EGCS + HFO versus Compliant Fuel in 2020 - Dr. Elizabeth Lindstad - Chief Scientist SINTEF Ocean AS - EGCSA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
EGCS + HFO versus
Compliant Fuel in 2020
Dr. Elizabeth Lindstad - Chief Scientist
SINTEF Ocean AS
THIS STUDY HAS BEEN FINANCED BY
SFI SMART MARITIME
NORWEGIAN CENTRE FOR IMPROVED ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND REDUCED HARMFUL
www.smartmaritime.no EMISSIONS FROM THE MARITIME SECTOR.
3
Global crude oil and shippings consumption
• Total crude Oil 4.5 billion tons
• Shipping consumes 300 million tons
• 75 % of consumption is residual HFO
• 23 % of consumption is distillate (diesel)
• 2 % is LNG and other
Options for satisfying IMO 2020 Sulphur cap • HFO in combination with an exhaust gas scrubber • Desulphurised HFO, i.e. LSHFO both as
Vessels above 8500 kW accounts for 20% of the fleet and 67% of the consumption source: Lindstad and Eskeland 2016
Fuel prices and differentials as a function of crude oil price from 2021 onwards (2020 might be bumpy) Source: Lindstad et al 2017
Abatement cost with scrubber versus LSHFO and Diesel (source: Lindstad et al. 2017)
Cost of Abatement options
Equipment Equipment
50 USD Price Cost per
Basic and and
per Increase 1000 kW Annual
Fuel and Abatement Option Legislation Capex installation installation
barrel of compared installed GHG
cost 7.5MW 25MW
crude oil to HFO power
vessel vessel
USD/ton USD/ton MUSD MUSD MUSD MUSD
Newbuilt Cost 35 75
HFO 300 - - - - - -
LSHFO < 0.5% S Sox,Nox tier 2 400 50 - 200 - - - - -
Diesel Sox, Nox tier 2 500 100 - 300 - - - - -
HFO - Open loop basic Scrubber Sox, Nox tier 2 300 0 2.0 0.07 3 4 -
HFO & Hybrid Scrubber with EGR Sox, Nox tier 3 300 0 4.0 0.10 5 7 -
HFO & Hybrid Scrubber &EGR & Sox,Nox tier 3, 15-20%
300 0 9.0 0.30 11 17
Slender Hull & Aero EEDI phase 3 reduction
LNG - High pressure (Diesel-cycle) & Sox,Nox tier 3, 15-20%
? ? 6.0 0.50 10 19
EGR EEDI phase 3 reduction
Sox,Nox tier 3, +5%
LNG - Low pressure (Otto-cycle) ? ? 2.0 0.40 5 12
EEDI phase 3 increaseAbatement cost per ton of fuel with scrubber and 2012 speeds and
consumption (table does not include all vessel types and size groups)
Abatement Cost
Average per Vessel
per ton Total fuel
Percentage
Ship type Fuel per consumption
No. of Installed Scrubber Scrubber share
DWT vessel in million ton
vessels Power (kW) open loop Hybrid
(ton)
Service - Tug 14 600 120 2 300 500 539 815 7.3
General Cargo 11 600 1 900 1 100 600 435 662 7.0 5%
Fishing 22 100 180 1 000 700 375 571 15.5
Tankers 2 400 47 600 9 600 3 000 127 198 7.2
Ferry - Ro-Pax 1 700 400 1 500 2 200 135 212 3.7 24 %
Dry Bulk 5 400 41 700 10 100 4 000 101 160 21.6
Container 1 100 8 600 6 000 3 700 98 157 4.1
Dry Bulk 2 300 82 000 10 900 6 200 73 119 14.3
Container 1 700 46 800 30 500 14 600 54 90 24.8
Ro-Ro&Vehicle 1 300 11 800 10 100 9 200 55 92 12.0
Tankers 600 313 400 27 700 19 100 45 76 11.5
Cruise 250 7 300 42 600 42 000 34 61 10.5 67 %
LNG & LPG 50 121 300 37 400 34 100 36 67 1.7 4%
Totals 106 000 291.0HFO operation in ECA - Exhaust Scrubbing and EGR
Partners: Solvang, Wärtsilä Moss, SINTEF Ocean
Source: NOx Tier III and ECA sulfur compliant operation on heavy fuel:
combining EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) and sea water scrubbing, 2019
Sergey Ushakov, Ingebrigt Valberg, Per Magne Einang and Tor Øyvind AskClipper Harald – NOx emission
Original
Engine modification – NOx optimization
SINTEF Ocean test EGC + EGR (December 2015)
SINTEF Ocean test EGC + EGR (March 2018)Clipper Harald Operating at 60% Load This is work in progress, but the results so far indicates full compliance with SOx, and Nox tier 3 requirements. Moreover particles matters (PM) are reduced compared to with distilates
Large diesel engines & with scrubbers & EGR and after treatment of the exhaust
gas allows us to run the engine on HFO and meet all air emission regulations
Heat
Exhaust gas
Air 75.8% N2
8.5 kg/kWh 13.0% O2
21% O2 5.35% H2O
79% N2 94.15% in Subtotal
Fuel 5.2% CO2
175 g/kWh 0.25% NOx = 22 g/kwh (Tier 1 =17)
97% HC 0.15 % SO2
3% S 0.045 % HC
0.015 % CO
Lube
5.66 % in Subtotal
1 g/kWh
97% HC BC - Black Carbon
2.5% CA PM2.5 - Particles
0.5% S Other
0.19 % in Subtotal
Work
Source: Input figures and drawing from Man B & W, animation from wikipedia.org
1617
Cost Minimizing speeds
110' dwt Aframax
tanker
source: Lindstad et al 2017Main Conclusions - Retrofit
• HFO & Scrubber encourage higher operational speeds, diesel
reduces the speed
• Scrubber is most cost efficient for large vessels at high fuel
prices for nearly all vessels
• Versus retrofitting, LSHFOHFO & Scrubber versus compliant fuel assessed with focus
on reaching IMO's 2050 GHG reduction target
16 different scenarios
developed by the Third
IMO GHG study
Source:
Smith et al. (2014),
IPCC (2013)World Energy Consumption 1971 – 2015 Source: www.iea.org
Report delivered to UN General Secretary on United Nations Climate Summit September 2019
Potential contribution of five areas of ocean-based action to mitigating climate change in 2050 (maximum GtCO2e) – the orange is our focus
• Present sea-trial procedures for EEDI adjust to ‘calm water conditions’ only, as a comparative basis, despite calm sea being the exception in the World. We find that this adjustment procedure excessively rewards full bodied ‘bulky’ hulls which perform well in calm water conditions. • In contrast, hull forms optimized with respect to performance in realistic sea-conditions are not rewarded with the current EEDI procedures. • Our results indicate that without adjusting the testing cycle requirements to also include a threshold for performance in waves (real sea), the desired reductions will be short on targets and GHG emissions could potentially increase.
The investigated designs
Required Power for alternative Supramax designs as a function of speed, design and sea states 27
Power and cost for alternative Supramax designs with 50% calm sea and 50% head sea Hs= 3m, (237 days sailing at sea and a fuel price of 500 USD/ton) 28
All exhaust gases from combustion gives a climate impact
Temperature response by component for total anthropogenic
Radiative forcing components emissions for a 1-year pulse
Source: Leland McInnes based on IPCC Natural Drivers of Climate Source: Climate Change 2013, IPCC Fifth Assessment
Change, Figure SPM.2, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007 Report, Myhre et al. 2013Global warming Potential - GWP • Metrics that weight emitted gases according to their global warming potential (GWP), to report them in terms of "CO2 equivalents", have become standard currency to benchmark and communicate the relative and absolute contributions to climate change (Shine, 2009). • GWP gives negative weights to emitted exhaust gases and particles that have a cooling effect, and positive weights to those that have a warming effect. • GWP is usually integrated over 20 or over 100 years, where the longest time horizon gives greater weight to CO2, which stays up in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. • With the current need for rapid reductions of GHG emissions within the next decade and a 50% cut by 2050 (IPCC 2013), there are good arguments for giving larger weight to the results from using the 20 years horizon (Lenton, 2008).
WTW climate impact including all exhaust gases
with a 20 (left) and a 100 (right) year time horizon
31To reach IMO's GHG targets there is a need for including all GHG's
emitted by shipping i.e.; CO2, CH4, N2O, VOC, …. and not only CO2
Source: Lindstad Elizabeth 2019 - WTW GWP100 in Gram CO2 eq. per kWhWell to tank with focus on CO2, N2O, and CH4 only (Transport & Environment web page and Baltic Transport journal)
WTT - Well to tank gram TTW - Tank to wake Gram WTW - as
WTW - Well
WTW WTW emissions - Previous studies
CO2 eq. emissions per MJ
GWP 100
CO2 eq. emissions per MJ
GWP 100
to wake CO2
percentage of
Diesel (MGO)
emissions CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2 CH4 N2O Total
eq. emissions reference
HFO 2.7% S Bengtsson (2011) 8.0 73.5 73.5 81.5 92 %
comparison Verbeek (2011) 9.1 0.7 9.8 77.7 77.7 87.5 99 %
of previous Chryssakis and Stahl (2013)
Thinkstep (2019) 10.8 2.7
9.2 77.7
13.5 77.7
77.7
77.7
86.9
91.2
98 %
103 %
Fuel studies Lindstad 2019 9.6 77.7 77.7 87.3 98 %
LSHFOThinkstep study of WTT for LNG – marginal variance between regions
Two (2) stroke slow speed engines - GWP 100. SINTEF DNV-GL Thinkstep SINTEF ICCT Lindstad
WTW Comparing Pure Diesel engines versus LP - SINTEF 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2020 et. al. 2020
Low Pressure (Otto) dual fuel engines MGO
Conventional HFO- ScrubberWTW Conventional fuels versus HP (diesel) dual fuel LNG (source: Lindstad et al 2020)
Two (2) stroke slow speed engines - Comparing SINTEF SINTEF DNV-GL Thinkstep SINTEF ICCT Lindstad et.
Pure Diesel engines versus HP - High Pressure 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2020 al. 2020
(diesel) dual fuel engines HFO- MGO
ScrubberWTW Conventional fuels versus LP (Otto) dual fuel LNG 20 and a 100 year time horizon
WTW Conventional fuels versus HP (Otto) dual fuel LNG 20 and a 100 year time horizon
Taking a short term view GWP20 to reach climate target, - Best LNG solution, i.e. High pressure (HP-diesel) is slightly better than HFO & MGO, - While LNG Low pressure (LP-Otto) increases global warming
Cost of Abatement options
Equipment Equipment
50 USD Price Cost per
Basic and and
per Increase 1000 kW Annual
Fuel and Abatement Option Legislation Capex installation installation
barrel of compared installed GHG
cost 7.5MW 25MW
crude oil to HFO power
vessel vessel
USD/ton USD/ton MUSD MUSD MUSD MUSD
Newbuilt Cost 35 75
HFO 300 - - - - - -
LSHFO < 0.5% S Sox,Nox tier 2 400 50 - 200 - - - - -
Diesel Sox, Nox tier 2 500 100 - 300 - - - - -
HFO - Open loop basic Scrubber Sox, Nox tier 2 300 0 2.0 0.07 3 4 -
HFO & Hybrid Scrubber with EGR Sox, Nox tier 3 300 0 4.0 0.10 5 7 -
HFO & Hybrid Scrubber &EGR & Sox,Nox tier 3, 15-20%
300 0 9.0 0.30 11 17
Slender Hull & Aero EEDI phase 3 reduction
LNG - High pressure (Diesel-cycle) & Sox,Nox tier 3, 15-20%
? ? 6.0 0.50 10 19
EGR EEDI phase 3 reduction
Sox,Nox tier 3, +5%
LNG - Low pressure (Otto-cycle) ? ? 2.0 0.40 5 12
EEDI phase 3 increaseOptions for meeting IMO 2025 EEDI phase 3, Nox tier 3, and Sulphur cap - Versus Cost and GHG reductions • LP (Otto) dual fuel LNG has the lowest capex cost, however it gives no GHG reductions, rather increases them -> no contribution to reaching IMO 2050 • HFO & Scrubber & EGR combined with more slender designs including aero reduces fuel consumption with 10 – 20 % and give similar GHG reductions -> contributes to reaching IMO 2050 (LSHFO & Diesel gives slightly lower GHG reductions) • HP (Diesel) dual fuel LNG meets all regulations, and gives 15 % GHG reduction on it's own. Combined with a more sleder design including aero, it reduces fuel consumption with 10 – 20% (dependent on ship type) it gives 25 – 35 % GHG reductions -> contributes to reaching IMO 2050
Some References (own) within the scope of the presentation
• Lindstad, E. Borgen, H., Eskeland, G., S. Paalson, C., Psaraftis H. Turan, O. 2019 • Lindstad, E., Eskeland. G., S., 2016. Policies leaning towards globalization of
The Need to Amend IMO’s EEDI to Include a Threshold for Performance in Waves scrubbers deserve scrutiny Transportation Research Part D 47 (2016), 67-76
(Realistic Sea Conditions) to Achieve the Desired GHG Reductions. Sustainability
2019, 11, 3668: doi:10.3390/su11133668 • Lindstad et al., 2015 Assessment of cost as a function of abatement options in
maritime emission control areas. Transportation Research Part D 38(2015),
• Lindstad Elizabeth 2019. Increased use of LNG might not reduce maritime GHG page 41-48
emissions at all. https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications
• Lindstad, E., Verbeek, R., Blok, M., Zyl. S., Hübscher, A., Kramer, H.,
Purwanto, J., Ivanova,O. 2015. GHG emission reduction potential of EU-
• Lindstad, E., Bø, T., I., 2018. Potential power setups, fuels and hull designs
related maritime transport and on its impacts. CLIMA.B.3/ETU/2013/0015.
capable of satisfying future EEDI requirements. TRD 63 (2018) 276-290 TNO report / TNO 2014 R11601 / 3. July 2015. Delft, The Netherlands
• Lindstad, E. Bø, T. Eskeland G., S., 2018 Reducing GHG emissions in shipping – • Lindstad, E. 2013. Strategies and measures for reducing maritime
measures and options . In Kujala, P. and Lu,. L. page 923-930 MARINE DESIGN CO2 emissions, Doctoral thesis PhD. Norwegian University of Science
XIII, ISBN: 978-1-138-54187-0. Taylor & Francis. and Technology – Department of Marine Technology. ISBN 978-82-
461- 4516-6
• Lindstad E, Rehn C., F., Eskeland, G., S. 2017 Sulphur Abatement Globally in
Maritime Shipping Transportation Research Part D 57 (2017) 303-313 • Anger, A. Barker, T. Pollitt, E. Lindstad, H. Lee D. and Eyring, V.
(2010). International Shipping and Market Based Instruments. IMO
• Bouman, E., A., Lindstad, E., Rialland, A. I, Strømman, A., H., 2017 State-of-the-
Art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from • Buhaug, Ø.; Corbett, J.J.; Endresen, Ø.; Eyring, V.; Faber, J.; Hanayama, S.;
shipping - A Review. Transportation Research Part D 52 (2017) 408 – 421 Lee, D.S.; Lee, D.; Lindstad, E.; Markowska, A.Z.; Mjelde, A.; Nelissen, D.;
Nilsen, J.; Pålsson, C.; Winebrake, J.J.; Wu, W. Q.; Yoshida, K.(2009)
• Lindstad, Elizabeth. 2017. Cost Factors – Analysis of alternative Sulhpur Second IMO GHG study 2009. IMO - London
abatement options in maritime shipping from 2020. Bunkerspot page 62 – 64.
Volume 14 Number 3 June/July 2017THANK YOU ! Dr. Elizabeth Lindstad Lindstad@sintef.no
You can also read
