2.3.1. ECONOMIC BARRIERS - MARKET BARRIERS
As discussed previously, market barriers are obstacles that contribute to the slow diffusion and adoption of energy efficiency measures and before them, companies behave rationally (Brown 2001; Sorrell et al., 2004; Rehmatulla and Smith 2015a). Market barriers include:
• Credit constraints and capital costs: high initial payments implied by the adoption of new technologies to be installed on ships during the shipbuilding process and the implementation of modern retrofit ships (Stulgis et al. , 2014) sometimes require external financing. However, restricted access to capital markets as a result of the crisis and the high cost of capital makes it difficult for economically efficient measures not always …show more content…
Life-cycle costs include those costs related to the search for cost-efficient measures, assessment costs such as hiring companies that consider the most appropriate measure to the specific characteristics of a company's ships, Operation, including contracts, and engineering costs such as maintenance or disposal of the previously installed measure. In terms of transactional costs, they become more significant for small shipowners because they can not be distributed over a large number of ships (Faber et al., 2009). The start-up costs of some measures outside the dry dock period or inspection periods lead to delays in the actual implementation of a cost-efficient measure that would otherwise have been implemented before. And regarding the loss or reduction of benefits related to the cost-efficient measure, we find additional maintenance problems or losses related to speed reduction (Faber et al., 2009, Maddox Consulting 2012, Acciaro et al., 2013, Jafarzadeh And Utne 2014). The loss of freight charges for longer than the regulatory minimum, caused by the implementation of energy efficiency improvements outside the dry dock period, or for longer periods of time than the time that the ship remains out of service, also Can be considered as a hidden cost (Wang et al., 2010, Faber et al., 2009, Rehmatulla and …show more content…
Due to scepticism about the proper functioning of innovative technologies, the shipowner may not always choose to invest in measures more efficiently or, if so, require a premium as a way to recoup the investment and to cover risks ( Faber et al., 2009; Rehmatulla and Smith 2015a). Among the risks that may hinder investment in energy efficiency measures can be found: business risk and financing; Uncertainty about the lack of infrastructure and the use of LNG, as the shipowner will not decide to carry out a project to prepare its ships to use LNG as a fuel, or will not invest in new LNG-consuming ships, if Has no guarantee of an adequate supply (Eide et al. 2012; Stulgis et al 2014); The technical risk, unreliability and uncertainty about the operation of the technologies to be installed and the external risk related to uncertainty about fluctuations in fuel prices, economic and political trends and new regulations that may deter (Faber et al 2009, Wang et al., 2010, Rehmatulla and Smith
As discussed previously, market barriers are obstacles that contribute to the slow diffusion and adoption of energy efficiency measures and before them, companies behave rationally (Brown 2001; Sorrell et al., 2004; Rehmatulla and Smith 2015a). Market barriers include:
• Credit constraints and capital costs: high initial payments implied by the adoption of new technologies to be installed on ships during the shipbuilding process and the implementation of modern retrofit ships (Stulgis et al. , 2014) sometimes require external financing. However, restricted access to capital markets as a result of the crisis and the high cost of capital makes it difficult for economically efficient measures not always …show more content…
Life-cycle costs include those costs related to the search for cost-efficient measures, assessment costs such as hiring companies that consider the most appropriate measure to the specific characteristics of a company's ships, Operation, including contracts, and engineering costs such as maintenance or disposal of the previously installed measure. In terms of transactional costs, they become more significant for small shipowners because they can not be distributed over a large number of ships (Faber et al., 2009). The start-up costs of some measures outside the dry dock period or inspection periods lead to delays in the actual implementation of a cost-efficient measure that would otherwise have been implemented before. And regarding the loss or reduction of benefits related to the cost-efficient measure, we find additional maintenance problems or losses related to speed reduction (Faber et al., 2009, Maddox Consulting 2012, Acciaro et al., 2013, Jafarzadeh And Utne 2014). The loss of freight charges for longer than the regulatory minimum, caused by the implementation of energy efficiency improvements outside the dry dock period, or for longer periods of time than the time that the ship remains out of service, also Can be considered as a hidden cost (Wang et al., 2010, Faber et al., 2009, Rehmatulla and …show more content…
Due to scepticism about the proper functioning of innovative technologies, the shipowner may not always choose to invest in measures more efficiently or, if so, require a premium as a way to recoup the investment and to cover risks ( Faber et al., 2009; Rehmatulla and Smith 2015a). Among the risks that may hinder investment in energy efficiency measures can be found: business risk and financing; Uncertainty about the lack of infrastructure and the use of LNG, as the shipowner will not decide to carry out a project to prepare its ships to use LNG as a fuel, or will not invest in new LNG-consuming ships, if Has no guarantee of an adequate supply (Eide et al. 2012; Stulgis et al 2014); The technical risk, unreliability and uncertainty about the operation of the technologies to be installed and the external risk related to uncertainty about fluctuations in fuel prices, economic and political trends and new regulations that may deter (Faber et al 2009, Wang et al., 2010, Rehmatulla and Smith