Alternative Fuels for Marine Application

8/13/2019 Alternative Fuels for Marine Application

1/108

Alternative Fuels forMarine Applications

Annex 41

Ralph McGill

Fuels, Engines, and Emissions Consulting

William (Bill) Remley

Alion Science and Technology

Kim Winther

Danish Technological Institute

A Report from the IEA Advanced Motor Fuels Implementing Agreement

May 2013


2/108


3/108

Alternative Fuels forMarine Applications

Annex 41

Ralph McGill

Fuels, Engines, and Emissions Consulting

William (Bill) Remley

Alion Science and Technology

Kim Winther

Danish Technological Institute

A Report from the IEA Advanced Motor Fuels Implementing Agreement

May 2013


4/108


5/108

i

Acknowledgment

TheIEAAMFOrganizationisgratefultothefollowingcountriesandtheir

representativesfortheirsupportinprovidingfundingfortheresearchtodevelopthisreport.Theworkhasbeenmostinterestingandinformative.

DenmarkJesperSchramm,TechnicalUniversityofDenmark(DTU)FinlandNilsOlofNylund,TheTechnicalResearchCentreofFinland(VTT)GermanyBirgerKerckow,FachagenturNachwachsendeRohstoffe(FNR)


6/108

ii

Thispageintentionallyblank.


7/108

iii

TableofContents

Acknowledgment................................................................................................. i

Acronymsand

Abbreviations

................................................................................

vii

ExecutiveSummaryAnnex41............................................................................ xi

1. Introduction.................................................................................................. 1

2. Background................................................................................................... 3

3. CurrentSituation........................................................................................... 9

3.1 LegislationforMarineSOxReduction......................................................... 93.2 LegislationforMarineNOxReduction........................................................ 93.3 CompliancewithMarineSOxandNOxLegislation..................................... 11

4. FuelPricesandAvailability............................................................................ 13

4.1 CurrentMarineFuels.................................................................................. 134.2 GlobalFuelConsumptionbyVesselType................................................... 154.3 FuelCost...................................................................................................... 16

5. AlternativeMarineFuelIncentives................................................................. 19

6. AlternativeMarineFuelsandEngines............................................................ 21

6.1 LiquidorCrudeBasedFossilFuels.............................................................. 226.2 LiquidBiofuels............................................................................................. 24

6.2.1 Methanol......................................................................................... 256.2.2 Biocrude.......................................................................................... 26

6.3 GaseousFuels.............................................................................................. 276.4 ExhaustGasTreatmentSystems................................................................. 297. AssessingAlternativeFuelsforMarineUse.................................................... 33

7.1 LiquidFossilFuelsAdvantages.................................................................... 337.1.1 FuelSystemandEngineCompatibility............................................ 337.1.2 LowerSOxEmissions....................................................................... 347.1.3 Safety............................................................................................... 347.1.4 Availability....................................................................................... 34

7.2 LiquidFossilFuelsDrawbacks..................................................................... 34

7.2.1 Price................................................................................................. 347.2.2 Characteristics................................................................................. 357.2.3 FutureAvailability........................................................................... 35

7.3 LiquidBiofuelsCharacteristics.................................................................... 367.3.1 BiodieselAdvantages...................................................................... 367.3.2 BiodieselDrawbacks........................................................................ 367.3.3 AlgaeFuelsAdvantages................................................................... 377.3.4 AlgaeFuelDrawbacks...................................................................... 397.3.5 HydrogenationDerivedRenewableDieselAdvantages.................. 39

7.3.6 HDRDDrawbacks............................................................................. 407.4 GaseousFuels:NaturalGas......................................................................... 407.4.1 NaturalGasAdvantages.................................................................. 407.4.2 NaturalGasDrawbacks................................................................... 42

7.5 FutureMarineFuelUse............................................................................... 55


8/108

iv

8. VesselsUsingAlternativeFuels...................................................................... 57

8.1 VesselsUsingULSDandLSRF...................................................................... 578.2 VesselsUsingNaturalGas........................................................................... 57

8.2.1 LargeShips....................................................................................... 63

8.3 VesselsUsingLiquidBiofuels....................................................................... 649. TheWayForwardforFutureMarineFuels..................................................... 679.1 BreakEvenPoints....................................................................................... 68

10. Conclusions................................................................................................... 71

11. Recommendations......................................................................................... 75

References........................................................................................................... 77

AppendixAMarineAfterExhaustTreatmentSystems....................................... 83

A.1 SelectiveCatalyticReductionandExhaustGasRecirculationSystems....... 83A.2 ScrubberSystems........................................................................................ 85


9/108

v

ListofFigures

1. CurrentandPossibleFutureECAs........................................................................ 4

2. NorthEuropeanSECAEffectiveasofAugust11,2007......................................... 53. ShipOperatorsChallenges................................................................................... 64. IMODieselEngineNOxEmissionLimits............................................................... 105. GlobalMarineFuelConsumptionEstimates,IMO2009....................................... 136. TypicalHeavyMarineFuelTypeDistribution....................................................... 147. TheTotalWorldMarineFleetAccordingtoIMO................................................. 158. WorldBunkerFuelDemand................................................................................. 159. BunkerworldIndexPricesofHFSO380andMDO................................................ 1610. CostofLighterLowSulphurFuelsComparedtoHighSulphurBunkerFuel........ 17

11. SulfurContentofConventionalMarineFuels...................................................... 2212. WrtsilDirectInjectionDualFuelConceptforMethanolinLargeFourStrokeEngines.............................................................................................. 26

13. WrtsilPortInjectionDualFuelConceptforGasUseinLargeFourStrokeEngines.............................................................................................. 29

14. CostsofScrubberSystems[CoupleSystems,AlfaLaval]...................................... 3115. ProjectedPricesofMarineFuels.......................................................................... 4116. WeightsandVolumesofMarineFuels................................................................. 4417. LNGBunkeringShipSeagasalongsidetheVikingGrace................................... 46

18. ExistingandPlannedProductionPlantsandLNGTerminalsintheSECA............. 5319. LNGBunkeringBarge............................................................................................ 5520. BitVikingwithLNGFuelTanksontheMainDeck............................................. 6121. LNGTanksonTopDeckofWSFIssaquahClassFerry........................................... 6222. ConceptIllustrationofTOTEContainerShip........................................................ 6423. FuelSelectionProcessisResponsibilityoftheChartererand

IsInfluencedbyManyFactors.............................................................................. 6824. BreakEvenAnalysisforScrubberInstallationon38,500dwtTankers................ 69A1.SCRSolutionbyMAN............................................................................................ 83

A2.AdvancedEGRSystembyMAN............................................................................ 84A3.ScrubberSystembyAlfaLaval.............................................................................. 85A4.FicariaSeawaysEquippedwithPresumablyWorldsLargest

RetrofitScrubberin2009..................................................................................... 86A5.ClosedLoopScrubberbyWrtsil........................................................................ 86A6.DryScrubberSystembyCoupleSystems,Germany............................................. 87


10/108

vi

ListofTables

1. MARPOLAnnexVIMarineSOxEmissionReductionAreaswith

FuelSulfurLimits.................................................................................................. 92. MARPOLAnnexVINOxEmissionLimits............................................................... 103. GlobalMarineFuelUseEstimatedfromIMOandSingaporePort

BunkeringStatistics2009...................................................................................... 144. FeedstocksandDerivedFuels............................................................................... 215. MarineFuelPricesinJuly2012inUSD/MetricTonbyPort................................. 356. Comparisonof50/50BlendofAlgaeandF76PetroleumFuelwith

PetroleumF76..................................................................................................... 387. CostsAssociatedwithConvertingMarineVesselstoLNGOperation.................. 43

8. FuelUsageandStorageVolumesforThreeTypesofVessels.............................. 449. BarrierstoIntroductionofLNGandPossibleActions.......................................... 5210. 2020MarineFuelMix........................................................................................... 5611. LNGUsageLevelsfortheBase,High,andLowCasesPredictedby

LoydsRegister...................................................................................................... 5612. CurrentOrderBookforNewLNGFueledVessels................................................ 5913. SummaryofEvaluationofPropellantSystems..................................................... 72


11/108

vii

AcronymsandAbbreviations

ABS AmericanBureauofShipping

ASTM AmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials

BN basenumberBTL biomasstoliquidBV BureauVeritas

CCS ChineseClassificationSocietyCCW CaliforniaCoastalWatersCO2 carbondioxide

CNG compressednaturalgasCNOOC ChinaNationalOffshoreOilCorporationDFDS DetForenedeDampskibsSelskabDME dimethyletherDNV DetNorskeVeritasDSME DaewooShipbuilding&MarineEngineering

ECA EmissionsControlAreaEEDI EnergyEfficiencyDesignIndex

EGCS exhaustgascleaningsystemEGR exhaustgasrecirculationEU EuropeanUnion

FAME fattyacidmethylester

GATE GasAccesstoEuropeGHG greenhousegasGL GermanischerLloyd

GTL gastoliquidGTM GreenTechMarine

HDRD hydrogenationderivedrenewabledieselHFO heavyfueloilHRD hydrotreatedrenewablediesel

ICS InternationalChamberofShippingIF intermediatefuel

IFO intermediatefueloilIMO InternationalMaritimeOrganizationISO InternationalStandardsOrganization

JIV jointindustryproject


12/108

viii

JV jointventure

LBG liquefiedbiogasLNG liquefiednaturalgas

LOA lengthoverallLPG liquidpropanegasLR LloydsRegisterLS lowsulfurLSFO lowsulfurfueloilLSRF lowsulfurresidualfuel

MARPOL marinepollution;thus,theInternationalConventionforthePreventionofPollutionfromShips

MBM marketbasedmeasureMDO marinedieseloilMEGI mainenginegasinjectionMGO marinegasoilMnT milliontonnesMSAR2 MulPhaseSuperfineAtomizedResidue

NaOH sodiumhydroxideNOx nitrogenoxides

PM particulatematter

OSV offshoresupplyvessel

REM RemOffshoreRFO residualfueloilRFS RenewableFuelsStandardRMG residualmarinegas

RO/RO rollon,rolloff

S sulfurSABIC SaudiBasicIndustriesCorporationSCR selectivecatalyticreductionSECA SOxEmissionControlAreasSI sparkignitionSOx sulfuroxideSTQ SocietedestraversiersduQuebec

TENT TransEuropeanTransportNetworkTOTE TotemOceanTrailerExpress

ULSD ultralowsulfurdiesel


13/108

ix

USD U.S.dollar(s)

WSF WashingtonStateFerries

UnitsofMeasure

cSt centistokes

dwt deadweightton(s)

g gram(s)

HP horsepower

kg kilogram(s)km kilometer(s)kW kilowatt(s)kWh kilowatthour(s)

m meter(s)MJ megajoule

MT Megaton;MetricTonMW megawatt(s)

nm nauticalmiles

ppm partspermillionpsi poundspersquareinch

rpm rotationsperminute

TEU twentyfootequivalentunit


14/108

x



15/108

xi

ExecutiveSummaryAnnex41

Themarine shipping industry is facing challenges to reduceengineexhaustemissions

and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in particular, carbon dioxide (CO2) from their ships.International regulatorybodiessuchas the InternationalMaritimeOrganization (IMO)and national environmental agencies of many countries have issued rules andregulationsthatdrasticallyreduceGHGandemissionsemanatingfrommarinesources.Thesenewrulesare impactingships thatengage in internationalandcoastalshippingtrade, the cruise industry, and ship owners and operators. Of particular note areregulations inEmissionsControlAreas (ECAs) suchas theNorthAmericanECA,whichcameintobeingin2012,andtheSOxEmissionControlAreas(SECAs),whichhavebeenin effect in the Baltic Sea and North Sea and English Channel since 2006 and 2007,

respectively. Ships operating in the ECAs and SECAs are required to use lower sulfurfuelsoraddsulfuroxide (SOx)exhaustscrubbers. It isalsoexpected that futureECAswillbecoming intoeffect incountries that seeheavy ship traffic.Effectingneartermlocal(SECA/ECAdriven)nitrogenoxide(NOx)andSOxreductions isthemostpressingissue as a result of these regulations. Over the longer term, addressing GHG andparticulatematter(PM)emissionswillprovidefurtherenvironmentalchallenges.

Manyshipoperators,withpresentdaypropulsionplantsandmarinefuels,cannotmeetthesenew regulationswithout installingexpensiveexhaustaftertreatmentequipment

orswitchingtolowsulfurdiesel,lowsulfurresidual,oralternativefuelswithpropertiesthat reduceengineemissionsbelowmandated limits,allofwhich impactbottomlineprofits.Theimpactofthesenewnationalandinternationalregulationsontheshippingindustries worldwide has brought alternative fuels to the forefront as a means forrealizing compliance. The alternative fuels industry has grown dramatically for bothliquid and gaseous fuels. Each of these alternative fuels has advantages anddisadvantagesfromthestandpointoftheshippingindustry.

Thisreportexaminestheuseofalternativefuelsforusebythemarineshippingindustry

to satisfy or partially satisfy the new emissions and fuel sulfur limits. It also looks atexhaustaftertreatmentdevicesthatcanbeusedtolowertheengineexhaustemissions.

Alargepartofthemarinefuelconsumption(approximately77%)isoflowquality,lowpriceresidual fuelreferredtoasheavyfueloil(HFO),whichtendstobehigh insulfurand isalmostentirelyconsumedby largecargocarryingships.Theaverage fuelsulfurcontentofHFOusedtodayformarinedieselenginesis2.7%withamaximumallowablelimitof4.5%,whichpresentschallengesastherequiredfuelsulfurlevelsforuseintheECAsandglobally are lower.Almost90%of theworlds marine fuel isusedby cargo

ships.Thisreportdealsonlywithfuelssuitableforheavydutydieselenginesprovidingpropulsionandauxiliaryenergyon commercial shipswhich is thebulkofmarine fuelconsumption.


16/108

xii

Currently,themostpracticalsolutionistouselowsulfurfuelswheninanECAandothersituationsrequiringuseoflowsulfurfuels.Thereareliquidbiofuelsandfossilfuelsthatare low insulfurandcansatisfythefuelsulfurrequirementsoftheECAsandMARPOL(InternationalConventionforthePreventionofPollutionfromShips)AnnexVI.Inlieuof

usinglowsulfurliquidfuels,anotheroptionistheuseofscrubbersfittedintheengineexhausttoremovetheSOx.

This report examines a variety of liquid fossil and biofuels. Liquid biofuels that areavailable for marine use are biodiesel; fatty acid methyl ester (FAME); algae fuels;methanol; hydrogenationderived renewable diesel (HDRD), which is also known assecondgeneration biodiesel; and pyrolysis oil. The advantages and disadvantages ofthesefuelsformarineusearediscussed.

TheaftertreatmentapproachformeetingtheNOxandSOxlimitsistoinstallemissioncompliantenginesor selective catalytic reduction (SCR)equipment forNOx reductionandexhaustaftertreatmentdevicesknowasscrubbersforSOxreduction.Whenlookingat these technologies, the cost tradeoffs for their installation, operation, andmaintenanceversus thecostsof thealternative fuelsmustbeconsidered.The reportdiscussestheeconomicsandbreakevenpointforusingscrubbersversusconventionalfossilfuelsbasedonoperationswithinanECA.

Gaseousfuelsareanotheroptionbutrequireadifferenttypeof fuelhandlingsystem,

fuel tanks and gas burning engines that are not currently in use on most ships. Thegaseous fuels that are available for marine use are natural gas and propane (liquidpropanegas [LPG]).Notonlyare these fuelsvery low insulfurcontent, theycombustsuch that NOx, PM, and CO2 are also reduced. Natural gas can be carried as acompressedfuelcalledcompressednaturalgas(CNG)orinaliquidstatecalledliquefiednaturalgas(LNG).

Currently,thepriceofnaturalgasisveryattractiveandassuchisagoodcandidateforservingasashipsfuel.Thereareanumberofshipsthathavebeenbuilttousenatural

gasasfuel,mostlyinthecoastwisetradeoronfixedroutessuchasferries.

Atpresent,vesselsusingnaturalgasasa fuelare in the small tomediumsize rangewithlargershipsbeingbuiltorconvertedforoperationonLNGfuel.TheonlylargeshipscurrentlyusingLNGasafueloninternationalvoyagesareLNGcargocarriers.

ForLNGtobecomeanattractivefuelforthemajorityofships,aglobalnetworkofLNGbunkeringterminalsmustbeestablishedorLNGfueledshipswillbe limitedtocoastaltradeswherethereisanLNGbunkeringnetwork.Thesituationissometimesdescribed

asachickenandeggdilemma.Untilthebunkeringinfrastructureisinplace,theshipownersmaynotcommittooperatingnaturalgasfueledshipsandvisaversa.Currently,LNGbunkeringismoreexpensiveandcomplicatedthanfossilfuelbunkeringandisonlyavailableinalimitednumberofplaces.TheportofStockholm,Sweden,hasestablished


17/108

xiii

anLNGbunkeringportwithdocksidefuelingandaspecialpurposeshipthatperformsshiptoshipLNGfueling.

As the shipping industry considers alternatives to HFO, part of the market will shift

towardmarinegasoil (MGO)andpart towardLNGorotheralternative fuels.Marinevesselsequippedwith scrubberswill retain theadvantageofusing lowerpricedHFO.Shipping that takes place outside ECA areas might choose HFO or lowsulfur fuel oil(LSFO)dependingonfutureglobalregulations.Shipsoperatingpartly inECAareaswillprobablychooseMGOasacompliancefuel.HeavyshippingwithinECAareas,however,mightbeincentiveenoughforacompleteshifttoLNG.

Compliance with the new emission requirements will raise operating costs for shipowners and operators in terms of new construction ships that will have more

complicatedfuelsystemsandperhapsaftertreatmentdevicesandmoreexpensivelowsulfurfuelswhenintheECAsandotherlowsulfurcomplianceportsandcoastalwaters.ExistingshipsthatdonothavedualtanksmayhavetoberetrofittedwithdualfossilfuelsystemssotheycanperformfuelswitchingwhentheyenteranECA.


18/108

xiv



19/108

1

1. Introduction

Recent sulfur and emissionsrelated limits imposed on fuels used in the shipping

industryarecausingtheindustrytolookatalternativefuelsasawayofcomplyingwiththenewlimits.Thisstudyfocusesonthedetailsofthesenewemissionsrequirements,theirimplementationtimeframes,thetypesofalternativefuelsavailableforcomplyingwiththeserequirements,thecostsofcompliancedependingonthepathwaytaken,andalternativemethods(suchasexhaustgasscrubbers)forloweringtheexhaustemissions.

The report discusses in detail the advantages and disadvantages of liquid fossil andgaseous fuelsandbiofuelsthatareavailable formarineuseandcanhelpshipownersandoperatorscomplywiththefuelsulfurandexhaustemissionlimits.

Also discussed are marine vessels currently using alternative fuels and vessels beingconvertedtouseorbeingbuiltwithonboardpowerpropulsionplantsusingalternativefuels.

Last,thisreportassessesthefutureofalternativemarinefuelsanddrawsconclusions.


20/108

2



21/108

3

2. Background

Theworlds total liquid fuelsupplycurrentlystandsatapproximately4,000Megatons

(MT)peryear.Marineliquidfuelsconstituteasignificantproportionat300400MTperyear.Almost90%oftheworldsmarinefuel isusedbycargoships.Passengervessels,fishing boats, tug boats, navy ships, and other miscellaneous vessels consume theremaining10%.

Thevastmajorityofshipstodayusedieselenginessimilar inprincipletothose incars,trucks,andlocomotives.However,marinefuelsdifferinmanyaspectsfromautomotiveenginefuels.

Thequalityofmarinefuelsisgenerallymuchlowerandthequalitybandismuchwiderthan are those of landbased fuels. Marine engines must accept many different fuelgradesoftenwithlevelsofhighsulfurcontentthatwouldseriouslyharmthefunctionofexhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and catalyst systems on automotive engines. Theviscosityofmarinefuels isgenerallymuchhigherupto700cSt,whereasroaddieselfuelrarelyexceeds5cSt.Mostmarine fuels thus requirepreheating toenter the fuelsystem.

This finding also means that traditional emissions abatement technologies for road

based transportsuchasdieselparticulate filters,exhaustgasrecirculationsystems,andoxidationcatalystscannoteasilybeusedonships.Therisksofsulfurcorrosionandveryhigh sootemissions call fordifferent solutions suchas scrubbersoralkalinesorptionsystemsasseparatesolutionsorincombinationwithtechnologiesknownfromroadbasedemissionsabatementtechnologies.

Recent domestic and international efforts to reduce the impact of greenhouse gases(GHGs)onclimatechangeandengineemissionsthataffectthehealthofmanyhasledinternational regulatorybodiessuchas the InternationalMaritimeOrganization (IMO)

andnationalenvironmentalagenciestoissuenewrulesandregulationsthatdrasticallyreduceGHGsandemissionsemanatingfrommarinesources.Thesenewruleshavefarreaching implicationsforthe internationalshippingtrade,thecruise industry,andshipowners and operators in particular. Of particular note are regulations in EmissionsControlAreas(ECAs)suchastheNorthAmericanECA,whichwent intoeffect in2012,andtheSOxEmissionControlAreas(SECAs),whichhavebeenineffectontheBalticSeaand North Sea and English Channel since 2006 and 2007, respectively. On August1,2012,enforcementof theNorthAmericanECAcommenced.TheNorthAmericanECAcovers the coastal watersof the UnitedStatesandCanada out to200 nauticalmiles.

Ships operating in the ECAs and SECAs are required to use lowersulfur fuels or addsulfuroxide(SOx)exhaustscrubbers.RegulationsforaCaribbeanECAwillgointoeffectforPuertoRicoand theU.S.Virgin Islands.Allowing for the lead timeassociatedwiththe IMOprocess, theU.S.CaribbeanECAwillbeenforceable in January2014 (Ref.1).ThereisthepotentialthatECAswillbeestablishedfortheNorwegianandBarentsSea,


22/108

4

MediterraneanSea,Japan,Australia,MexicoandPanama,theArctic,andAntarctica inthe future (Ref.2).The rules for theseareaswillmandate reductions inemissions ofsulfur (S), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). Current and possibleFutureECAsareshowninFigure1.

Figure1. CurrentandPossibleFutureECAs(Source:Ref.2)

Approximately10%oftheworldsshippingoccurswithintheBalticSearegion(Ref.3),whichisshowninFigure2.


23/108

5

Figure2. NorthEuropeanSECA

EffectiveasofAugust11,2007(Source:Ref.4)

Someoftheregulatoryandcompetitivechallenges facingshipoperatorsareshown in

Figure3.

Elements in Figure 3 are sometimes competing against each other, especially

considering the reduction of NOx, sulfur, and carbon dioxide (CO2). As an example,

achievingareductionofsulfurbyusingawetscrubbermeans increasingpowerusage

significantlytopumpwater,which,intheend,willleadtoanincreaseinCO2emissions,

aswellasotherpollutantsassociatedwithpowerproduction.Similarly,althoughNOx

could be reduced by lowering the combustion temperature, that adjustment reduces

the efficiency of the main engine and hence increases CO2 and sulfur emissions. A

selectivecatalyticreduction(SCR)installationtoreduceNOxuseschemicals,whichalso

deliverapenalty

in

terms

of

CO2emissionsandtheenvironmentandshouldbetaken

intoconsideration.

Possibilitiestoreduceemissionsareinfluencedbythefreightratesthatshipownerscan

obtain and the fuel prices and taxes of the market. The dilemma therefore lies in

devisinganincentivetoincreaseefficiencyandtherebylowershipsfuelconsumption.

Shorttermlocal(SECA/ECA)NOxandSOxreductionsarethemostpressingissues.Over

the longerterm,addressingGHGandPMemissionswillprovidefurtherenvironmental

challenges.

Theshippingindustryalsofacesdiminishingshippingratesandasignificantrise infuel

prices, includingtaxes in the formofmarketbasedmeasures (MBMs)topromote the

reduction of GHG emissions. Another relevant factor is that acquisitions or takeovers


24/108

6

are common in the marine sector. Ship operators face the risk of takeover by

competitorsiftheyarenotsufficientlystrong.Thereisariskthatoperatorsfocusingtoo

muchonenvironmentalissueswillbetakenoverbystrongercompetitors(Ref.5).

In

particular,

freight

rates

in

2011

and

at

the

beginning

of

2012

were

often

atunprofitable levels for ship owners. Substantial freightrate reductions were reported

within the dry bulk, liquid bulk, and containerized cargo segments. Vessel oversupply

continued to be a driving factor behind reductions in freight rates. Ship operators

attempted torealizesavingsthroughgreatereconomiesofscaleby investing in large

capacityshipsinthetankeranddrybulkmarketsegments(Ref.6).

Incentives in the formofMBMs to reduceGHGemissions from internationalshipping

could result in a fuel levy (tax). The international shipping industry has indicated a

preferencefor

the

fuel

levy

rather

than

an

emissions

trading

scheme

(Ref.

6).

Figure3. ShipOperatorsChallenges

Ship

OperatorsChallenges

NOxReduction

CO2Reduction

FreightRates

FutureFuel Taxes

SulphurReduction

Policing

New Vessels


25/108

7

Manyshipoperatorswithpresentdaypropulsionplantsandmarinefuelscannotmeetthesenew regulationswithout installingexpensiveexhaustaftertreatmentequipmentorswitchingtolowsulfurdiesel,lowsulfurresidual,oralternativefuelswithpropertiesthat reduceengineemissionsbelowmandated limits,allofwhich impactbottomline

profits.Theimpactofthesenewnationalandinternationalregulationsontheshippingindustries worldwide has brought alternative fuels to the forefront as a means forachieving compliance. The alternative fuels industry has grown dramatically for bothliquid and gaseous fuels. Each of these alternative fuels has advantages anddisadvantagesfromthestandpointoftheshipping industry. It isvitally importantthatthe nations recognize the impact that the new marine regulations will have on theirmarineindustriesandimplementpoliciesthatwillminimizetheseimpactsandpavethewayforsmoothtransitionstouseofalternativemarinefuelsandoperatingproceduresthat will meet GHG and emissions limits withoutjeopardizing international maritime

trade.


26/108

8



27/108

9

3. CurrentSituation

Worldwide,marinefuelaccountsfor20%oftotalfueloildemand(Ref.7),notingthat

fueloilisexcludinggasoline.Currently,annualglobaldemandformarinefuelisgreaterthan300MTandconsistsofbothdistillateandresidualfuels.Alargepartofthemarinefuel consumption (approximately 77%) is of lowquality, lowprice residual fuel alsoknownas (a.k.a.)heavy fueloil (HFO),which tends tobehigh in sulfurand isalmostentirelyconsumedbylarge,cargocarryingships.TheaveragefuelsulfurcontentoftheHFO formulations used today for marine diesel engines is 2.7% with a maximumallowable limitof4.5% (Ref.8). (SeeFigure11 foraverage fuelsulfur limits.)The fuelmust alsobe heated to lower the viscosity so it flows easilyand then isput throughpurifiersandfilterstoremovecontaminantsbeforeitispumpedtothedieselengines.

3.1 LegislationforMarineSOxReduction

New and existing regulations derived from the International Convention for thePreventionofPollutionfromShips(MARPOL)affectingtheSOxemissionsfromshipsaresummarizedinTable1.

Table1.

MARPOL

Annex

VI

Marine

SOx

Emission

Reduction

Areas

with

Fuel

Sulfur

Limits

Year FuelSulfur(ppm) FuelSulfur(%)

EuropeanSECAs

NorthSea,EnglishChannel

CurrentLimits 10,000 1

2015 1,000 0.1BalticSea CurrentLimits 10,000 1

2015 1,000 0.1NorthAmericanECAsUnitedStates,Canada 2012 10,000 1

2015 1,000 0.1Global 2012 35,000 3.5

2020a 5,000 0.5a Alternativedateis2025,tobedecidedbyareviewin2018.

3.2

Legislationfor

Marine

NOx

Reduction

InadditiontohavingtomeetthefuelsulfurlimitsinTable1,shipsoperatingintheECAsmustmeettheMARPOLAnnexVIMarineTierIIINOxlimitsin2016.


28/108

10

Table 2 (Ref. 9) shows the applicable NOx limits for ships and the dates that they

becameorwillbecomeeffective.

Table2. MARPOLAnnexVINOxEmissionLimits(Source:Ref.9)

Tier Date

NOxLimit,g/kWh

n


29/108

11

3.3 CompliancewithMarineSOxandNOxLegislation

Given theproliferationof theECAsand thepossibility thatmoreECAs,suchas in theMediterraneanSeaandthecoastofMexico,maycomeintobeinginthefuture,thereis

astrongincentiveforshipownersandoperatorstoexploretheuseofalternativefuelstosatisfythelowerfuelsulfurandNOxlimits.

AnotherapproachformeetingtheNOxandSOx limits istoinstallemissionscompliantenginesorSCRequipmentforNOxreductionandexhaustaftertreatmentdevicesknownasscrubbers forSOxreduction.When lookingatthese technologies,thecosttradeofffortheirinstallation,operation,andmaintenanceversusthecostofthealternativefuelmustbeconsidered.

This report deals only with fuels that are suitable for heavyduty diesel enginesproviding propulsion and auxiliary energy on commercial ships, which is the bulk ofmarinefuelconsumption.

Turbine engines are rarely used on commercial ships. Part of the reason is that gasturbinesaregenerallycostlyandlessefficientthandieselenginesandthereforearelesssuitedforcommercialuse.Thesamegoesforsparkignition(SI)engines.Steamturbinesare extremely fuel flexible but are also slow starting. Furthermore, they require arathersteadyloadinthehighband,whichiswhytheyarenotcommon.

Otherfuelsnotincludedforpractical,economical,orsafetyrelatedlimitationsofshipsarethefollowing:

Nuclearfuelso Thoriumo Uraniumo Plutoniumo H3

Windorsolarpowero Sailso Kiteso Windturbineso Photovoltaiccells

Solidboilerfuelso Coalo Cokeo Peato Lignite

GasturbineorSIenginespecificfuelso Keroseneo Ethanolo Gasoline


30/108

12

Gasificationfuelso Woodandothercellulosicbiomasso Sludgeandotherorganicwastes

Electrochemicalfuelso Hydrogeno Batteries

Adistinctionshouldbemadebetweendropinfuelsasdefined inSection5,whichcanbe distributed through existing channels, and non dropinfuels, which require acompletely new infrastructure. Marine fuels in particular should be availableeverywhere in the world. For this reason, particularly rare and exotic fuels are notincludedinthisdiscussionoffuturemarinefuels.


31/108

13

4. FuelPricesandAvailability

Thissectionexaminesthecostandavailabilityofmarinefuels.

4.1 CurrentMarineFuels(WorldMarket)

Thereissomeuncertaintyastoglobalmarinefuelconsumption.Thevariationbetweenstudies suggests a possible range between 279400MT/year. On thebasis of severalstudies,IMOestimatesthetotal2007fuelconsumptionat333MT/year(Figure5).

Figure5.

Global

Marine

Fuel

Consumption

Estimates,

IMO

2009

(Source:Ref.11)

MarinefuelstandardsaresetinISO(InternationalStandardsOrganization)8217.Thereare10gradesofresidualfuelofwhich380and180arethemostcommon.

TheIMOestimatesthat77%ofallmarinefuel(257MT/year) isresidualfueloil(RFO).HighsulfurRFOuseisconcentratedonthelargestlonghaulvessels(Ref.10).

Figure 6 shows a typical fuel mix sold in Singapore one of the worlds busiestseaports.


32/108

14

Figure6. TypicalHeavyMarineFuelTypeDistribution

(Source:SingaporePortBunkeringStatistics2009,

http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/port_and_shipping/port/bunkering/

bunkering_statistics/bunker_sales_volume_in_port.page)

BecausetheSingaporePortsellspracticallynoMGOormarinedieseloil(MDO), itwill

beassumedthatthedistributionisvalidforheavyfuelsonly(i.e.,77.2%ofthemarket).

Distillate fuelswill thusaddup to22.8%.The resulting fuelstatistics, including lighter

fueltypesnotsoldinSingapore,areshowninTable3.

Table3. GlobalMarineFuelUseEstimatedfromIMOandSingaporePortBunkering

Statistics2009

FuelType OtherNames

MarketPercent

(%)

Megatons

perYear

Heavyfuel500CSt HSFO500CSt,RFO,RMG 500a,

IFO500,MFO500 10 33

Heavyfuel380CSt HSFO380CSt,RFO,RMG 380,

IFO380,MFO380 60 200

Heavyfuel180CSt HSFO180CSt,RFO,RMG 180,

IFO180,MFO180 6 20

Distillatefuels

Diesel,

Marine

diesel,

MGO,

MDO,LFO 23 77

Others 1 3

Total 100 333a RMG=residualmarinegas;IFO=intermediatefueloil.


33/108

15

4.2 GlobalFuelConsumptionbyVesselType

TheIMOestimatesthetotalworldfleetasof2007tobe100,243vesselsabove100GT

(Ref.11). The fleet consists of approximately 40% cargo ships, 20% tankers, and 25%

containerships,

according

to

Det

Norske

Veritas

(DNV)

(Ref.

12);

see

Figures

7and

8.

Figure7. TheTotalWorldMarineFleetAccordingtoIMO(Source:Ref.11).

Only25%of thevessels runonRFO;however, theyaccount for77%ofglobalmarine

fuelconsumption.

Figure8. WorldBunkerFuelDemand(Source:Ref.10)

Service,passenger,

fishing

Cargoships


34/108

16

4.3 FuelCost

Highviscosity, highsulfur fuel oil (HSFO) is the least costly fuel, whereas prices forlighter fuels with less sulfur generally have higher costs. The baseline for HSF380 is

about $700 USD/ton. Marine diesel MDO (or MGO) fuels are about $1,000 USD/ton.Figure9showsindexpricesfromBunkerworld.

Figure9. BunkerworldIndexPricesofHFSO380(top)andMDO(bottom)

(Source:Ref37)


35/108

17

Theoncostsofdifferentlightfuelsaresomewherebetween$100and$400USD/ton,asshowninFigure10.Thedifferencevarieswithtime.

Figure10. CostofLighterLowSulphurFuelsCompared

toHighSulphurBunkerFuel(Purvin&Gertz)(Source:Ref.10)

World LNG prices are in the range of 0.05 EUR/kWh, which corresponds to about$1,000USD/ton, which is comparable to light fuel (MGO or MDO). However, LNGtypically holds 2025% more energy per ton compared to MDO, so the price isattractive.


36/108

18



37/108

19

5. AlternativeMarineFuelIncentives

Currently,thereareanumberofincentivesforusingalternativefuels.Theseincludethe

following:

TheMARPOLAnnexVISOxandNOxlegislationdiscussedinSection2. Thepricefluctuationsoffossilfuels. ThepredictionofadieselfuelshortageinEurope(Ref.13). Possible scarcity of lowersulfur distillate fuel in 2015 when the switch from

1.0%to0.1%sulfurrequirementtakeseffect(Ref.2).

CurrentECAswiththeirSOxandNOxlimits. TheproliferationofECAs,withthepossibilitythatfutureECAsmaycome into

force in the Mediterranean Sea and off the coasts of Mexico and Singapore(whichhas,infact,requestedanECA).

In the United States, the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), which requires acertainamountofrenewablefuelsaspartoftheavailablefuelinventory.

The introductionby IMO inMARPOLAnnexVIoftheEnergyEfficiencyDesignIndex (EEDI), which would make mandatory some measures to reduceemissions of GHGs, such as CO2 from international shipping. The EEDIstandardsphasein from2013to2025.TheEEDIcreatesacommonmetrictomeasureandimprovenewshipefficiency.ThismetriciscalculatedastherateofCO2emissionsfromaship.

Alternative fuels that can help satisfy the above requirements and having certainattributes can possibly be substituted for the fossil fuels currently in use. Thesealternativefuelsneedtohavethefollowingcharacteristics:

Ideally,thefuelsshouldnothaveamajorimpactontheengineandshipboardfuelsystemssuchthatthesesystemsmustbeextensivelymodifiedorreplaced.

No degradation of engine performance occurs with their use that wouldrequireenginereplacementorextensivemodification.

ThefuelslowertheengineSOxandNOxemissions. The fuels are competitively priced with the current Heavy Residual Fuel Oil

priceofapproximately$700(USD)/ton(Ref.14).


38/108

20

The alternative fuels are available in sufficient quantities worldwide orregionallyforbunkering.

Thefuelscanbemixedwithcurrentfossilfuels. Thefuelsaresafetouseanddonotpresentanymajorenvironmentalrisks.

Afuelsatisfyingtheserequirementsiscalledadropinfuel.

In addition to regulatory and monetary incentives for alternative fuels, the TransEuropean Transport Network Executive Agency has taken action through its2011EU92079S Project to identify and minimize the barriers when building andoperatinganLNGfueledvessel(Ref.15).

Theprojectwasselectedforfundingunderthe2011TENT(TransEuropeanTransportNetwork) Annual Call, and will examine the technical requirements, regulations, andenvironmentaloperationpermitsthatneedtobemetinordertoshiftfromtraditionallyfueledenginestoLNG.LNGisrapidlyemergingasacheaperandmoreenvironmentallyfriendly fuel for the maritime sector, and its uptake is encouraged by the EuropeanUnion.

Specificaspects related to themanufacturing,conversion,certification,andoperation

phasesofanLNGfueledvesselwillbeanalyzed.Theseresultswillbeexchangedwithother ongoing LNGrelated projects, as well as with the European Maritime SafetyAgency.Theprojectwillbe implemented inapartnershipwithstakeholdersconsistingof shipowners, cargo owners, LNG suppliers, ports, and marine equipmentmanufacturers. Among participating shipowners will be Viking Line, operator of the2,800passenger,dualfuelcruiseferrytheVikingGrace.

The project will receive 1.2 million in funding from the European Union under theTENTprogram.Thiscontributionconstitutes50%oftheoverallbudget.

The projectwill be managed by the TransEuropean Transport Network ExecutiveAgencyandissettobecompletedbytheendof2014(Ref.16).


39/108

21

6. AlternativeMarineFuelsandEngines

Currently,thereareliquidfossilfuels, liquidbiofuels,andgaseousfuelsthatare inuse

orcanbeusedbyshipsforcompliancewiththeexistingandforthcomingenvironmentalairpollutionrequirements.

The feedstocks for current and future marine fuels are shown in Table 4. Of these;biodiesel(FAME),methanol,algae,andHDRDareconsideredviablealternativemarinefuelsandarediscussedindetailinSection6.3.

Table4. FeedstocksandDerivedFuels

Feedstock

Naturalgas,biogas

CrudeoilVegetableoils,

animalfats,algaelipids

Biomass

Fuels

CNG,LNG IFO,

LSFO,

LPG,

MGO

Biodiesel(FAME),

HDRD(secondgenerationbiodiesel)

BTL,

a

GTL,

methanol,

DME,pyrolysisoil,LBG

a CNG=compressednaturalgas;BTL=biomasstoliquid;GTL=gastoliquid;DME=dimethyl

ether;andLBG=liquefiedbiogas.

Thereare liquidbiofuelsand fossil fuels thatare low insulfurandcansatisfy the fuelsulfurrequirementsoftheECAsandMARPOLAnnexVI.Inlieuofusinglowsulfurfuels,anotheroptionistousescrubbersfittedintheengineexhausttoremovetheSOx.

TheEffshipProjectinvestigatesmethanolanddimethylether(DME)asalternativefuelsinWorkPackage2(Ref.17).ThefueloptionsmentionedareLNG,methanol,DME,andgastoliquids(GTL)formulations.However,noconclusionhasyetbeenreached.

MANDiesel&Turboselectronicallycontrolled,gasinjected,lowspeedmainenginegasinjection (MEGI) engine types are available in dualfuel versions with the LPGfueledversion designated MELGI (Ref. 18). The liquid MEGI engines performance isequivalent intermsofoutput,efficiency,andrpmtoMANDiesel&TurbosMECand

MEBseriesofengines.AstheliquidMEGIenginesfuelsystemhasfewmovingparts,itisalsomoretolerantofdifferentfueltypesandaccordinglycanrunonDME.Itcanburngasorfueloilatanyratiodependingonthefuelaboardandtherelativefuelcost,anditoperateswithnomethaneslip.


40/108

22

DualfuelsystemsareavailablebothformethanolandLPG(propanedualfuel[Ref.19]).

6.1 LiquidorCrudeBasedFossilFuels(IFO,LSFO,MGO,

andMSAR2

Bunker

Oil)

Accordingtothe IMO(Ref.20),about77%oftotalmarinefuelsusedonaglobalbasisare residual fuels (e.g., IFOs). LSFOs and MGOs are used as secondary fuels forcompliancewithECAandSECArestrictions.

Along with global warming, potential sulfur content remains the main concern withconventionalmarinefuels.Thesulfurcontentisgenerallyhighcomparedtoroadfuels,as shown inFigure11. According to DNV, the totalSO2 emission from ships is about130kilotonsperyear.

Figure11. SulfurContentofConventionalMarineFuels(Source:Ref.4)

The emissions of both sulfur and other pollutants can also be reduced effectively byboosting the efficiency of the propulsion system. It is worth mentioning that marinetransportonlargecontainershipsonlyrequires2to3gramsoffuelperton*km(MaerskLineaverage).Roadtransportbytruckrequiresabout15g/ton*km(globalaverage).


41/108

23

Someconventionalmeansofefficiencyboostingmaybeveryeffective.Forinstance,theanticipatedMrskTripleEshipsoffer50%CO2reductionbymeansofa16%increaseincontainer capacity, a 19% reduction in engine power, and a design speed that is2knotslower(Ref.21).

Existing ships such as the Emma Maersk have turbocompounding and othertechnologiestoincreasetotalefficiency.

Fossil fuels that are available for marine use are ultralow sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel,which isthetermusedtodescribedieselfuelswithsubstantially lowersulfurcontent,andlowsulfurresidualfuel(LSRF).ForULSDtheamountofsulfurcanvaryfromcountryto country. For example in the United States and Canada it is 15 ppm and in othercountriesitcanbeaslowas10ppmandhighas50ppm.Notallcountriesrequirethat

marinedieselbeULSDbutintheUSandCanadaULSDisrequiredformarinedieselfuelaswellasovertheroadandoffroaddieselpoweredvehicles.Asof2006,almostallofthe petroleumbased diesel fuel available in Europe and North America is of a ULSDtype.

LSRF isanother fossil fuelthatcansatisfythecurrentrequirements for low fuelsulfurcontent.LSRFcanbeproducedby(1)therefineryprocessesthatremovesulfurfromtheoil (hydrodesulphurization), (2)theblendingofhighsulfurresidualoilswith lowsulfurdistillateoils,or(3)acombinationofthesemethods.

Itisconceivablethatthesefuelswillsufficeforthemarineindustryforlowsulfurfuelsuntil2016whentheNOxrequirementsareeffective.Atthistime,theuseofthesefuelswill require the installation of NOx aftertreatment devices such as SCR, EGR, or theinstallationofemissionscomplaintenginestosatisfytheNOxlimitswithintheECAs.

Itispossiblethatconventionalfossilbasedfuelswillremainthefuelofchoiceforalongtime. In different scenarios, the IMO projects a rather low penetration of alternativefuels,rangingfrom510%(tankshipstocoastwise,respectively)in2020toamaximum

2050% (tankships tocoastwise, respectively) in2050 (Ref.20).Thus, fossil fuelsarepredictedtobepredominantintheforeseeablefuture.

Maersk successfully tested a lowcost alternative to heavy fuel oil called MSAR2(MulPhaseSuperfineAtomizedResidue)bunkeroilusinga2strokemarinedieselengineofaMaerskLinecontainership,anenginefairlytypicalofatypetobefoundonmodernships.Thetestswerecarriedoutinlate2012.

Quadrise,theinnovatorsofthisMarineMSAR2bunkeroil,anticipatethatcommercial

volumeswillbeproducedprogressivelyfrommid2013,withafullcommercialrolloutthefollowingyear.

Quadrisewas formed inthe1990sbyagroupofformerBPspecialistswhodevelopednewtechnologytoproduceMSARfromavarietyofheavyhydrocarbonswithsuperior


42/108

24

combustion characteristics. In 2004, a longterm alliance agreement was establishedwithAkzoNobel,aworldleaderinsurfacechemistry.

MSARFuelTechnologyrendersheavyhydrocarbonseasiertousebyproducingalow

viscosityfueloilusingwaterinsteadofexpensiveoilbaseddiluents,andalsoproducesasuperiorfuelwithenhancedcombustionfeatures.

The process involves injecting smaller fuel droplets in a stable waterbased emulsionintothecylinder,resultinginacompletecombustionthatproduceslowerNOxandPMexhaustgasemissions.

Besidesthelowcostbenefitsitofferstoshipownersasaheavyoilbunkerfuel,thenewtechnologyhelpsoilrefinersasitfreesupvaluabledistillatestraditionallyusedforHFO

manufacture, providing a viable alternative process for handling the bottom of thecrudeoilbarrelwithoutsignificantexpenditureandresultinginincreasedprofitability.

TheMSARprocesstransformshydrocarbonsthataresolidatroomtemperatures(andhavetobeheatedtotemperaturesover100Cinordertoflow)intoaproductthatcan,dependingonclientrequirements,bestoredandtransportedatambienttemperaturesof1530C.Asaresult,theenergyrequirementsforhandlingandtransportingMSARare lower than thoseofHFO,which isgenerallyhandledat temperatures inexcessof50C.

MSAR fuel can be handled using the same equipment and vessels used forconventionalHFO.OperatingproceduresandcontingencyplansdevelopedforHFOaregenerallysuitable,andwherenecessaryadapted,forMSARpurposes(Ref.22).

6.2 LiquidBiofuels(FuelsfromVegetableOilsandAnimal

Fats,Straight,Hydrogenated,orEsterified)

Liquid biofuels available for marine use are biodiesel, FAME, algae fuels, methanol,hydrogenationderived renewable diesel (HDRD), which is also known as secondgenerationbiodiesel,andpyrolysisoil.

SoybeanoilhasbeenusedbytheMolsLinien(Ferryline)inDenmark.Fishandchickenoilshavealsobeentested.

Thepotentialforoilsandfatshasbeenexploitedbytheautomotivesectorforyears,soit isquestionablehowmuchpotentialactually remains.Drawbacksof these fuelsare

limitedmiscibilitywithIFOfuel,sensitivitytofrost,andtheproblemofconservation.

Biodiesel(FAME),algaefuel,methanol,HDRD,andpyrolysisoilarevirtuallysulfurfree.The algae and HDRD fuels are compatible with diesel engines and their associatedshipboardfuelsystems.Biodiesel(FAME)isnotcompatiblewithcertainnonmetallicand


43/108

25

metallicmaterialsandusually requiresmodificationofcurrentenginesand shipboardfuelsystems.Pyrolysisoilishighinacidity,hasalowcetanenumber,ispracticallysulfurfree,andisnotmixablewithdieselfuelsomustbemodifiedformarineuse(Ref.23).

FAMEisawellknownandprovenblendingcomponentforroadbaseddieselmachinesbuthasnotfounditswayintouseasamarinefuel.

Within the ISO 8217 framework, FAME is currently being adapted as a blendingcomponent forheavymarine fuel. It is foreseen thatavolumeconcentrationofup to7%willbeallowedinthenearfuture.

Fattyacidmethylestersarearefinedversionofvegetableoilsoranimalfats.TheyarecommoninroadtransportandwerealsousedinDenmarkbyM/FBittenClausenuntil

March2011.Theprojectwassuccessfulwithablendof25%animalbasedFAME.

FAME ingeneraldoesnotcauseanyproblems intheengine itself.Longtermstorage,however,canbeproblematic.Tankpaintandenginegaskets,hoses,nonmetallic,andsomemetallicfuelwettedpartsmayneedtobeadaptedtoFAME.

ThemainproblemwithFAME issustainabilitybecauseFAMEproductionreliesheavilyonpalmoilproduction,which isoften inconflictwiththepreservationofnaturalrainforests.Therefore,FAMEisgenerallynotseenasaviablelongtermoption.

In addition to the sustainability problem, the use of FAME in some U.S. marineapplicationshasnotbeensuccessful.TheU.S.NavyprohibitstheuseofFAMEbiodieselgiventhattheNavyuseswatertodisplacethefuelinitsshipboardtanksforballastandhascentrifugalpurifiersonboardtoseparatethefuelandwater.FAMEcausesahugeemulsionanddoesnotallowthefueltobeseparatedfromthewater.FAMEiscorrosivetometalsurfacesonceitmixeswithwaterandthemixturefallsout.TheUnitedStatesCoastGuardhadmicrobialgrowthproblemsononeofitscuttersinDuluth,Minnesota,when it lifteda2%blendofFAMEbiodiesel.Theproblemprevented thevessel from

sailing.ThetankshadtobeemptiedandcleanedandthevesselhadtoberefueledwithFAMEfreedieselfuel.Thecutternowprocuresthefuelbeforethemandatoryblendtoavoidfuelqualityissues(Ref.24).

6.2.1 Methanol

Methanol as a general fuel has been recommended by CEESA, an interdisciplinaryresearch cooperation fromDenmark. The reason is thatbiomasstomethanol/DME is

foreseen to be the most energyefficient pathway to procuring transport energy by2050.

ConversionsofmarinevesselstomethanolaresignificantlylesscostlythanconversionstoLNGbecauseofthesimplicityofthestoragesystemformethanol.Althoughmethanol


44/108

26

itselfisslightlymorecostlythanLNG,thetradeoffbetweenmethanolandLNGinvolves

thecomplexityofthefuelsystemversusthecostofthefuel.

Methanol increasestheriskofcorrosion,whichmustbemetwithsufficientupgrading

offuel

tanks,

etc.,

and

the

low

energy

content

per

cubic

meter

(m

3

)of

methanol

means

thatittakesupcargospaceontheship.

Methanolhaspropertiesthataresimilartothoseofmethanewhenitisinjectedintoan

engine.Itcanbeusedinadualfuelconcept,asproposedbyWrtsil(Figure12).

Figure12. WrtsilDirectInjectionDualFuelConcept

forMethanolinLargeFourStrokeEngines

6.2.2 Biocrude(PyrolysisOil)

Biocrude,suchastheGermanbioliqSynCrude,isanintermediarypyrolysisoilproduced

from, forexample,theCatLiqTM

process.The feedstockcanbeeithersolidbiomassor

sludge. Like fossil crude, biocrude can also be refined into gasoline or diesellike

products. However, biocrude in its initial form is perhaps the cheapest liquid biofuel

possible.


45/108

27

Themainchallengesareits:

Lowcetanenumber Highwatercontent Poorlubricity

However,theuseofbiocrudeasafeasiblemarinefuelisyettobeproven.

6.3 GaseousFuels

Gaseous fuelsavailable formarineusearenaturalgasandpropane (i.e., LPG).ThesefuelsarenotonlyverylowinsulfurcontentbuttheyalsocombustsuchthatNOx,PM,

and CO2 are reduced. Natural gas can be carried in a compressed state calledcompressednaturalgas(CNG)orinaliquidstatecalledliquefiednaturalgas(LNG).

PropaneorLPG ismentionedfromtimetotimeasapotentialmarinefuelscandidate.However,thereseemstobeverylimitedmaterialavailableonLPGsviabilityasamarinefuel.ThegeneralviewaroundtheglobeseemstobethatLPGisapremiumproductand,assuch, ispricedaccordinglyand is tooexpensivecompared tootheralternative fueloptions. So, although the supply is there, its current markets are in automotivetransportationanddomesticheatingandcooking,markets thathaveadifferentprice

referencethanshipping.

In terms of safety, propane is heavier than air and thus presents an explosive safetyhazard if itweretoaccumulate inthebilgesor lowsectionsofashipsengineroom intheeventofaleakinthefuelsystem;thus,itisnotconsideredsafeforshipboarduse.

CNG ismadebycompressingnaturalgas to less than1%of thevolume itoccupiesatstandardatmosphericpressure.Itisstoredanddistributedincontainersatapressureof200248bar(29003600psi),usuallyincylindricalorsphericalshapes.

LNG achieves a higher reduction in volume than CNG. The liquefaction processcondensesthenaturalgasintoaliquidatclosetoatmosphericpressurebycoolingittoapproximately162C(260F).TheenergydensityofLNG is2.4timesthatofCNGor60% of that of diesel fuel. This makes LNG attractive for use in marine applicationswherestoragespaceandendurancearecritical.

The natural gas for CNG and LNG can also be derived from renewable biogas and issometimescalledbiomethane.

LNGisoneofthemostpromisingalternativemarinefuels.Ittakesupabout1/600thofthevolumeofnaturalgasinthegaseousstate.Hazardsincludeitsflammabilityandlowfreezing temperature (163C (260F), such that marine regulations require extrasafetyprecautionslikedoublewallpiping,gasdetectionssystems,etc.,inenginerooms.


46/108

28

NorwayalreadyhasanestablishedLNGinfrastructure(forshortseashipping).Inthefallof2011,26LNGshipswerereportedinoperationinNorway(Ref.25),ofwhich15wereferries.Another15LNGshipsareunderconstruction.InPoland,twodualfuelLNGshipsarebeingbuiltfortheferrycompanyFjordline.

It issometimessuggestedthatabouthalfthecommercialfleetofmarinevesselscouldbe converted to LNG. However, these would not be the largest vessels, because therange would probably not satisfy oceangoing ships. Thus, in terms of amount ofconvertedfueluse,thepercentagewouldbemuchlowerthanhalfthefleet.Ithasbeenestimated that there will be a consumption of2.4MT of LNG in 2020 (Ref. 26). Thisprojectedamountcorrespondstolessthan1%ofglobalshipping.

Foreconomicreasons,LNGconversionsgenerallyrequirethat3040%oftheoperation

is located within ECA areas. Otherwise, the capital investment will be too heavy(Ref.19).

A major concern with LNG is the possibility for debunkering (or emptying the fueltanks).Thisstep isnecessarywhenaship istobeanchoredforanextendedperiodoftime.UnlessspecialLNGdebunkeringfacilitiesareavailableintheport,thegaswouldboil off, causing huge methane losses to the atmosphere. In case of groundingaccidents, a technique fordebunkering would also be necessary. Another concern ispressure increasewhenconsumptionoccursbelowthenaturalboiloffrate,whichwill

happen ifthere isnoreliquefactionplanavailableonboard.Reliquefactionofboiloffgasrequiresabout0.8kWh/kggas.OnelargeLNGcarrier,suchasQatarQmax,requires56MWofreliquefactionpower,correspondingtoaboiloffrateof8tons/hour.

Athirdconcerntobeaddressedismethaneslipfromlargermarineenginesburninggas.Methane slip will be present, especially on fourstroke, dualfuel engines (Figure13),partlyfromthescavengingprocessinthecylinderandpartlyfromtheventilationfromthe crank case, which is being led to the atmosphere. In addition, there is someuncertaintyastowhetherfutureregulationswillallowLNGtankstobesituateddirectly

below the outfitting/accommodation of the ship. If not, this constraint could causedifficultiesinretrofittingcertainships.

LNG is chemically identical to biomethane. Biomethane is generally known to be themostCO2friendlyfuelofall(Ref.27).RecentactivitiesintheareabelongtotheHollandInnovationTeamandAngloDutchBioLNG;see(Ref.28).

Biogasrequiresdualfueltechnologyforthemarineengineandextrastoragefacilities,either as pressure tanks or cryogenic tanks for LBG. Biogas is usually produced from

inland biowaste and thus presents challenges in terms of costs to transport LBG tomarinevessels.


47/108

29

Figure13. WrtsilPortInjectionDualFuelConcept

forGasUseinLargeFourStrokeEngines

6.4 ExhaustGasTreatmentSystems(EGTSs)

AnalternativetousinglowsulfurfuelsforreducingtheSOxemittedintheexhaustisto

clean theexhaustgasusingscrubber technology.This technology isproven foruseat

shoresidepowerstationsworldwide.Thesesystemscanclean theexhaust to theSOx

levelthat isequivalenttotherequiredfuelsulfurcontent.UsingaSOxscrubberoffers

shippers the flexibility of using either a lowsulfur fuel or highersulfur fuel. The

scrubbingefficienciesofSOxscrubberspresentedin(Ref.8)areasfollows:

PMtrappinggreaterthan80% SOxremovalgreaterthan98%

SOxscrubbersareclassifiedaswetordry,asfollows:

Wetsystemuseswater(seawaterorfresh)asthescrubbingmedium Drysystemusesadrychemical,suchascalciumhydroxide.

Wetsystems

are

further

divided

into

the

following:

Openloopsystemsthatuseseawater.

Port Gas Injectors

Diesel main injector

Diesel pilot injector


48/108

30

Closedloop systems that use freshwater with the addition of an alkalinechemical.

Hybridsystemsthatcanoperateinbothopenloopandclosedloopmodes.Foracomparisonofthesystems,seeSection6.8andTable3oftheLloydsRegister(LR)publication,UnderstandingExhaustGasTreatmentSystems,GuidanceforShipownersandOperators, from Juneof2012 (Ref.29).ThispublicationalsoprovidesadetaileddiscussionofSOx scrubbingandNOxabatement systems,aswellas twocase studiesperformedontwoferries,thePrideofKentandtheFicariaSeaways.

Basedona2009planusingaSOxexhaustscrubberthatwasinstalledonaDetForenedeDampskibsSelskab(DFDS)passengercarferry,itwasestimatedthatthepaybackperiod

couldbeaslowastwoyears.Theplanistooperatethescrubberinthehighlyefficientsodiumhydroxide(NaOH)modeincoastalwatersandinthesaltwatermodeintheopenseawherealowersulfurscrubbingefficiencyissufficient(Ref.8).

OnlyafewshipsareoperatingwithSOxscrubbersorhaveorderedthem,andmanyofthese are on a trial basis. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines has contracted with WrtsilHamworthyfortheinstallationoffourhybridscrubbersforitstwonewSunshineclassvesselsafteranearlierpilotinstallationaboarditsLibertyoftheSeas.Thefirstvesselisduetoreceivedeliveryinautumn2014,andthesecondinthespringof2015(Ref.30).

ExhaustgasSOxscrubbersbyGreenTechMarine (GTMR15Scrubber)were recentlyinstalled by Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL) in their Pride of America. The scrubberswereinstalledinMarch2013duringtheshipsdrydocking.Thesmallfootprintandlowweightof theGreenTechsystem iscompact,and thusnopassengerorcrewspace islost,theinstallationneedsnosteelworkmodification,andthescrubbertakesupaboutthesameamountofspaceastheexhaustsilenceritreplaces.Thesystemcanoperateinclosedoropenmode(Ref.31).KoreasSTXOffshore&ShipbuildingawardedWrtsilacontracttosupplyexhaustgascleaningsystemsforfournewcontainerrollon,rolloff(RO/RO, or ConRo) vessels being built for Italys Ignazio Messina & Co. The Wrtsil

systems tobesuppliedwillcleanbothSOxandparticulatematteremissions from themainengines,auxiliaryengines,and theboiler.Deliveriesarescheduled to takeplaceduring2013and2014,and thevesselsare tobedeliveredby the shipyard to IgnazioMessina & Co during the second half of 2014 (Ref.32). Great Lakes Seaway shippingline,AlgomaCentralMarine, isbuildingsixnew225mlongEquinoxclass lakersthatwillbe45%morefuelefficientthanexistinglakers.TheywillbeequippedwithcompleteWrtsil propulsion packages that come with fully integrated, freshwater scrubbersystems(Ref.33).

Exhaust gas treatment systems for NOx, (NOx reducing devices) will provide theflexibility to operate ships built after January 1, 2016, in ECAs designated for NOxemissioncontrol.


49/108

31

Tier IIINOx limitswillapply toallshipsconstructedonorafter January1,2016,withengines over130kW thatoperate insideanECANOxarea. Unlike the sulfur limits inRegulation14ofMARPOLAnnexVI,theTierIIINOxlimitswillnotretroactivelyapplytoships constructed before January1, 2016 (except in the case of additional or

nonidenticalreplacementenginesinstalledonorafterJanuary1,2016[Ref.29]).

For compliance with Tier II NOx emission limits, shippers can implement onengineadjustmentsandmodificationsthatwillbeabletosatisfythese limits.ForTier IIINOxcompliance,thecurrentthinkingisthateitherSCRorEGRtechnologieswillbenecessaryfor meeting the Tier III limits. For a detailed discussion of NOx emission reductiontechnologies, consult the Lloyds Register publication, Understanding Exhaust GasTreatment Systems, Guidance for Shipowners and Operators, from June of 2012 athttp://www.lr.org/eca(Ref.8).

Scrubbersystemsarepricedatabout$3millionUSD.ThepricedifferencebetweenHFO380andLSFOisroughly$40USD/ton,whereasthepricepremiumofMGOcomparedtoHFO380 isabout$330USD/ton.Thepaybackofscrubbersystemstypicallyreliesonapricedifferenceof$200600USD/ton.ScrubbersystemcostsareshowninFigure14.

Figure14. CostsofScrubberSystems[CoupleSystems,

AlfaLaval](seeRef.34forcostcalculations)

Theproblemswithscrubbershavetodowiththelossofcargocapacityduetothelargephysicalsizeofthesystems.Winteroperationcanalsobeachallenge(Ref.35).

SeeAppendixAforillustrationsandoperationaldetailsofsomeexhaustaftertreatment

systemsprovidedbyvariousvendors.

0

1

2

3

0 5 10 15 20 25

M

MW

Cost of scrubber system

MEUR


50/108

32



51/108

33

7. AssessingAlternativeFuelsforMarineUse

When assessing fuels, it is necessary to evaluate several parameters related to the

technical,economic,andenvironmentalimplicationsoftheuseofeachfuel.

Theconsiderationshavebeengroupedintofivemaincriteriawithsubcriteria.

Engineandfuelsystemcost,includingo Newvesseloncosto Retrofitinvestmentso Increasedmaintenancecost

Projectedfuelcost,includingo Projectedfuelpricepermegajoule(MJ)o Availabilityandcostofinfrastructureo Longtermworldsupplyo Fuelconsumptionpenalty(e.g.,becauseoflesserefficiency,boiloff)

Emissionabatementcost,includingo PMportcompliance(e.g.,fuelchange)o SOxSECA(e.g.,scrubber)o NOxSECA(e.g.,SCR,EGR)o CO2EEDI(e.g.,slowsteaming,heatrecovery)

Safetyrelatedcost,includingo Approvals(classification)o Additionalinsurancecosto Crewtrainingandeducation

Indirectcost,includingo Reducedrangebetweenbunkeringo Reducedcargocapacityo Increasedwaitingtimeinports

The following paragraphs discuss the favorable attributes and drawbacks of thealternativemarinefuelswithregardtotheirpracticalityandaffordabilityformarineuse.

7.1 LiquidFossilFuels(ULSD,LSRF)Advantages

7.1.1 FuelSystemandEngineCompatibility

These fuelsarecurrently inuse inmanymarineengine installationsorcanbeused incurrentmarineenginesbecauseoftheirsimilaritytothefuelsthatareinusetoday.ThelighterULSDor lowsulfurdiesel (LSD) issimilar todistillatediesel fuel that isused inmedium and highspeed shipboard diesels and on ships burning residual fuel whenenteringa fuelsulfurrestrictionzone.Forshipsnormallyburningresidual fuel,special


52/108

34

proceduresmustbeobservedwhentransitioningtothe lowerviscositydistillatefuels.The diesel engine manufacturers have developed a Smart Switch to facilitate thisoperation, and there are publications and bulletins available for switching to andoperatingonlowsulfurfuels.

Thesefuelsarecompatiblewithcurrentshipboarddieselenginesandfuelsystems.Forships that do not operate for a substantial amount of time in an ECA, theowners/operators may choose to use lowersulfur fuels only when transiting an ECA.Thisscenariorequirestheinstallationofadditionalfueltankswithassociatedpipingandpumpsforthelowsulfurfuel.

7.1.2 LowerSOxEmissions

ThelowersulfurlevelsinthesefuelsensurethattheshipwillbeincompliancewiththelowersulfurlimitsrequiredintheECAsandbytheIMO.

7.1.3 Safety

Thefuelsaresafetousehavingsimilarcharacteristicstocurrentdistillateandresidualdieselfuels.

7.1.4 Availability

They are commercially available for ship bunkering. Most of the ports that currentlyofferhighsulfurfueloilsalsohaveavailablethelowsulfurfueloilofthesamegrade.

7.2 LiquidFossilFuels(ULSD,LSRF)Drawbacks

7.2.1 Price

The cleaner, lowersulfur distillate and residual fuels are more expensive than thecurrent fuels. The lowsulfur residual fuels have a higher price than the highsulfurresidualfuelsbecauseofthecostofthedesulfurizationprocessandincreasingdemand.Theexistingpricedifference(basedonavailablepublicbunkerprices)betweendistillate(0.10.5%sulfur)andresidualfuel(2.03.5%sulfur)isabout$300USDmorepertonfordistillate.Basedonapreliminaryreporton lowsulfur (1%)marine fuels,thepremiumcostof the lowersulfurHFOcouldbeasmuchas$100USD/metric ton (Ref.36).Thepricesof marine fuels at twoEuropeanports in July 2012are summarized inTable5(Ref.37).


53/108

35

Table5shows that the lowersulfur fuelsaremoreexpensive than theheavyresidualfuels.Thedistillatefuels(lowsulfurMGO[LSMGO]andMDO)havepricepremiumswellabovethoseoftheresidualfuels.

Table5. MarineFuelPricesinJuly2012inUSD/MetricTon(MT)byPort

Port

HighSulfur

HeavyFuel

(IF380)

LowSulfur

HeavyFuel

(LS380)

(1%S)

HighSulfur

HeavyFuel

(IF180)

LowSulfur

HeavyFuel

(LS180)

(1%S)

LSMGO

(0.1%S) MDO

Copenhagen $597.50 $658.50 $630.00 $683.50 $907.50 $865.50

Rotterdam $580.00 $631.50 $602.00 $653.00 $865.00

7.2.2 Characteristics

Thecleaner fuels,especially ifdistillate isused,havedifferentcharacteristics, suchaslowerviscosity,thatcancausefuelsystemandengineoperationproblems.Theenginescanoperatesatisfactorilyonthelowerviscosityandlowersulfurfuelswhentheproperchangeover precautions are followed. When switching from a heavy fuel to distillatefuel, therecouldbe incompatibilityproblems that result in filterclogging; inaddition,theproperbasenumber(BN)lubeoilmustbemaintainedwhenoperatingonthehighor lowsulfurfuel,andtheviscositymustbemaintainedattheproper leveltopreventfuelpumpdamage.ThefuelsystemmodificationsnecessaryforoperationonbothHFOandthe lowsulfurdistillateaddcomplexitytothealreadycomplex fuelsystem.Therearealsomodificationsrequiredtothe lubeoilsystemsothattheproperBN lubeoil isused, depending on the fuels sulfur level, to avoid engine damage. MAN B&W haspublishedadetailedmanualtitledOperationonLowSulfurFuels(Ref.8)thatexplainsthestepsthatshouldbetakenfordesigningormodifyinganexistingHFOfueloilsystemfor operation on lowsulfur fuels. When California enacted the lowsulfur fuelsrequirement forships inCaliforniaCoastalWaters (CCW),shipsexperiencedproblemswithenginestallingandlossofpropulsionwhenshiftingfromresidualtodistillatefuel.

7.2.3 FutureAvailability

There isaconcernthatwhenthe0.1%ECAfuelsulfur limittakeseffect in2015,therecouldbeaEuropeanshortageofMGO.Europe iscurrently inanetshortageofmiddle

distillates

and

has

to

import

them

(Ref.

38).

Thus,

there

could

be

a

supply

challenge

in

2015.


54/108

36

7.3 LiquidBiofuelsCharacteristics

7.3.1 Biodiesel(FAME)Advantages

Fuel System and Engine CompatibilityMany marineengine manufacturershavecertifiedtheirengines foroperationonbiodieselorablendofbiodieselanddiesel fuel.Theoriginalenginemanufacturershouldbeconsultedfortheamountofbiodiesel theirengines canburn (i.e.,B20, etc.).B20 represents afuel of 80% diesel fuel and 20% biodiesel. Likewise, B100 represents a fueltotallymadeuptotallywithbiodiesel.

Lower SOx Emissions Neat biodiesel contains almost no sulfur, so SOxexhaustemissionsarepracticallyzero.Blendingwithregulardiesel lowersthesulfurcontentproportionally.

SafetyBiodieselisassafeasdieselfuel.Ithasahigherflashpointthandiesel,is biodegradable, and degrades quickly in water. The flash point of B100 isapproximately300F(149C),comparedto120170F(4977C)forpetroleumdiesel.

AvailabilityBiodieseliscommerciallyavailableatpricescomparabletothoseofmarinedieselfuel.Forqualitycontrol,itisproducedtospecificationssetbytheAmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials(ASTM)andtheEuropeanUnion(EU).Ithasbeenclassifiedasanadvancedbiofuel.

7.3.2 Biodiesel(FAME)Drawbacks

LowTemperatureOperationBiodieselhasahighcloudpointcomparedwithpetroleum diesel that can result in filter clogging and poor fuel flow at lowtemperatures(i.e.,32Fandlower).Thefeedstockusedforthemanufactureofthebiodieselhasastrong influenceon thecloudpoint.Additivescanalsobeusedtolowerthecloudpoint.

Fuel System and Engine Compatibility Biodiesel, especially in higherconcentrations,candissolvecertainnonmetallicmaterialssuchasseals,rubberhoses,andgaskets.Itcanalso interactwithcertainmetallicmaterials,suchascopperandbrass.Foranexistingship,thefuelsystemandenginesmayhavetobe modified by changing out susceptible parts with biodieselcompatiblecomponentsforsatisfactoryoperation.

Cleaning Effect Biodiesel especially in higher concentrations has asolvent/scrubbing action that cleans/removes deposits from the fuel system,


55/108

37

resulting incloggedfuelfilters.Thefuelsystemshouldbethoroughlycleaned,removingalldepositsandresidualmoisturebeforeusingbiodieselortherewillbeinordinatehighuseoffuelfilters.

LongTerm Storage Stability Biodiesel can degrade over time, formingcontaminantsofperoxides,acids,andotherinsolubles.Ifbiodieselisstoredformorethantwomonths,thefuelshouldbecloselymonitoredandtestedtoseethatitremainswithinspecification.Anantioxidantcanalsobeused(Ref.39).

7.3.3 AlgaeFuelsAdvantages

Potential Algae can grow at amazing rates compared to farmland crops.These growth rates potentially translate to a very high biomass yield perhectare.However,muchresearchisstillneededtofullyutilizethepotentialofalgaefuel.

FuelSystemandEngineCompatibilityWhenhydrotreated,itisadropinfuelintermsofcompatibilitywiththefuelsystemandenginecomponents.Testingto date by the U.S.Navy has shown no adverse effects from using a50/50blendofalgaefuelandpetroleumdieselfuelonengineandfuelsystemcomponents.

LowerSOxEmissionsAlgaefuelcontainsalmostnosulfur,sotheSOxexhaustemissions are practically zero. Blending with regular diesel lowers the sulfurcontentproportionally.

SafetyAlgaefuelisassafeasdieselfuel. Performance Algae fuels have slightly lower heating values than those of

petroleumdieselandloweraromatics.Blendingwithpetroleumdieselnegates

thesedrawbacks so theblended fuelsperformancecompares favorablywithpetroleum diesel. Algae fuel is produced to a hydrotreated renewable diesel(HRD)76 specificationand,whenblendedwith50%petroleumdiesel,meetstherequirementsforpetroleumdieselF76.Table6showsthecomparisonofthe 50/50 blend with the petroleum F76 fuel and the F76 specification(Ref.40).


56/108

38

Table6. Comparisonof50/50BlendofAlgaeandF76PetroleumFuel

withPetroleumF76

Characteristic

MILDTL16884L

Requirements

PetroleumF76

(Typical)

50/50Blend

(Actual)

AcidNumber(mgKOH/g) 0.30(max) 0.08


57/108

39

7.3.4 AlgaeFuelDrawbacks

AvailabilityCommercialavailability is limited. The U.S.Navy is the primaryuseranddeveloperofthefuelformarineuse.TheNavysplansaretoreduce

petroleum fueluseasmuchaspossible intheir fleet.Ademonstrationof theGreen Strike Force took place in 2012 using a 5050 algae/petroleum fuelblend,andthereareplanstobesailingthegreenfleetby2016.

Cost The current cost isprohibitive forgeneral commercialuseother thanexperimentallyorforperformancebaseddemonstrations.

Performance The neat algae fuel has lower heating value and aromaticsthanthatofpetroleumdiesel;whenblendedwithregulardieselfuel,however,

thesedrawbacksarenegated.

7.3.5 HydrogenationDerivedRenewableDiesel(HDRD)Advantages

FuelSystemandEngineCompatibilityHDRD isproducedbyrefining fatsorvegetable oils in a process known as fatty acidstohydrocarbonhydrotreatment.Dieselproducedusingthisprocess iscalledrenewabledieseltodifferentiateitfrombiodiesel,whichisaproductofthetransesterficationof

animal fats and vegetable oils. Renewable diesel and biodiesel use similarfeedstocks but have different processing methods that create chemicallydifferentproducts.

HDRDhasan identicalchemicalstructurewithpetroleumbaseddieselas it isfreeofestercompoundsand,whenproducedfromanimalfatwastes,haslowcarbon intensity and is referred to as advanced renewable diesel. It has alower production cost because it uses existing hydrotreatment processequipment inapetroleum refinery. Ithasbetter lowtemperatureoperability

than biodiesel; thus, it can be used in colder climates without gelling orcloggingfuelfilters.

HDRD is similar to petroleum diesel fuel and is compatible with new andexistingdieselenginesandfuelsystems. It isproducedtomeetcurrentdieselfuelspecificationASTMD975.

LowerSOxEmissionsHDRDfuelcontainsalmostnosulfursotheSOxexhaustemissions are practically zero. Blending with regular diesel lowers the sulfur

contentproportionally.

SafetyHDRD fuelmeetsthedieselfuelspecificationand isassafeasdieselfuel.


58/108

40

7.3.6 HDRDDrawbacks

Availability Current availability is limited. There are only a few companiesthathaveinvestedtoproducehydrogenationderivedrenewablediesel.

ConocoPhillips produces renewable diesel from vegetable oil and crude oil.Nestes plant in Porvoo, Finland, processes vegetable and animal fats intorenewable diesel. Neste also has plants in Singapore and Rotterdam for theproductionofHDRD.BrazilianPetrobrasusescoprocessingofvegetableoilstomakeHDRD.

CetaneEnergyLLC inCarlsbad,NewMexico,produces renewablediesel fromvegetableoilsandwastes.Accordingtothecompany,itstechnologycanwork

withawiderangeof feedstocks, includinganimal fatandalgaloils.UKbasedRenewableDieselEurope istheexclusiveagent inEurope forthestandalonerenewabledieseltechnologydevelopedbyCetaneEnergy.

Othercompaniesthathaveplanstoproduceorareproducingrenewabledieselfuel through hydrogenation include Nippon Oil in Japan, BP in Australia,SyntroleumandTysonFoodsintheUnitedStates(DynamicFuels),andUOPEniinItalyandtheUnitedStates(Ref.41).

7.4 GaseousFuels:NaturalGas(Compressed[CNG]or

Liquefied[LNG])

NaturalgasstoredasLNG isaviable futuremarine fuelmainly forshortseashipping.Stored in itscompressed formasCNG,however, it isnotconsideredviable foruseonlonger routesbecauseof its long fueling times,extra space requirements for the fueltanks,andthe limitedvolumesthatcanbecarriedthatresult ina limitedrange.Thus,otherthanforvesselsonshortvoyagesthathavesufficientturnaroundtimeforfueling,theCNGconcept isnotconsidered thebestoptionwhenusingnaturalgasasashipspropulsionfuel.

7.4.1 NaturalGasAdvantages

Availability With the new methods for extracting natural gas from shaleformationsusing thefrackingmethod, therateofdevelopmentofnewgas

fields

should

assure

an

abundant

supply

for

years.

In

the

past

couple

of

years,

the growing global surplus of natural gas has become increasingly apparent.WhilemuchofthefocusintheUnitedStateshasbeenontherecoveryofshalegas,thediscoveryofenormousgasreservesoverseasinareaslikeoffshoreEastAfricaandtheCaspianSeahasmadeitobviousthatfearsaboutscarcitywere


59/108

41

notwell founded (Ref.42).Availability isgood inmostpartsof theworld towhichshipssailfrequently.

Cost Natural gas is expected to be cost competitive with residual anddistillatefuelsthrough2035.Currently,itis70%lessthanresidualfueland85%less than distillate fuel; furthermore, the Energy Information Administrationexpectsittoholdthispriceadvantagethrough2035(Ref.43).Figure15showsthispriceadvantagethatnaturalgasisprojectedtomaintainoverresidualanddistillatefuelsthrough2035.

Figure15. ProjectedPricesofMarineFuels(Ref.43)

Lower Exhaust Emissions The use of natural gas results in the followingreductionsofSOx,NOx,PM,andCO2fromengineexhaustemissions(Ref.44):

o Carbonemissionsbyapproximately25%o SOxbyalmost100%o NOxby85%o PMby95%ItshouldbenotedthatwhileemissionsofCO2,SOx,NOxandPMarereducedsignificantly through theuseofnaturalgasasa fuel, there isaconcernover


60/108

42

methaneslip.MethaneslipwillbeincludedintheGHGpicture,andtherebylead tohighpenaltyon futureCO2 taxation,etc.Methane slipwillalwaysbepresentwiththeknowndualfueltechnologies(e.g.,Ottocycle).

ShipConstructionRulesRulesforthesafeconstructionofshipsusingnaturalgasbasednaturalfuelhavebeendevelopedandpublishedbytheclassificationsocieties. There are rules, for example, by Det Norske Veritas (DNV), LloydsRegister(LR),andothers.

AvailabilityofMarineGasEnginesGasburningordualfuelmarineenginesin both slow and mediumspeed configurations are available from enginemanufacturessuchasWrtsil,MANB&W,andRollsRoyce(BergenEngines).Wrtsildevelopedaslowspeed,dualfuelenginein1973formarineuseand

followedwithahighpressure, twostrokegasengine formarineuse in1986.Currently,Wrtsiloffersaseriesofdualfuel,mediumspeedmarineengines.MAN B&W offers a slowspeed marine gas engine, and Rolls Royce has amediumspeed marinegas engine that meets theTier IIINOx limits thatwillbecomeeffectivein2016.MitsubishiHeavyIndustries,Ltd.,plansacombustionengine that efficiently burns highpressure gas through direct injection. Theenginewillbemarketedtocustomersafteremissionslevelsandfueleconomyaretestedthroughatrialrunthatstartsinlate2013atMitsubishiHeavysKobeshipyard. It is intended for LNG carriers, large tankers, and containerships

(Ref.45).

ExperiencewithNaturalGasasMarineFuelAhistoryspanningmanyyearsofexperienceexistsduringwhichshipshavesafelyoperatedwithLNGas theprimaryfuel.Section8.2describestheoperationofshipswithnaturalgasasafuel.

7.4.2 NaturalGasDrawbacks

Not Compatible with Existing Engines and Fuel SystemsNaturalgas isnotcompatiblewithexisting liquid fuel systemsand requires themodificationofexisting engines and changes or additions to the existing shipboard fuelsystems,aswellasotherchanges forsafetyreasons.Table7 is fromareportprepared by M.J. Bradley for the American Clean Skies Foundation (ACSF)(Ref.46) and shows the costs associated with converting three vessels ofdifferentsizestoaccommodatenaturalgasservice.


61/108

43

Table7. CostsAssociatedwithConvertingMarineVesselstoLNGOperation

Type

Size

(tons) Engines

Engine

Cost

FuelSystem

Cost

TOTAL

CONVERSION

COST

Tug 150 21,500HP $1.2million $6.0 million $7.2millionFerry 1,000 23,000HP $1.8million $9.0million $10.8millionGreatLakesBulkCarrier

19,000 25,000HP $4.0million $20million $24million

Incomparison, theconversionof theBitViking,a177meterlongchemicalproducttanker,torunonLNGwasestimatedtocostabout$10millionUSD.Up

to

75%

of

the

conversion

cost

was

covered

by

the

Norwegian

NOx

fund,

which

awarded$7millionUSDtowardtheproject(Ref.47).

NewShipConstructionPremiumThecostofbuildinganewshippoweredbynaturalgashasapremiumover the construction costofa conventional shipwithfossilfuel.Thereisacostincreaseforthegasenginesandanotherforthegaseous fuelsystemandassociatedLNGstorage tanks.AGermanischerLloyd(GL)studyin2009notedanadditionalinvestmentof25%overthatofthecostfor constructing a typical new container ship (Ref.48). According to a DNV

report,ifashipspendsmorethan30%ofitsoperatingtimeinanECA,thecostofgasfueledenginescanbejustified(Ref.43).

Increased Fuel Storage Space Increased fuel storage space is required tocarrythenecessaryvolumeofgas forendurancesimilartoashipusing liquidfossilfuel.AgivenweightofnaturalgasstoredasLNGtakesuponlyabout40%of thevolumeof the sameweightofnaturalgas storedasCNGat3,600psi.Because LNGoccupiesmuch less space thanCNG, it is thepreferred storagemethod.WhenstoredasLNG,however,thefueltakesuptwiceasmuchspace

asliquidfossilfuel,andifstoredasCNG,ittakesuptofivetimesasmuchspace(Ref.46).Table8showsthevolumeoftheonboardfuelstoragerequirementsforthreetypesofmarinevessels.


62/108

44

Table8. FuelUsageandStorageVolumesforThreeTypesofVessels

Vessel

Fuel

Type HP

DailyFuel

Use(gal)

TypicalMinimum

OnboardFuel

Storage

VolumeofOnboard

FuelStorage

[days] [gal]

Dist.or

Residual

[ft3]

LNG

[ft3]

CNG

[ft3]

TowingTug

Distillate 3,000 1,417 14 20,000 2,674 4,830 12,178

100carFerry

Distillate 6,000 2,268 7 16,000 2,139 3,864 9,742

GreatLakesOreCarrier

Residual 10,000 6,934 21 145,000 19,385 38,183 96,264

Figure 16 from Reference46 shows the relative weights and volumes of themarinefuels.

Figure16.

Weights

and

Volumes

of

Marine

Fuels

IncreasedFuelingTimeStoredasCNG,itisnotconsideredviablebecauseoflongfuelingtimes,extraspacerequirementsforthefueltanks,andthelimitedvolume thatcanbecarried that results ina limited range.So,other than forvesselsonshortvoyages thathavesufficient turnaroundtime for fueling, theCNG concept isnot considered thebestoptionwhenusingnaturalgas forashipspropulsionfuel.

IncreasedSafetyRequirementsThecarriageofnaturalgasasa fuelentailsadditional safety requirements over fossil fuels and results in constructionfeatures that are reflected in the higher construction cost. (See New ShipConstructionPremiumonpage33fortheincreasedcosts.)


63/108

45

Limited Bunkering InfrastructureFor LNG tobecomeanattractive fuel forthe majority of ships, a global network of LNG bunkering terminals must beestablishedorLNGfueledshipswillbelimitedtocoastaltradeswhereanLNGbunkering network already exists. The situation is sometimes described as a

chickenandeggdilemma.Untilthebunkeringinfrastructureisinplace,shipownersmaynotcommittonaturalgasfueledshipsandvisaversa.Currently,LNGbunkering ismoreexpensiveandcomplicatedascompared towhat is inplaceforfossilfuelandisonlyavailableinalimitednumberofplaces.

AGLarticlecalledLNGSupplyChain(Ref.49)madethefollowingobservation:

o Attheendof2011,nosupplychainforLNGasshipfuelexists,withtheexception of that serving Norwegian coastal waters. The primary reason

forthisisthatLNGsuppliershaveyettobeconvincedthatthistechnologywilltakeoff.Moreover,LNGusershavetobeconvincedthatLNGwillbemadeavailableatattractivepricelevelsandtherightlocations.

o In principle, Europe is well prepared for this future as local LNGproduction is up and running in Norway.A number of large LNG importterminalsalreadyexist,withsomeof thesehavingorplanninganexportfacility,which isanecessarysteptowardssmallscaleLNGdistribution.Atpresent,however,largeLNGterminalsarenotyetequippedforexporting

smallerquantitiesofLNG.

Since these statements were issued, studies have been undertaken to equipLNGbunkeringfacilitieswithintheEuropeanECAstohaveLNGsupplycapacityby2015;andprojectshavebeenstartedtoprovideLNGbunkeringcapabilitiesat some ports. Major 0il and gas producers are showing an interest indeveloping an LNG marine fuel supply infrastructure. Shell has acquiredNorwegianLNGproduceranddistributorGasnor for$74millionwithplans totarget European marine customers. The purchase of Gasnor will give the oil

majora foothold intheemergentmarket forLNGbunkering.GasnorsuppliesLNG to Norway primarily by truck and is in the process of establishing LNGquayside bunkering at the German Port of Brunsbuttel (Ref.50). A plan hasbeendevelopedand land setaside foran LNGbunkeringport inRotterdam.AlthoughalargeGasAccesstoEurope(GATE)LNGimportterminalopenedattheendoflastyear,thisLNGisdestinedmostlyforpowerplants.Theprincipalcompanies involved want to build a smaller outbound terminal next to theGATE so the LNG can be supplied as fuel for ships (Ref. 51). The Port ofRotterdam and the Port

Documents

Alternative Fuels for Marine Application