An Evaluation of Suitable Methods to Deal with Deep Uncertainty Caused by the Energy Transition in Ship Design

J. Pruyn
{"title":"An Evaluation of Suitable Methods to Deal with Deep Uncertainty Caused by the Energy Transition in Ship Design","authors":"J. Pruyn","doi":"10.5957/imdc-2022-252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The maritime industry is transitioning toward zero emission. To ensure compliance with future emission reduction regulations, many different alternative fuels and technology options are being investigated and evaluated. However, as these are ongoing developments, this results in varying and changing data on the performance and requirements of options. On top of that, while regulatory ambitions are aiming for increasingly larger reductions of Green House Gases (GHG) and other harmful substances, the level and details of the future regulations are unknown and subject to ongoing scientific and societal discussions. The level of uncertainty regarding regulation and technology for the energy transition can be defined as being deeply uncertain, which means uncertainty cannot be ordered in terms of possibility or occurrence. Although uncertainty is not uncommon in ship design, ship owners and designers are faced with an unprecedented level of uncertainty and require new methods to deal with this.\n This paper therefore investigates and compares several methods that could be used to increase the feasibility of future energy carriers in the design process, while accounting for the uncertainty in regulation and technical details of alternative fuels. Three promising methods were identified in a literature research: Firstly, Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP) evaluates alternative options and develops possible pathways to compliance. Secondly, Responsive Systems Comparison (RSC) determines performance of a design in established scenarios (epoch), also allowing evaluation including retrofit (changeability). Thirdly, Robust Decision making (RDM) explores the effect of uncertainties on a pre-specified design and analyses its vulnerability. Within this paper, a first comparison is carried out by applying each method to a general cargo ship case. The goal is to better understand the usability and potential of each method for the energy transition in shipping.\n Each of the researched methods was shown to allow for different insights in option performance in uncertain conditions during the early design stage. With DAPP providing a global, but clear overview of the possible future pathways toward emission reduction compliance of the design, RSC giving a more detailed insight of technology options in specific scenarios (including evaluation of changeability in a scenario) and RDM allowing a more in depth research of the alternative fuel’s parameters and the circumstances under which these might comply. With each method demonstrating its own strength, future research will develop more realistic and complex designs and processes to be applied to a combination of the beneficial aspects of two or more methods.","PeriodicalId":314110,"journal":{"name":"Day 2 Mon, June 27, 2022","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 2 Mon, June 27, 2022","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5957/imdc-2022-252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The maritime industry is transitioning toward zero emission. To ensure compliance with future emission reduction regulations, many different alternative fuels and technology options are being investigated and evaluated. However, as these are ongoing developments, this results in varying and changing data on the performance and requirements of options. On top of that, while regulatory ambitions are aiming for increasingly larger reductions of Green House Gases (GHG) and other harmful substances, the level and details of the future regulations are unknown and subject to ongoing scientific and societal discussions. The level of uncertainty regarding regulation and technology for the energy transition can be defined as being deeply uncertain, which means uncertainty cannot be ordered in terms of possibility or occurrence. Although uncertainty is not uncommon in ship design, ship owners and designers are faced with an unprecedented level of uncertainty and require new methods to deal with this. This paper therefore investigates and compares several methods that could be used to increase the feasibility of future energy carriers in the design process, while accounting for the uncertainty in regulation and technical details of alternative fuels. Three promising methods were identified in a literature research: Firstly, Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP) evaluates alternative options and develops possible pathways to compliance. Secondly, Responsive Systems Comparison (RSC) determines performance of a design in established scenarios (epoch), also allowing evaluation including retrofit (changeability). Thirdly, Robust Decision making (RDM) explores the effect of uncertainties on a pre-specified design and analyses its vulnerability. Within this paper, a first comparison is carried out by applying each method to a general cargo ship case. The goal is to better understand the usability and potential of each method for the energy transition in shipping. Each of the researched methods was shown to allow for different insights in option performance in uncertain conditions during the early design stage. With DAPP providing a global, but clear overview of the possible future pathways toward emission reduction compliance of the design, RSC giving a more detailed insight of technology options in specific scenarios (including evaluation of changeability in a scenario) and RDM allowing a more in depth research of the alternative fuel’s parameters and the circumstances under which these might comply. With each method demonstrating its own strength, future research will develop more realistic and complex designs and processes to be applied to a combination of the beneficial aspects of two or more methods.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
船舶设计中能量转换引起的深度不确定性处理方法的评价
海运业正在向零排放过渡。为了确保遵守未来的减排规定,正在调查和评估许多不同的替代燃料和技术选择。但是,由于这些都是正在进行的发展,这导致关于备选方案的性能和要求的数据不同和不断变化。最重要的是,虽然监管机构的目标是越来越多地减少温室气体(GHG)和其他有害物质,但未来监管的水平和细节尚不清楚,并受到科学界和社会的持续讨论。能源转型的监管和技术的不确定性水平可以定义为深度不确定性,这意味着不确定性不能按可能性或发生顺序排列。虽然不确定性在船舶设计中并不少见,但船东和设计师面临着前所未有的不确定性,需要新的方法来处理这种不确定性。因此,本文研究并比较了几种方法,这些方法可用于在设计过程中增加未来能源载体的可行性,同时考虑到替代燃料在监管和技术细节方面的不确定性。在文献研究中,确定了三种有前景的方法:首先,动态自适应政策路径(Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways, DAPP)评估备选方案并开发可能的合规途径。其次,响应式系统比较(Responsive Systems Comparison, RSC)确定设计在既定场景(epoch)中的性能,也允许包括改造(可变性)在内的评估。第三,鲁棒决策(Robust Decision making, RDM)探讨了不确定性对预先设计的影响,并分析了其脆弱性。在本文中,通过将每种方法应用于一个普通货船案例,进行了第一次比较。目标是更好地了解每种方法在航运能源转型中的可用性和潜力。研究表明,每一种方法都允许在不确定条件下的期权性能在早期设计阶段有不同的见解。DAPP提供了一个全面的、清晰的、符合设计要求的未来可能减排路径的概述,RSC提供了更详细的技术选择在特定情况下的见解(包括评估一个场景的可变性),RDM允许更深入的研究替代燃料的参数以及这些参数可能符合的情况。随着每种方法展示其自身的优势,未来的研究将开发更现实和复杂的设计和过程,以应用于两种或两种以上方法的有益方面的组合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Technology Transfer in Novel Ship Design: A Deep Seabed Mining Study 100 Things (or so) a Ship Designer Needs to Know A Study on The Performance Improvement of Hi-Fin The Network Block Approach Applied to the Initial Design of Submarine Distributed Ship Service Systems System-Of-Systems Modelling and Simulation in Warship Design for Operations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1