Search

• A real option model is used to analyze investment in maritime hydrogen. • Scenarios are developed to account for fuel price differentials and policy measures. • A tax of at least 28% of fuel price is needed for a hydrogen-fueled ferry in 2025. • Favorable regulation increases the value of the option to invest now. • Taxation should be high to as soon as possible to avoid postponing investment. Alternative, and especially renewable, marine fuels are needed to reduce the environmental and climate impacts of the shipping sector. This paper investigates the business case for hydrogen as an alternative fuel in a new-built vessel utilizing fuel cells and liquefied hydrogen. A real option approach is used to model the optimal time and costs for investment, as well as the value of deferring an investment as a result of uncertainty. This model is then used to assess the impact of a carbon tax on a ship owner's investment decision. A low carbon tax results in ship owners deferring investments, which then slows the uptake of the technology. We recommend that policymakers set a high carbon tax at an early stage in order to help hydrogen compete with fossil fuels. A clear and timely policy design promotes further investments and accelerates the uptake of new technologies that can fulfill decarbonization targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The port governance literature has charted the trend towards devolution of port services to the private sector, also showing how the increasing influence of external private actors such as shipping lines and global terminal operators affects decisions on expansion and service provision, producing a more multifaceted and polycentric kind of port governance. In this paper we extend these notions to cover both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. A growing body of literature on green ports discusses the various actions that can be taken to limit emissions in the port area, while another body of literature is growing on climate change adaptation measures, including the uncertain risks and rewards. Both mitigation and adaptation actions are partly linked to the commercial decisions of port actors but also partly driven by external actors (e.g. society, government, regulators). The analysis produces an updated conceptualisation of port governance under climate change, based on four stakeholder groups (public policy, commercial actors, indirect actors and international shipping governance) and produces three key conclusions. First, concession contracts and commercial relationships will need to change, with a more integrated vision and approach to sharing future (sometimes undefined or uncosted) costs and benefits between the port authority and commercial partners. Second, diversification of the port business model will see a larger focus on energy production and provision, requiring the more explicit inclusion of external stakeholders, particularly energy companies, in port governance. Third, port governance will see a return to prominence of the public dimension, both in terms of national decarbonisation plans and particularly regarding adaptation to an uncertain and turbulent future. As ports are both commercial activities and national infrastructure, these different identities will need to be united in a joint vision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]