2009 Wartsila Dual Fuel LNGC Presentation
-
Upload
sarihaddus -
Category
Documents
-
view
76 -
download
9
description
Transcript of 2009 Wartsila Dual Fuel LNGC Presentation
-
1 Wrtsil
Wrtsil Dual-Fuel LNGC
March 2008
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
2 Wrtsil
ContentsDualDual--FuelFuel--Electric LNGCElectric LNGC
DualDual--FuelFuel--Mechanic LNGCMechanic LNGC
Components Machinery Layout Fuel flexibility Sailing scenarios
Components Machinery Layout Fuel flexibility Sailing scenarios
Comparison studyComparison study Propulsion alternatives OpEx CapEx Emissions Fuel bunkering requirements
Safety Reliability Redundancy Maintainability Crewing Summary
DFDF--M vs. DFM vs. DF--EE Advantages and disadvantages of DF-M propulsion compared to DF-E.
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
3 Wrtsil
ContentsDualDual--FuelFuel--Electric LNGCElectric LNGC
Dual-Fuel-Mechanic LNGC
Components Machinery Layout Fuel flexibility Sailing scenarios
Components Machinery Layout Fuel flexibility Sailing scenarios
Comparison study Propulsion alternatives OpEx CapEx Emissions Fuel bunkering requirements
Safety Reliability Redundancy Maintainability Crewing Summary
DF-M vs. DF-E Advantages and disadvantages of DF-M propulsion compared to DF-E.
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
4 Wrtsil
Shaft lineShaft line98% eff.98% eff.
DF-E Propulsion Components
W 12V50DF 11400 kW
W 6L50DF 5700 kW
W 12V50DF 11400 kW
W 12V50DF 11400 kW
El. MotorsEl. Motors98% eff.98% eff.
Reduction gearReduction gear99% eff.99% eff.
Trafo & conv.Trafo & conv.98% eff.98% eff.
GeneratorsGenerators97% eff.97% eff.
EnginesEngines48 % eff.48 % eff.
155000 m3 dual-fuel-electric LNG carrier(3x Wrtsil 12V50DF + 1x Wrtsil 6L50DF)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
5 Wrtsil
DF-E Machinery layout (1/2)
155000 m3 dual-fuel-electric LNG carrier(3x Wrtsil 12V50DF + 1x Wrtsil 6L50DF)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
6 Wrtsil
DF-E Fuel flexibility
DF-E propulsion plant has a complete fuel flexibility.
Gas, MDO or HFO can be selected (or re-selected) as source of energy in a fast, simple and reliable way without stopping the engines and without losses in engine speed and output.
Fuel selection can be manually or automatically controlled.
During laden voyage, ballast voyage or when at loading/unloading facilities the most economical or favourable operating mode can be chosen.
Regional emission regulations, restrictions on heavier liquid fuel utilization, fuel bunkering requirements will have low or no impact on sailing route and schedule.
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
7 Wrtsil
DF-E Sailing scenarios (1/4)
Power distribution calculation
Ship size m3 155 000Ship service speed kn 19,5Engine configuration: 1x6L50DF + 3x12V50DFPropulsion power kW 21600Ship service power kW 1500Propulsion losses kW 2400 (chain efficiency of 90%)Ship service power losses kW 46 (chain efficiency of 97%)Total required mechanical power kW 25546
All engines in operation One 6L50DF engine not connected
One 12V50DF engine not connected
Total available power kW 39900 34200 28500Propulsion power without sea margin kW 21600 21600 21600Ship service power kW 1500 1500 1500Propulsion & Aux. gen. losses kW 2446 2446 2446Extra available power kW 14354 8654 2954Sea margin kW 4536 4536 2954Sea margin % 21 21 14Power reserve kW 9818 4118 0Missing power for contractual speed kW 0 0 0Power utilized for propulsion kW 21600 21600 21600Corresponding ship speed kn 19,5 19,5 19,5
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
8 Wrtsil
DF-E Sailing scenarios (2/4)
1x6L50DF + 3x12V50DF1x6L50DF + 3x12V50DFAll engines in operation
W 12V50DF
W 6L50DF
W 12V50DF
W 12V50DF
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
P
o
w
e
r
(
k
W
)
Power reserveSea marginDrive lossesRequired ship service powerRequired propulsion power
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
9 Wrtsil
W 12V50DF
W 6L50DF
W 12V50DF
W 12V50DF
DF-E Sailing scenarios (3/4)
1x6L50DF + 3x12V50DF1x6L50DF + 3x12V50DFOne 6L50DF not connected
The vessel maintain contractual sailing speed of 19,5 kn
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
P
o
w
e
r
(
k
W
)
Power reserveSea marginDrive lossesRequired ship service powerRequired propulsion power
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
10 Wrtsil
W 12V50DF
W 6L50DF
W 12V50DF
W 12V50DF
DF-E Sailing scenarios (4/4)
1x6L50DF + 3x12V50DF1x6L50DF + 3x12V50DFOne 12V50DF not connected
The vessel maintain contractual sailing speed of 19,5 kn
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
P
o
w
e
r
(
k
W
)
Power reserveSea marginDrive lossesRequired ship service powerRequired propulsion power
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
11 Wrtsil
ContentsDual-Fuel-Electric LNGC
DualDual--FuelFuel--Mechanic LNGCMechanic LNGC
Components Machinery Layout Fuel flexibility Sailing scenarios
Components Machinery Layout Fuel flexibility Sailing scenarios
Comparison study Propulsion alternatives OpEx CapEx Emissions Fuel bunkering requirements
Safety Reliability Redundancy Maintainability Crewing Summary
DF-M vs. DF-E Advantages and disadvantages of DF-M propulsion compared to DF-E.
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
12 Wrtsil
Booster motor / PTO2000 kW
Booster motor / PTO2000 kW
W 8L50DF 7600 kW
W 8L50DF 7600 kW
W 8L50DF 7600 kW
W 8L50DF 7600 kW
DF-M Propulsion Components155000 m3 dual-fuel-electric LNG carrier
(4x Wrtsil 8L50DF + 2x Wrtsil 9L32)
Shaft linesShaft lines98% eff.98% eff.
Reduction gearsReduction gears99% eff.99% eff.
Main enginesMain engines48 % eff.48 % eff.
Aux. enginesAux. engines46 % eff.46 % eff.
W 9L32 4320 kW
W 9L32 4320 kW
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
13 Wrtsil
DF-M Machinery layout
155000 m3 dual-fuel-mechanic LNG carrier(4x Wrtsil 8L50DF + 2x Wrtsil 9L32)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
14 Wrtsil
DF-M Fuel flexibility
DF-M propulsion plant has a complete fuel flexibility.
Similarly to DF-E plant, gas, MDO or HFO can be selected with the same easiness and reliability.
Engines dont need to be stopped and do not loose power or speed when changing operating mode.
Clutch-in operation, rump-up and rump-down periods must be performed in liquid fuel mode for ensuring the fastest and most reliable result.
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
15 Wrtsil
DF-M Sailing scenarios (1/3)
Power distribution calculation
Ship size m3 155 000Ship service speed kn 19,5Engine configuration: 4x8L50DFPropulsion power kW 21600Ship service power kW 1500Propulsion losses kW 668 (chain efficiency of 97%)Ship service power losses kW 79 (chain efficiency of 95%)Total required mechanical power kW 23847
All engines in operation One 8L50DF engine not connected
Total available power kW 30400 22800Boost from booster motor kW - 2000Propulsion power without sea margin kW 21600 21600Ship service power kW 1500 1500Propulsion & Aux. gen. losses kW 747 747Extra available power kW 6553 953Sea margin kW 4536 953Sea margin % 21 4Power reserve kW 2017 0Missing power for contractual speed kW 0 0Power utilized for propulsion kW 21600 21600Corresponding ship speed kn 19,5 19,5
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
16 Wrtsil
PTO 1500 kW
4x8L50DF4x8L50DFAll engines in operation
DF-M Sailing scenarios (2/3)
W 8L50DF
W 8L50DF
W 8L50DF
W 8L50DF
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
P
o
w
e
r
(
k
W
)
Power reserveSea marginDrive lossesRequired ship service powerRequired propulsion power
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
17 Wrtsil
W 8L50DF
W 8L50DF
W 8L50DF
W 8L50DF
4x8L50DF4x8L50DFOne 8L50DF not in operationBooster from booster motor
DF-M Sailing scenarios (3/3)
The vessel maintain contractual sailing speed of 19,5 kn
Booster 2000 kW
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
P
o
w
e
r
(
k
W
)
Power reserveSea marginDrive lossesRequired ship service powerRequired propulsion power
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
18 Wrtsil
ContentsDual-Fuel-Electric LNGC
Dual-Fuel-Mechanic LNGC
Components Machinery Layout Fuel flexibility Sailing scenarios
Components Machinery Layout Fuel flexibility Sailing scenarios
Comparison studyComparison study Propulsion alternatives OpEx CapEx Emissions Fuel bunkering requirements
Safety Reliability Redundancy Maintainability Crewing Summary
DF-M vs. DF-E Advantages and disadvantages of DF-M propulsion compared to DF-E.
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
19 Wrtsil
DF-Electric
Two-stroke + reliquefaction DF-Mechanic
Steam Turbine Reheated Steam Turbine Gas Turbine + WHR
Two-stroke gas injection engine
Propulsion alternatives:
Comparison study (1/16)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
20 Wrtsil
DF-Electric
Two-stroke + reliquefaction
DF-Mechanic
Two-stroke gas injection engine
1x6L50DF+3x12V50DF 13 M
Electric Drive 9 M
Propellers, shafts, gearboxes 1,5 M
TOTAL 23,5 M
4x8L50DF + 2x9L32 (Aux) 13,5 M
2 sets of CPP+shafts+Gearboxes 6 M
TOTAL 19,5 M
2x6S70ME 8,5 M
Generating sets (4x8L32) 4 M
Reliquefaction unit 10 M
Propellers and shafts 1 M
TOTAL 23,5 M
Note: all values are estimated
Diesel engine alternatives CapEx simple comparison
Comparison study (2/16)
2x6S70ME 8,5 M
Upgrade to Gas-Injection system 1 M
Generating sets (4x8L32) 4 M
Gas compressor 9 M
Propellers and shafts 1 M
TOTAL 23,5 M
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
21 Wrtsil
Cargo capacity 155 000 m3
Boil-off rate, laden 0,13 %Boil-off rate, ballast 40 % of ladenLeg length 6500 nmService speed, laden 19,5 ktService speed, ballast 19,5 ktLoading time 15 hDischarging time 15 h
Value NBOG 2,5 US / mmBTUValue FBOG 8,29 US / mmBTUPrice HFO 470 US / ton equal to 12,3 US / mmBTUPrice MDO 780 US / ton equal to 19,3 US / mmBTUPrice MGO 820 US / tonPrice lube oil 490 US / tonPrice cylinder oil (two-stroke engine) 640 US / ton
Propeller shaft power, laden 25,0 MWPropeller shaft power, ballast 24,0 MWShip service power, laden 1,4 MW (for steam turbine vessel)Ship service power, ballast 1,3 MW (for steam turbine vessel)
Maintenance costsDF installation 4,00 US / MWhTwo-stroke + reliq. Installation 1,50 US / MWhFour-stroke auxiliary engines 4,00 US / MWhUltra Steam turbine installation 0,80 US / MWhUltra Steam generator installation 0,70 US / MWhGas turbine installation 4,50 US / MWhWHR installation (gas turbine) 0,70 US / MWh
Comparison study (3/16)Data for the calculation
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
22 Wrtsil
Fuel 100% Fuel 100% Fuel 100% Fuel 100% Fuel 100% Fuel 100% Fuel 100%
DF engine 48% DF engine 48% 2-stroke engine 49% 2-stroke engine 49% Boiler 89% Boiler 89% GT 44%
Alternator 97% Gearbox 98% Shaftline 98% Shaftline 98% Steam turbine 34% Ultra Steam turbine 39% Alternator 97%
Trafo & Converter 98% Shaftline 98% Gearbox 98% Gearbox 98% Trafo & Converter 98%
El. propulsion motor 98% Shaftline 98,0% Shaftline 98,0% El. propulsion motor 98%
Gearbox 99% Gearbox 98%
Shaftline 98% Shaftline 98%
Propulsion power efficiency 43,4%
Propulsion power efficiency 46,1%
Propulsion power efficiency 48,0%
Propulsion power efficiency 48,0%
Propulsion power efficiency 29,1%
Propulsion power efficiency 32,9%
Propulsion power efficiency 39,4%
Fuel 100% Fuel 100% Fuel 100% Fuel 100% Fuel 100% Fuel 100% Fuel 100%
Auxiliary power 48% DF engine 48% Auxiliary engine 45% Auxiliary engine 45% Boiler 89% Boiler 89% Auxiliary power 44%
Alternator 97% Gearbox 98% Alternator 96% Alternator 96% Aux. steam turbine 34% Aux. steam turbine 34% Alternator 97%
Alternator 97% Gearbox 98% Gearbox 98%
Alternator 96% Alternator 96%
Electric power efficiency 46,6%
Electric power efficiency 45,6%
Electric power efficiency 43,2%
Electric power efficiency 43,2%
Electric power efficiency 28,5%
Electric power efficiency 28,5%
Electric power efficiency 42,7%
Gas turbine combined cycleDF-Electric Steam turbine
Reheated Steam turbine2-Stroke + reliq.DF-Mechanic
2-Stroke gas diesel engine
Alternatives efficiency chains
Comparison study (4/16)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
23 Wrtsil
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200ReliquefactionShip servicePropulsion
Energy consumption
E
n
e
r
g
y
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
[
M
J
/
s
]
DF-Mechanic
DF-ElectricTwo-Stroke
+reliquefaction
Two-Stroke gas injection
Steam Turbine
Reheated Steam Turbine
Gas turbine+
WHR
Comparison study (5/16)
T
o
t
a
l
B
a
l
l
a
s
t
L
a
d
e
n
T
o
t
a
l
B
a
l
l
a
s
t
L
a
d
e
n
T
o
t
a
l
B
a
l
l
a
s
t
L
a
d
e
n
T
o
t
a
l
B
a
l
l
a
s
t
L
a
d
e
n
T
o
t
a
l
B
a
l
l
a
s
t
L
a
d
e
n
T
o
t
a
l
B
a
l
l
a
s
t
L
a
d
e
n
T
o
t
a
l
B
a
l
l
a
s
t
L
a
d
e
n
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
24 Wrtsil
DF-Electric
Two-stroke + rel. DF-Mechanic
Steam Turbine Reheated Steam Turbine Gas Turbine + WHR
Two-stroke gas injec.Na
tural-
BOG
x
Force
d-BOG
x
MDO
x
HFO
x
MGO
x
x x x x x
x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x
Fuel FlexibilityPossibility of each alternative to be operated on different fuels
Comparison study (6/16)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
25 Wrtsil
Usual operating on:
Natural-BOG + Forced-BOG
Reason for fuel selection:
High efficiency in gas mode, cleanest energy source.
Natural-BOG + Forced-BOG
HFO Only possibility. MDO not profitable.
Natural-BOG + HFO
High percentage of HFO always needed. If NBOG+FBOG selected, high amount of gas to be compressed.
No significant difference. Gas is the cleanest source of energy.Natural-BOG + Forced-BOG
No significant difference. Gas is the cleanest source of energy.Natural-BOG + Forced-BOG
Natural-BOG + Forced-BOG MGO utilization not profitable.
High efficiency in gas mode, cleanest energy source.
DF-Electric
DF-Mechanic
Two-stroke + rel.
Two-stroke gas injec.
Steam Turbine
Reheated Steam Turbine
Gas Turbine + WHR
Reasonable fuel selection
Comparison study (7/16)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
26 Wrtsil
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000Emission penaltyHFOMDO+MGOFBOGNBOGLube oilMaintenance
Operating expenses per roundtripMaximization of gas use
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
[
k
U
S
$
]
DF-Mechanic
Gas
DF-Electric
Gas
Two-Stroke +Reliquefaction
HFOTwo-Stroke gas
Injection
Gas
Steam Turbine
GasReheated Steam
Turbine
Gas
Gas turbine + WHR
Gas
Comparison study (8/16)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
27 Wrtsil
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000Emission penaltyHFOMDO+MGOFBOGNBOGLube oilMaintenance
Operating expenses per roundtripReasonable fuel selection
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
[
k
U
S
$
]
DF-Mechanic
Gas
DF-Electric
Gas
Two-Stroke +Reliquefaction
HFOTwo-Stroke gas
Injection
Gas + HFO
Steam Turbine
GasReheated Steam
Turbine
Gas
Gas turbine + WHR
Gas
Comparison study (9/16)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
28 Wrtsil
Very low emission levels: Clean burning Relatively free of contaminations Methane contains the highest amount of hydrogen per unit of energy of all fossil
fuels -> lower CO2 emissions Lean burn Otto process provides very low NOx emissions
Natural gas compared to diesel: CO emissions reduction approx. 75% CO2 emissions reduction approx. 20% NOx emissions reduction approx. 80% No SOx emissions Benzene emissions reduction approx. 97% No lead emissions Less particle emissions No visible smoke
Comparison study (10/16)
Methane (CH4 )
H
H
H HC Ethane (C2 H6 )
H
H HC
HHH
C
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
29 Wrtsil
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%S0xN0xCO2
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
[
-
]
Reference values
DF-Mechanic
Gas
DF-Electric
Gas
Two-Stroke +Reliquefaction
HFOTwo-Stroke gas
Injection
Gas
Steam Turbine
GasReheated Steam
Turbine
Gas
Gas turbine + WHR
Gas
EmissionsMaximization of gas use
Comparison study (11/16)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
30 Wrtsil
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%S0xN0xCO2
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
[
-
]
Reference values
DF-Mechanic
Gas
DF-Electric
Gas
Two-Stroke +Reliquefaction
HFOTwo-Stroke gas
Injection
Gas + HFO
Steam Turbine
GasReheated Steam
Turbine
Gas
Gas turbine + WHR
Gas
EmissionsReasonable fuel selection
Comparison study (12/16)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
31 Wrtsil
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
HFO used per year
MDO used per year
DF-Mechanic
Gas
DF-Electric
Gas
Two-Stroke +Reliquefaction
HFOTwo-Stroke gas
Injection
Gas
Steam Turbine
GasReheated Steam
Turbine
Gas
Gas turbine + WHR
Gas
Yearly bunkering requirementsMaximization of gas use
B
u
n
k
e
r
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
[
k
t
o
n
/
y
e
a
r
]
Comparison study (13/16)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
32 Wrtsil
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
HFO used per year
MDO used per year
DF-Mechanic
Gas
DF-Electric
Gas
Two-Stroke +Reliquefaction
HFOTwo-Stroke gas
Injection
Gas + HFO
Steam Turbine
GasReheated Steam
Turbine
Gas
Gas turbine + WHR
Gas
Yearly bunkering requirementsReasonable fuel selection
B
u
n
k
e
r
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
[
k
t
o
n
/
y
e
a
r
]
Comparison study (14/16)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
33 Wrtsil
A safety concept has been developed by Wrtsil for the applications of dual-fuel engines on LNGCs.
The safety concept describes the required measures to make dual-fuel LNGCs as safe as steam turbine LNGCs.
The safety concept has been approved in principle by all major classification societies.
Additionally, many HazId, HazOp and FMEA analyses have been successfully carried out.
Low pressure gas admission ensures safe operation on gas in every sailing condition.
The dual-fuel engines have inherited reliability from the diesel engines from which they are derived.
Additionally, experience have been gained through the field operation of already sailing Dual-Fuel-Electric LNGC.
Electric propulsion systems featuring multiple generating sets are state-of-the-art with respect to redundancy.
Dual-Fuel-Mechanic alternative imply a high level of redundancy as well, thanks to the multiple engine installation.
Safety, reliability and redundancy
Comparison study (15/16)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
34 Wrtsil
Dual-fuel engines require substantially less maintenance than diesel engines when running predominantly on gas.
Additionally, the Dual-Fuel machinery concept allows for single engines to be taken out of operation without significantly affecting the ships performance.
Dual-fuel engines can be operated by regular diesel engine crews with decent training.
No exceptional skills are required as no high pressure steam/gas is present onboard.
Maintainability and crewing
Comparison study (16/16)
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
35 Wrtsil
Comparison study - Summary
Gas Turbine +
WHR
Dual-Fuel Mechanic
Dual-Fuel Electric
Reheated Steam turbine
Steam Turbine
Two Stroke gas diesel
Two Stroke +
reliquefaction
Maintainability
Crewing
Redundancy
Reliability
Safety
Fuel bunkering req.
Emissions
OpEx
CapEx 3
1
1
1
4
4
3
3
5
4
4
3
3
1
3
3
3
4
5
2
1
5
4
5
3
5
3
4
3
2
5
4
5
3
5
3
3
4
5
5
5
4
5
3
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
3
5
2
3
3
5
3
4
3
4
4
Total 25 28 33 34 39 41 31
5.Good
1.Bad
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
36 Wrtsil
ContentsDual-Fuel-Electric LNGC
Dual-Fuel-Mechanic LNGC
Components Machinery Layout Fuel flexibility Sailing scenarios
Components Machinery Layout Fuel flexibility Sailing scenarios
Comparison study Propulsion alternatives OpEx CapEx Emissions Fuel bunkering requirements
Safety Reliability Redundancy Maintainability Crewing Summary
DFDF--M vs. DFM vs. DF--EE Advantages and disadvantages of DF-M propulsion compared to DF-E.
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
37 Wrtsil
DF-Electric Vs. DF-Mechanic (1/2)
Dual-Fuel-Electric has
High efficiency with engines running always at high loads The constant load entails less thermal load and, therefore, less wear of components Fixed pitch propeller can be used with consequent reduction in capital cost and in propeller maintenance
Auxiliaries engines are not needed
Full torque at zero load given by electric motors Reduction gear doesnt need any clutch with derived more simple construction and lessmaintenance required
The maintenance can be carried out in an easier way as engines are not coupled with the reduction gear
Very good operational characteristics at ice on in difficult sea conditions
Economical advantages
Operational advantages
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
38 Wrtsil
DF-Electric Vs. DF-Mechanic (2/2)
Dual-Fuel-Mechanic has
High efficiency of the complete propulsion system with consequent lower OpEx Smaller investment cost. Electric motors, frequency converters, transformers and large switchboards are not needed
Save in space and weight as all electric drives are not needed. Higher cargo capacity At harbour auxiliary engines can run at high load with high efficiency and low SFOC
Smaller propulsion engines are needed. The maintenance can be faster and cheaper
When an engine is under maintenance, PTO can be used as boost
Simpler and smaller automation system.
Simple power management system for auxiliary engines
Economical advantages
Operational advantages
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
-
39 Wrtsil
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!For more information, please contact your local Wrtsil representative or visit wartsila.com
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
Wrtsil Dual-Fuel LNGCContentsContentsDF-E Propulsion ComponentsDF-E Machinery layout (1/2) DF-E Fuel flexibilitySlide Number 7Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10ContentsDF-M Propulsion ComponentsDF-M Machinery layoutDF-M Fuel flexibilitySlide Number 15DF-M Sailing scenarios (2/3)DF-M Sailing scenarios (3/3)ContentsComparison study (1/16)Comparison study (2/16)Comparison study (3/16)Comparison study (4/16)Comparison study (5/16)Comparison study (6/16)Comparison study (7/16)Comparison study (8/16)Comparison study (9/16)Comparison study (10/16)Comparison study (11/16)Comparison study (12/16)Comparison study (13/16)Comparison study (14/16)Comparison study (15/16)Comparison study (16/16)Comparison study - SummaryContentsDF-Electric Vs. DF-Mechanic (1/2)DF-Electric Vs. DF-Mechanic (2/2)Slide Number 39