SFI SMART MARITIME

WEBINARALTERNATIVE FUELS AND FLEXIBLE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS

MARCH 11, 2020

Anders Valland, Elizabeth Lindstad, Jørgen B. Nielsen, Torstein Bø - SINTEF Ocean

Content1. Introduction

2. Well to Tank (WTT) GHG - emissions

3. Well to Wake (WTW) GHG – emissions

4. EEDI and Abatement cost

5. When will decarbonized fuels become environmentally sustainable

This presentation is based on the studies and the papers:

• Lindstad, E. (2019). Increased use of LNG might not reduce maritime GHG emissions at all – June 2019. • Lindstad, E. Rialland, A. (2020) LNG and Cruise Ships, an Easy Way to fulfil Regulations - Versus the Need for Reducing GHG

Emissions. • Lindstad E, Eskeland, G., S., Valland, A., (2020) Fuels and Best Available Engine Technology for Maritime Greenhouse Gas

Reductions • Lindstad E, Bø T, Eskeland G, Nilsen J, Valland A (2020) When will decarbonized fuels become environmentally

sustainable for shipping 2

1. Introduction: A main success criteria for achieving the desired GHG reductions will be the ability to utilize best available knowledge within and across sectors

Source: Smith et al. (2014), IPCC (2013)

16 different scenarios developed by the Third IMO GHG study

1.1 - Global warming Potential (GWP)

• The main source of emissions from ships is the exhaust gas from its combustion engines, followed by the emissions from producing the ship fuel. Of these exhaust gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) affects climate, while carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), methane (CH4) and particulate matters including Black Carbon (BC) have both global climate effects and regional and local environmental impacts on human health and nature.

• Metrics that weight emitted gases according to their global warming potential (GWP), to report them as "CO2 equivalents", have become the standard for benchmarking and communicating their relative and absolute contributions to climate change (Shine, 2009).

• The GHG emissions included in this study are CO2, CH4 and N2O. • The GWP value for CO2 is always one, which means that 1 gram of CO2 = 1 gram of CO2eq.• The GWP value for other gases generally decreases over time, i.e. impact of CH4 is largest the first years

after it was emitted, which are reflected in GWP 20 values of 85 versus 28 – 34 for GWP 100 (IPCC 2014)

1.2 – Assessing Global man-made GHG emissions with a 20 versus a 100 year time horizon (Total GHG 2010: 52 billion tons (GWP100), 70 billion tons (GWP20)

5

1.3 – Climate science is a research field under evolution

For example - The long term effect of Methane (CH4) emissions has been given larger weight compared to CO2 through higher CO2 eq. factors over the last 25 years. 21 (Kyoto 1997) -> 25 -> 30 -> 36 (ICCT 2020)

6

1.4 Recent studies with focus on fossil maritime fuels

Lindstad, E. 2019. Increased use of LNG might not reduce maritime GHG emissions at all – June 2019. Retrieved from https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2019_06_

Lindstad, E.; Eskeland, G.; Valland, A. 2020 Fuels and Best Available Engine Technology for Maritime Greenhouse Gas Reductions, (submitted to scientific journal

2 - Well to Tank (WTT) emissions

• The Well to Tank emissions includes all emissions from producing the fuels and the transport needed to deliver them into the ships fuel tanks.

• For a conventional fuel it includes oil production, processing and transport to the refinery, the oil refining at the refinery, transport to the ship and the bunkering operation.

• For LNG, it includes gas production, processing and pipeline transport, gas liquefaction to LNG, LNG terminals and transport.

• Biofuel, Hydrogen and Ammonia all have WTT emissions, where they magnitude compared to conventional fuels or LNG depends on their production process.

8

2.4 Thinkstep (2019) study of WTT for LNG shows only marginal variancebetween regions

2.5 Thinkstep (2019) study of WTT for MGO shows apart from North America only marginal variance between regions

10

2.4 - The WTT estimates for conventional fuels in this analysis

• For LNG, apart from a few out-layers, the values are in the range from 17 – 22 gram of CO2 eq. per MJ. For MGO which is a diesel, most studies display values in the range from 12.7 – 14.4, apart from the ICCT (2020) study which displays 17.4 gram of CO2eq. per MJ.

11

3 - Well to Wake (WTW) GHG emissions

1. Well-to-Wake (WTW) estimates assesses the overall emissions from the fuel supply and the fuel combustion in the assessed ship engines.

2. Compared to full LCA studies, the complexity in WTW studies is reduced by excluding the construction and decommissioning phase for the oil & gas chains

• Well to Wake = Weel to Tank + Tank to Wake

12

3.1. WTW emissions for 2 - stroke as a function of fuel and engine technology

13

HFO & Scrubber Diesel-engine

VLSFO Diesel-engine

MGO Diesel-engine

LNG HP Diesel-engine

LNG LP Otto-engine

(test bed)

LNG LP Otto-engine

MGO HP

Diesel-engine

MGO LP

Otto-engine

CO2 emission factors 3.114 3.176 3.206 2.75 2.75 2.75 3.206 3.206Low Caloric Value MJ/kg 40.2 41.0 42.7 49.2 49.2 49.2 42.7 42.7CH4 - GWP100 (CO2 eq.) 30 30 30CH4 - GWP20 (CO2 eq.) 85 85 85Thermal engine efficiency % 50 % 50 % 50 % 50 % 49.3 % 48.0 % 50 % 47 %Compared to Diesel engine % 100 % 98.6 % 96.0 % 100 % 94 %SFOC - Main fuel Gram/kWh 180.0 176.4 169.4 146.0 147.8 151.7 169.4 180.2SFOC - Pilot Fuel Gram/kWh 1.5 1.5 1.5Methane Slip Gram/kWh 0.3 2.1 4.0TTW - GWP100 CO2eq. Gram/kWh 560 560 543 415 474 542 543 580TTW - GWP20 CO2eq. Gram/kWh 560 560 543 432 590 762 543 580WTT - GWP100 CO2eq. Gram/MJ 9.6 13.2 14.4 18.5 18.5 18.5 14.4 14.4WTT - GWP100 CO2eq. Gram/kWh 69 95 104 133 135 139 104 110WTT - GWP 20 CO2eq. Gram/MJ 14.1 19.6 20.8 27.9 27.9 27.9 20.8 20.8WTT - GWP20 - CO2eq. Gram/kWh 102 141 150 201 204 209 150 160WTW - GWP100 - CO2eq. Gram/kWh 630 655 647 549 609 681 647 690WTW - GWP20 - CO2eq. Gram/kWh 662 702 693 633 794 971 693 740

97 % 101 % 100 % 85 % 94 % 105 % 100 % 107 %96 % 101 % 100 % 91 % 115 % 140 % 100 % 107 %WTW GWP20 in % of MGO

2 - stroke engines

WTW GWP100 in % of MGO

3.2 - WTW emissions for 2 – stroke engine, GWP 20 & GWP 100

14

3.3 - WTW emissions for 4 - stroke engines as a function of fuel and engine technology (LNG-HP Diesel engine under development)

15

HFO & Scrubber Diesel-engine

VLSFO Diesel-engine

MGO Diesel-engine

LNG HP

Diesel-engine

LNG LP Otto-engine

(test bed)

LNG LP

Otto-engine

MGO HP

Diesel-engine

MGO LP

Otto-engine

CO2 emission factors 3.114 3.176 3.206 2.75 2.75 2.75 3.206 3.206Low Caloric Value MJ/kg 40.2 41.0 42.7 49.2 49.2 49.2 42.7 42.7CH4 - GWP100 (CO2 eq.) 30 30 30CH4 - GWP20 (CO2 eq.) 85 85 85Thermal engine efficiency % 47 % 47 % 47 % 47 % 46 % 45 % 47 % 44 %Compared to Diesel engine % 100 % 98 % 96 % 100 % 94 %SFOC - Main fuel Gram/kWh 190.7 187.0 179.5 154.8 161.8 166.7 179.5 191.8SFOC - Pilot Fuel Gram/kWh 1.5 1.5 1.5Methane Slip Gram/kWh 0.3 3.9 5.3TTW - GWP100 CO2eq. Gram/kWh 594 594 576 441 555 622 576 615TTW - GWP20 CO2eq. Gram/kWh 594 594 576 456 769 914 576 615WTT - GWP100 CO2eq. Gram/MJ 9.6 13.2 14.4 18.5 18.5 18.5 14.4 14.4WTT - GWP100 CO2eq. Gram/kWh 74 101 110 142 145 148 110 118WTT - GWP 20 CO2eq. Gram/MJ 14.1 19.6 20.8 27.9 27.9 27.9 20.8 20.8WTT - GWP20 - CO2eq. Gram/kWh 108 150 159 214 218 223 159 170WTW - GWP100 - CO2eq. Gram/kWh 668 695 686 583 700 770 686 733WTW - GWP20 - CO2eq. Gram/kWh 703 744 735 670 988 1137 735 785

97 % 101 % 100 % 85 % 102 % 112 % 100 % 107 %96 % 101 % 100 % 91 % 134 % 155 % 100 % 107 %

4 - stroke engines

WTW GWP100 in % of MGOWTW GWP20 in % of MGO

3.4 - WTW emissions for 4 - stroke engines, GWP 20 & GWP 100)

16

4 - EEDI and Abatement cost

• Building a new ship with LNG, gives a 25% reduction of the ships EEDI compared to conventional fuels, even if non-combusted methane nullifies the GHG gains or not, because EEDI includes only CO2.

• There are nearly no other options, which gives an EEDI reduction of this magnitude.

• LNG is, and has been, less expensive than MGO and are now even in some regions becoming cheaper than even HFO (ICCT, 2020)

17

4.1 A new ship with LNG, gives a 25 % reduction of its achieved EEDI or the ability to keep nearly the same power and vessel design as the baseline vessels (1999 – 2008), i.e. no additional improvement required

18

4.2 Abatement cost and emission reductions alternative LNG engine technologies including ammonia

4.3 EEDI and Abatement cost

• The higher cost of the LNG High pressure (Diesel-engine) is not in itself justified by the fuel savings, and that it needs a CO2 tax of more than 455 USD to be profitable in itself.

• For IMO, the opportunity to regulate methane emissions seem rather urgent, most straightforwardly by including methane in the IMO EEDI formula.

• There is growing support for including Well-to-Wake (WTW) and all GHG's and methane slip in the EEDI formula and not only Tank-to-Wake (TTW) and CO2 only as it is today (MEPC 75 March/April 2020) Submissions by: European union member states and the EU-Commission, IMarest, Euromot, FOEI, WWF, Greenpeace, CESA, CSC, Korea. Including SGMF - the society for gas as a marine fuel, which together with Sea-LNG financed the Thinkstep (2019) study

5. When will decarbonized fuels become environmentally sustainable & available for shipping, i.e. even in Norway 30% of the energy consumed is fossil based

21 Source : BP (2016) Statistical Review of World Energy June-2016; IEA (2014) Energy efficiency indicators for transport

5.1 De-carbonizing shipping, LNG and LPG in combination with high pressure (diesel) dual fuel engines give GHG reductions of around 15% compared to MGO

22

5.2 De-carbonizing shipping, Biofuels and their potential

• Food-based biofuels aren’t helping very much. These biofuels offer at best modest GHG reductions compared to gasoline and diesel. At worst, they increase GHG.

• Tallow, poultry fat, and used cooking oil probably offer better GHG savings than most types of food-based biofuels, but can cause emissions from displacing other uses. The production of these materials is limited.

• Agricultural and forestry residues offer GHG savings if harvested sustainably by leaving enough material on the ground to prevent erosion and soil loss.

• Energy crops has a potential for larger GHG reductions than food-based biofuels.

• Biofuels from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) gives the largest GHG reductions, and in some studies the estimate reduction in the methane emissions from the landfils are so large that producing gives GHG of zero or less (negative values)

23

5.3 Bio-fuels and their potential impact on making shipping greener

24

5.4 DE-CARBONIZING SHIPPING, FOSSIL VERSUS GREEN HYDROGEN AND AMMONIA

25

26

28

HYDROGEN ≠ HYDROGEN

AMMONIA = HYDROGEN

31

32

• Car carrier

• Distance: 10000 NM

Weigth and Volume

33

34

35

Well-to-Wake

38

39

Low carbon fuel Electricity

Waste

40

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Replace coal power plant Replace gas power plant Replace MGO withhydrogen

Replace MGO withbattery

Redu

ced

g CO

2-eq

per

kW

h of

win

dAlternative usage 1kWh electricity from wind turbine

When should shipping become Green

42

Report delivered by the Norwegian head of goverment to UN General Secretaryon UN Climate Summit September 2019

Conclusions• There is a need for adopting policies that can reduce the broader GHG emissions of shipping

instead of CO2 only, including the well to tank emissions of ship fuels.

• If we fail to include all GHGs and focus only on CO2 we might end up with a large number of ships fulfilling all EDDI requirements, but where the GHG savings are on paper only.

• If we fail to include WTT emissions of fuels we can end up with ships powered by carbon-based (non-renewable) Hydrogen or Ammonia which are given all the benefits of having a 100 % reduction in EEDI, but which in reality increases Global GHG emissions

• Regulating the broader GHG emissions also including Black carbon will be a strong incentive for all engine manufacturers to work on engine control, engine design and after treatment of the exhaust gas to reduce un-combusted methane, black carbon and avoiding sub-optimal NOx reductions

• These conclusions are fully in line with the HLPOCC report delivered to the UN-General secretary on UN's climate summit in September 201945

Main References• Abbasov, F. (2019). LNG remains a dead-end for decarbonising maritime transport. Transport & Environment. • 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 shipping - A Review. Transportation Research Part D 52 (2017) 408 – 421• DNV-GL (2019) Maritime Forecast to 2050; DNV-GL (2019) Assessment of Alternative Fuels and Technologies• El-Houjeiri, et al. (2018). Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from marine fuels. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 32(2), 374-388. • ICCT (2020) The Climate implications of using LNG as a marine fuel, International Council on Clean Transportation• IPCC. (2013). Chapter 8 Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing in the Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working

Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/• Lindstad, E., Bø, T., I., 2018. Potential power setups, fuels and hull designs capable of satisfying future EEDI requirements. TRD 63 (2018) 276-290 • Lindstad, E. (2019). Increased use of LNG might not reduce maritime GHG emissions at all – June 2019. https://www.transportenvironment.org-

/sites/te/files/publications/2019_06_Dr_Elizabeth_Lindstad commentary_LNG_maritime_GHG_emissions.pdf• Lindstad, E., Rialland, A. (2020) LNG and Cruise Ships, a smooth way to fulfil regulations - versus the need for reducing GHG emissions. • Lindstad E, Eskeland, G., S., Valland, A., et al (2020) Best Available Engine Technology and its importance for Maritime Greenhouse Gas Reductions • Nielsen J., B, Lindstad E, Bø T, I (2020) When should shipping become Green• Stenersen, D., Thonstad, O., 2017. GHG and NOx emissions from gas fuelled Engines- Mapping, verification, reduction technologies. Sintef Ocean.

OC2017 F-108. Report for the Norwegian NOx fund (unrestricted)• Thinkstep, 2019. Life cycle GHG emission study on the use of LNG as marine fuel. Retrieved from Thinkstep: https://www.thinkstep.com/content/life-

cycle-ghg-emission-study-use-lng-marine-fuel-1• Ushakov, S., Stenersen,D., & Einang, P. (2019). Methane slip from gas fuelled ships: a comprehensive summary based on measurement data. Journal of

Marine Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-018-00622-z• Verbeek, R., et.al. 2011 Environmental and economic aspects of using LNG as a fuel for shipping in The Netherlands. TNO report TNO-RPT-2011-00166.• Verbeek, R. 2015. LNG for trucks and ships fact. TNO Report 2014 R11668 Netherlands46

Teknologi for et bedre samfunn