Promoting LNG as A Marine Fuel in Norway: Reflections on the Role of Global Regulations on Local Transition Niches
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1) Overall this is a good paper but you need more references from Norway and the North Sea and the Baltic. Apart from the ICCT (2020) and the Thinkstep (2019) report all references listed here is about LNG and is written by North West Europeans
If you include at least some of these both as a short section and in the reference list. Because government and politician can't do much on their own, its the scientist which brings the world forward.
ICCT 2020. The Climate implications of using LNG as a marine fuel, International Council on Clean Transportation.
Johansson, L., J. P. Jalkanen, J. Kalli and J. Kukkonen 2013. The evolution of shipping emissions and the costs of regulation changes in the northern EU area. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 13(22): 11375-11389.
Lindstad, E., Eskeland, G., S., Rialland, A., Valland, A., 2020 Decarbonizing Maritime Transport: The Importance of Engine Technology and Regulations for LNG to serve as a Transition Fuel. Sustainability 2020, 12(5), 8793; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218793
Lindstad, E. Rialland, A., 2020. LNG and Cruise Ships, an easy way to fulfil regulations - versus the need for reducing GHG emissions
Stenersen, D., Thonstad, O., 2017. GHG and NOx emissions from gas fuelled Engines- Mapping, verification, reduction technologies. Sintef Ocean. OC2017 F-108. Report for the Norwegian NOx fund
Thinkstep, 2019. Life cycle GHG emission study on the use of LNG as marine fuel. Retrieved from Thinkstep: https://www.thinkstep.com/content/life-cycle-ghg-emission-study-use-lng-marine-fuel-1
Ushakov, S., Stenersen, D., Einang, P. 2018. Methane slip from gas fuelled ships: a comprehensive summary based on measurement data. Journal of Marine Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-018-00622-z
Ushakov, S., Stenersen, D., Einang, P., M., 2019a Methane Slip summarized Lab vs. Field Data. CIMAC 2019, 10-14 Juni Vancouver, Canada.
Ushakov, S., Stenersen, D. & Einang, P.M. 2019b. Methane slip from gas fuelled ships: a comprehensive summary based on measurement data. J Mar Sci Technol 24, 1308–1325 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-018-00622-z
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments. We return as fellow:
Comment: … you need more references from Norway and the North Sea and the Baltic. Apart from the ICCT (2020) and the Thinkstep (2019) report all references listed here is about LNG and is written by North West Europeans. If you include at least some of these both as a short section and in the reference list. Because government and politician can't do much on their own, its the scientist which brings the world forward.
Reply : We added the following short section questioning LNG as a 'perfect' solution and with recent references (page 9)
(…) about 80% reduction in NOx and a 100% reduction in SOx and Particulate Matters (PM) [38]. It is worth noting that the emissions of NOx are governed by combustion process parameters, and these emissions will vary depending on the engine technology and are not directly related to the fuel (Stenersen and Thonstad, 2017; Lindstad et al; 2020). Nevertheless, the LNG remains the cleanest fossil fuel currently available in maritime transportation. It is not a perfect solution. Indeed, LNG contains less carbon per unit of energy than conventional marine fuels; its use might not reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on a life-cycle basis (Thinkstep, 2019; ICCT, 2020). Or, when one includes Well-to-Tank (from extraction through logistics to the vessel’s tanks) estimates of emissions for LNG supply chain, the resulting additional emissions will reduce and in the worst case more than nullify any GHG gains from LNG relative to Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) or Marine Gas Oil (MGO) (Lindstad et al; 2020). Just as, the overall and long-term gains from using LNG as a marine-fuel are questioned in particular due to the impact of methane slip during the storing of LNG (Ushakov et al, 2019). But for its potential rapid gains and implementation its matches perfectly with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agenda which introduced in January 2020 a 0.5% sulphur limit on fuel oil used by ships operating outside designated SOx emission control areas (SECAs). Thus, when LNG is chosen as the fuel for any new-built vessels, it fulfills all the IMO air emission regulations (Lindstad and Rialland, 2020).
As suggested here are recent references on the topic added to the list
ICCT 2020. The Climate implications of using LNG as a marine fuel, International Council on Clean Transportation
Lindstad, E., Eskeland, G., S., Rialland, A., Valland, A., 2020 Decarbonizing Maritime Transport: The Importance of Engine Technology and Regulations for LNG to serve as a Transition Fuel. Sustainability 2020, 12(5), 8793; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218793
Lindstad, E. Rialland, A., 2020. LNG and Cruise Ships, an easy way to fulfil regulations - versus the need for reducing GHG emissions
Stenersen, D., Thonstad, O., 2017. GHG and NOx emissions from gas fuelled Engines- Mapping, verification, reduction technologies. Sintef Ocean. OC2017 F-108. Report for the Norwegian NOx fund
Thinkstep, 2019. Life cycle GHG emission study on the use of LNG as marine fuel. Retrieved from Thinkstep: https://www.thinkstep.com/content/life-cycle-ghg-emission-study-use-lng-marine-fuel-1
Ushakov, S., Stenersen, D. & Einang, P.M. 2019. Methane slip from gas fuelled ships: a comprehensive summary based on measurement data. J Mar Sci Technol 24, 1308–1325 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-018-00622-z
Reviewer 2 Report
A significant improvement of the paper's content; various issues have been resolved. However, certain "English language" improvements can still be made (see attached remarks of the pdf file) and especially try to "water down" the extensive use of "we (i.e. see first paragraph of section 2.1).
Two issues to also address during your minor revision:
The use of relevant statistics for LNG fuel vessels is finishing at the year 2018.There is a need to expand to include 2019/2020. or at least explain why you are not including them.
Considering that numerous papers dealing with LNG use are published between 2019, 2019 and even 2020, it might worth the try to include two to three more of them in your literature review...
Good luck and i look forward to the improved version!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments. We return as fellow:
Comment 1: ... certain "English language" improvements can still be made (see attached remarks of the pdf file) and especially try to "water down" the extensive use of "we (i.e. see first paragraph of section 2.1).
Reply: "English language" reviewed and revised in Section 2,1.
Comment 2 : The use of relevant statistics for LNG fuel vessels is finishing at the year 2018.There is a need to expand to include 2019/2020. or at least explain why you are not including them.
Reply: We include in section 3.1 a note explaining the covered period.
Available data for 2019 was partial at the time of publishing and compiled slightly differently; authors elected to show time series only up to 2018. However, an overview of launching and ordering news in the shipping press clearly suggests that the growing trend in LNG and dual-fuel ships is sustained in the more recent years.
Comment 3 : Considering that numerous papers dealing with LNG use are published between 2019, 2019 and even 2020, it might worth the try to include two to three more of them in your literature review…
Reply :
Here are some recent references on the topic added to the list:
ICCT 2020. The Climate implications of using LNG as a marine fuel, International Council on Clean Transportation
Lindstad, E., Eskeland, G., S., Rialland, A., Valland, A., 2020 Decarbonizing Maritime Transport: The Importance of Engine Technology and Regulations for LNG to serve as a Transition Fuel. Sustainability 2020, 12(5), 8793; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218793
Lindstad, E. Rialland, A., 2020. LNG and Cruise Ships, an easy way to fulfil regulations - versus the need for reducing GHG emissions
Stenersen, D., Thonstad, O., 2017. GHG and NOx emissions from gas fuelled Engines- Mapping, verification, reduction technologies. Sintef Ocean. OC2017 F-108. Report for the Norwegian NOx fund
Ushakov, S., Stenersen, D. & Einang, P.M. 2019. Methane slip from gas fuelled ships: a comprehensive summary based on measurement data. J Mar Sci Technol 24, 1308–1325 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-018-00622-z
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a well-written paper and very relevant. However, the paper would benefit from the following in terms of improvement:
- There is a need to do some spell check as well as other language checks. There omissions here and there.
- The methodology would be better if represented with a flow chat.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments. We return as fellow:
Comment 1: There is a need to do some spell check as well as other language checks. There omissions here and there.
Reply: "English language" reviewed and revised.
Comment 2:The methodology would be better if represented with a flow chat.
Reply: A flow chat describing the methodology has been added at the end of the introduction section.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interestingly, the paper describes the transition of energy sources from conventional marine fuel to LNG (the adoption versus time, drivers, development of infrastructure, etc.) in Norway. The paper is useful as a case study for other countries and regions as well as global level.
Minor comments:
The abstract could be improved, especially to touch on the main finding.
In Page 7, Paragraph 2,
…. MARPOL Annex VI requires NOx reduction to meet Tier II requirements (20% reduction) by 2011 and Tier III requirements (80% reduction) by 2016. ….
It seems that NOx Tier III requirement has been delayed to 2021. Please check. In addition to IMO regulations, would NOx tax in the scheme of Norwegian NOx fund influence the transition to LNG (in the past ten years)? The Norwegian NOx Fund has been mentioned in Page 11.
Consistency of terms “IMO” and “MEPC”. Some sentences use I.M.O and some use IMO. The same goes to MEPC.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments, here are the required revisions:
Comment 1-The abstract could be improved, especially to touch on the main finding.
Reply: The abstract has been revised as suggested (see the paper’s last version).
Comment 2-In Page 7, Paragraph 2, …. MARPOL Annex VI requires NOx reduction to meet Tier II requirements (20% reduction) by 2011 and Tier III requirements (80% reduction) by 2016. ….
It seems that NOx Tier III requirement has been delayed to 2021.
Reply: The date has been checked and corrected to 2021. Besides, the mentioned segment has been removed from page 7, kept on page 11. We return as fellow:
MARPOL Annex VI requires NOx reduction to meet Tier II requirements (20% reduction) by 2011 and Tier III requirements (80% reduction) by 2016 apply to the North American and US Caribbean ECAs, but by 2021 apply to the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. Moreover, the MEPC decided at its70th session in London that the implementation date for the 0.5% global SOx cap is set in 2020.
Comment 3-In addition to IMO regulations, would NOx tax in the scheme of Norwegian NOx fund influence the transition to LNG (in the past ten years)? The Norwegian NOx Fund has been mentioned on Page 11.
Reply: IMO regulations do not concern solely the NOx limitations, but also the other pollutants such as SOx and CO2. However, the Norwegian NOx Fund influences the transition process. We stress further this point in the conclusion (see the additional sentences in the conclusion)
Comment 4-Consistency of terms “IMO” and “MEPC”. Some sentences use I.M.O and some use IMO. The same goes to MEPC.
Reply: The acronyms have been adjusted where it appears in the paper, turn into IMO and MEPC (not I.M.O and M.E.P.C).
Best Regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
A nice effort, dealing with an interesting topic.
Before proceeding to the next stage, the following must be addressed:
- The current tile is too long and confusing. please revise
- Abstract is too similar with the introducing (an indicator of not being focused enough) and even the section of the paper's layout is more appropriate for the introduction.
- The rule of thumb is What is researched (ok), Why/How (methodology (ok)) and finally the most important conclusion/something that stands out which is currently missing.
- It is my impression that there is a weakness about using/omitting "the" in the text. Please run an "edit only review" to deal with this weakness.
- 5. I personally prefer the third person style and avoid "we", "ours" etc., however would recommend to follow the editor's advise on this issue.
good luck with the revision,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your useful comments, here are the required revisions:
Comment 1 -The current tile is too long and confusing.
Reply: We have revised the title as fellow :
Promoting LNG as a marine fuel in Norway: reflections on the role of global regulations on local transition niches.
Comment 2 -Abstract is too similar with the introducing (an indicator of not being focused enough) and even the section of the paper's layout is more appropriate for the introduction.
Reply: We have paid more attention to the abstract, and it has been changed as mentioned (see the paper’s last version). Besides, the paper’s layout has been removed from the abstract, kept in the introduction, (see the last part of the introduction on page 2).
Comment 3-The rule of thumb is What is researched (ok), Why/How (methodology (ok)) and finally the most important conclusion/something that stands out which is currently missing.
Reply: The conclusion has been (more) clearly set to stress the main findings of the paper (see the three distinctive parts of the con conclusion, page ).
Comment 4-It is my impression that there is a weakness about using/omitting "the" in the text. Please run an "edit only review" to deal with this weakness.
Reply: The deadline of five days to revise our paper doesn’t allow us to run an "edit only review". We went through the whole paper looking specifically for this issue and removed the following occurrences of «the»:
Here are some examples:
As we stated in the introduction, the MLP model has been criticized for over-focusing on technology ….
Following this insight, Rotmans et al.[12] presented a multi-level approach to analyze the change in socio-technical systems …
With the globalization effects, these kinds of actors seem to have a more important role to play, especially the environmental issues.
The figure 1 shows a schematic illustration of the multi-level governance model.
Comment 5 -I personally prefer the third person style and avoid "we", "ours" etc., however would recommend to follow the editor's advise on this issue.
Reply: Currently left at it was, but could be changed if the editors advise require it.
Best Regards,
