TRUSTEE Online Survey: share your vision on Zero-Emission Waterborne Transport (ZEWT)

  • TRUSTEE Online Survey: share your vision on Zero-Emission Waterborne Transport (ZEWT)

    Share your expert insights on the challenges, opportunities, and impacts of ZEWT and contribute to figure out what are the most realist scenarios over the short and long term!
  • Image field 89

  • This questionnaire is anonymous, please answer all questions as thoroughly as possible. Filling this questionnaire will require around 10 minutes, we tahnk you in advance for sharing your knowledge and opinions.

    To know more about TRUSTEE project visit www.trusteeproject.eu

  • Please select the option best describing your organization*
  • Please select the option best describing your field of expertise*
  • How many years of professional experience do you have in this sector?*
  • Rows
  • 2. In your opinion, how probable is the large-scale adoption of zero-emission alternative fuels in deep-sea shipping?*
  • 3. In your opinion, how probable is the widespread commercial deployment of fully electric, battery-powered vessels within the short-sea shipping and inland waterway segments?*
  • 4. In your opinion, how probable is the universal implementation and mandatory utilization of Onshore Power Supply (cold ironing) for passenger and container vessels at berth across the TEN-T core network, in order to eliminate auxiliary engine emissions?*
  • 5. Please identify the top 3 obstacles to the full deployment of Zero-Emission Waterborne Transport (ZEWT) from the list below:*
  • 6. Has your organization conducted, or is it considering to conduct, a feasibility study for ZEWT operations (e.g., alternative fuel bunkering or fleet retrofitting)?*
  • 7. Has your organization conducted, or is it considering to conduct, a feasibility study for ship-side or onshore electrification (e.g., OPS, batteries, or hybrid systems), including CAPEX/OPEX and pricing models?*
  • 8. Has your organization conducted, or is it considering to conduct, a feasibility study for advanced digital services to increase fuel efficiency (e.g., PortCDM, Digital Twins, IoT, or AI optimization), including CAPEX/OPEX and pricing models?*
  • Rows
  • 10. In your opinion, how critical is the standardization of safety regulations across European ports for securing long-term investments in alternative fuels?*
  • 11. In your opinion, what has the greatest priority for enabling zero-emission operations for deep-sea shipping in ports planning and adaptation? (select max 2 answers)*
  • 12. In your opinion, what has the greatest priority for enabling full-electric operations for short-sea and inland waterway transport in ports planning and adaptation (select max 2 answers)*
  • 13. To what extent do you believe the deployment roadmap of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation is effectively synchronized with the development and market readiness of the key technologies enabling zero-emission shipping?*
  • 14. In your opinion, might the overall cost for building new or adapting existing port infrastructures be the major obstacle to ZEWT full deployment, even more than fleet renovation?*
  • 15. In your opinion, do current financing mechanisms (e.g., FuelEU Maritime, ETS, Green Shipping Corridors) provide adequate support to mitigate the investment risks associated with alternative fuel infrastructure*
  • Rows
  • 17. In what extent do you think that vessels automation is a relevant driver for the full deploymet of Zero Emission Waterborne Transport?*
  • 18. In what extent do you think that digitalization is a relevant driver for the full deploymet of Zero Emission Waterborne Transport?*
  • 19. In what extent do you think that transitioning to high-density fuels (green ammonia, e-methanol, etc.) is necessary for high-power maritime operations to supplement battery technologies?.*
  • Rows
  • 21. In your opinion, could ZEWT deployment be hindered by local community concerns regarding the storage and handling of new hazardous alternative fuels (e.g., ammonia, hydrogen) in ports close to densely populated areas?*
  • 22. In your opinion, will high costs and complex safety requirements for zero-emission fuels create a 'two-tier' port system, where smaller ports cannot compete with major hubs that can afford the necessary infrastructure?*
  • 23. In your opinion, will the shift to zero-emission technologies create a significant skills gap, risking socio-economic inequality for maritime workers, unable to adapt to new high-tech requirements?*
  • 24. In your opinion, do skill mismatches and obsolescence for the current maritime and port workforce represent a critical bottleneck, due to costs and/or times needed for re-skilling or up-skilling?*
  • 25. In your opinion, will the increased automation and/or digitalization associated to alternative fules cause job displacement and dramatic cutting of lower skilled roles, triggering social opposition to zero-emission maritime transport.*
  • 26. In your opinion, might passengers’ concerns about their safety with respect to possible incidents (e.g., toxic spills, alternative fuel fires) represent a concrete obstacle to the expansion of green shipping corridors near urban areas*
  • Thank you for your answers! Would you like to share with us some more opinions?*
  • 27. In your opinion, is the current Euroepan Union regulatory roadmap for ZEWT (i.e. FuelEU Maritime, EU ETS expansion, AFIR Phase 2,  100 ZEV newbuilds, Green Corridors) adequate for effective planning?
  • 28. In what extent Wind-Assisted Propulsion Systems can contribute to the reduction of waterborne transport emissions?
  • 29. In your opinion, would using well-to-wake renewable energy sources for marine alternative fuels significantly improve the social acceptance of zero-emission shipping initiatives in port areas?*
  • 30. In your opinion, how probable is it that advanced nuclear propulsion technologies will overcome current regulatory and societal barriers to achieve commercial viability for specific maritime sectors?
  • 31. In your opinion, how probable is the implementaion of Port Collaborative Decision-Making and Just in Time arrival protocols to effectively eliminate waiting times and associated emissions?
  • 31. In your opinion, on what extent the financial investments required for implementing on board advanced digital systems represent an obstacle to the fleet's energy optimization and green transition?
  • 33. In your opinion, will the conversion of existing port infrastructures and fuel terminals to accommodate multi-fuel bunkering becost-effective in a reasonable time horizon?
  • 34. In your opinion, in what extent the improvement of multi-fuel engine performances and retrofitting solutions can contribute to Fit for 55 and ZEWT targets?
  • 35. In your opinion, which maritime segment will most likely adopt hybrid systems combining alternative fuels with Wind-Assisted Ship Propulsion (WASP)?
  • 36. In your opinion, which operational profile is best suited for hybrid propulsion systems that integrate alternative fuels with battery storage?
  • 37. In your opinion, what should be the autonomy of zero emissions vessels for deep-sea shipping for ZEWT large scale implementation (only one option)?
  • 38. In your opinion, is the environmental lifecycle footprint of electric propulsion (from battery manufacturing to vessel scrapping) a potential obstacle for the the integration of ZEWT into green shipping corridors and national climate strategies?
  • 38. In your opinion, is the environmental lifecycle footprint of alternative marine fuels (e.g., high indirect emissions during fuel production and supply chain) a potential obstacle for market acceptance or for the willingness of ports to implement dedicated bunkering infrastructure?
  • 40. In your opinion, in what extent the current gaps on safety assessment and risk management for alternative fuels infrastructures and operations hinder their large-scale adoption?
  • 41. In your opinion, how probable is that the complexity of managing multiple zero-emission technologies will force ports to specialize in specific propulsion solutions rather than offering all of them?
  • 42. In your opinion, could the integration of hazardous zero-emission fuels zones reduce the operational capacity of existing European port terminals?
  • 43. In your opinion, could the security concerns (i.e. sabotage, intentional misuse) impact the integration of hazardous zero-emission fuels in ports?
  • 44. In your opinion, should current  International Ship and Port Facility Security Code regulations be fundamentally revised to address the new security risks posed by highly reactive zero-emission fuels?
  • 45. In your opinion, should port authorities and local authorities in charge of territorial planning issue specific regulations and zoning regulation for the use of port land, coastal waters, and existing infrastructures to prioritize/integrate ZEWT operations (e.g., mandatory zero-emission port zones)
  • 46. In your opinion, would the safety and health risks that hazardous alternative fuels pose to the workforce and local communities represent a critical barrier to their adoption?
  • 47. In your opinion, in what extent social acceptance of the ZEWT transition depends on delivering tangible local benefits, such as reduced air pollution, noise mitigation, and the creation of green maritime jobs for coastal communities?
  • 48. In your opinion, in what extent citizens' mistrust in specific technologies in other fields (i.e. nuclear energy for Small Modular Reactors, or AI/data-sharing platforms) might have an indirect negative effect on the deployment of certain ZEWT solutions?
  • 49. In your opinion, in what extent public disocurse and citizens' engagement and dialogue with other local stakeholders are essential for integration of necessary infrastrucures for hazardous fuels in port areas?
  • 50. In your opinion, will the transition to hazardous alternative fuels require a fundamental update of the Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping Convention and international certification to bridge critical gaps in safety and emergency response training?
  • Should be Empty: