the case of Russian shipbuilding. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
119, 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.001.
Wang, Z., Dong, B., Wang, Y., Li, M., Liu, H., Han, F., 2023. Analysis and Evaluation of
Fuel Cell Technologies for Sustainable Ship Power: Energy Efficiency and
Environmental Impact, vol. X. Energy Conversion and Management, 100482.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2023.100482.
Wang, B., Hu, S.J., Sun, L., et al., 2020. Intelligent welding system technologies: state-of-
the-art review and perspectives. J. Manuf. Syst. 56, 373–391. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.06.020.
Wang, J., Wu, H., Duan, H., Zillante, G., Zuo, J., Yuan, H., 2018. Combining life cycle
assessment and Building Information Modelling to account for the carbon emission
of building demolition waste: a case study. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3154–3166. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.087.
Wang, L., Wang, Y., Du, H., Zuo, J., Li, R.Y.M., Zhou, Z., Bi, F., Garvlehn, M.P., 2019.
A comparative life-cycle assessment of hydro-, nuclear, and wind power: a China
study. Appl. Energy 249, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.099.
Xu, J., Yi, B., Fan, Y., 2016. A bottom-up optimization model for long-term CO2 emissions
reduction pathway in the cement industry: a case study of China. Int. J. Greenh. Gas
Control 44, 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.11.028.
Yan, S.L., Su, Q., Gong, Z.W., et al., 2022. Fractional order time-delay multivariable
discrete grey model for short-term online public opinion prediction. Expert Syst.
Appl. 197, 116691 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116691.
Yin, F., Bo, Z., Yu, L., et al., 2023. Prediction of carbon dioxide emissions in China using a
novel grey model with multi-parameter combination optimization. J. Clean. Prod.
404, 136889 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136889.
J. Liu et al.
Yuan, X., Liu, X., Zuo, J., 2015. The development of new energy vehicles for a sustainable
future: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42, 298–305. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.016.
Zhang, N., Zhang, D., Zuo, J., Miller, T.R., Duan, H., Schiller, G., 2022. Potential for CO2
mitigation and economic benefits from accelerated carbonation of construction and
demolition waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 169, 112920 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2022.112920.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 441 (2024) 140707
Zhang, Y., Chang, Y., Wang, C., et al., 2022. Life-cycle energy and environmental
emissions of cargo ships. J. Ind. Ecol. 26 (6), 2057–2068. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jiec.13293.
Zhou, N., Fridley, D., McNeil, M., et al., 2010. China’s Energy and Carbon Emissions
Outlook to 2050. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. LBNL-4472E,
Berkeley, CA, USA.