Technical)review) Catalogue) of#redu · PDF fileTechnical)review) –!Catalogue) ......

Technical review – Catalogue of reduction technologies This technical review is the appendix 2 to the report “Grøn Profil for Kommunale Færger” (Green Profile for Municipal Ferries). It considers air emission technologies and their applicability to Danish ferries. It reviews abatement technologies and presents cost calculations for installment, operation and the associated reduction potential for the respective technologies.

Danish Environmental Protection Agency

Picture: Kai W. Mosgaard

Miljøstyrelsen TECHNICAL REVIEW – CATALOGUE OF REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES

1 LITEHAUZ September 2013

ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 2 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3 2 LONG LIST ......................................................................................................... 4 3 SHORT LIST CRITERIA ........................................................................................ 6 3.1 Existing Regulation on Air Emissions for Ships Trading in Danish Waters ............. 6 3.1.1 Regulation of NOx ................................................................................................. 6 3.1.2 Regulation of SOx .................................................................................................. 7 3.1.3 Ozone Depleting Substances ................................................................................. 7 3.1.4 CO2 emissions ........................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Technology Availability .......................................................................................... 8 3.3 Short List of Technologies ..................................................................................... 8 3.3.1 NOx Reduction Technologies ................................................................................ 9 3.3.2 SOx Reduction Technologies ................................................................................. 9 3.3.3 CO2 reduction technologies ................................................................................. 10 3.3.4 Other emission parameters ................................................................................. 10 3.3.5 Operational measures ......................................................................................... 10 4 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND COST ........................................................... 11 4.1 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) ..................................................................... 11 4.2 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) ......................................................................... 12 4.3 Scrubbers ............................................................................................................. 13 4.4 Biofuel ................................................................................................................. 13 4.5 Liqified Natural Gas (LNG) ................................................................................... 15 4.6 Slow steaming ..................................................................................................... 16 5 EXAMPLES OF TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION ..................................................... 18 5.1 Choice of ferries .................................................................................................. 18 5.2 Feasibility of technologies for example ferries ................................................... 19 5.3 Cost Calculations ................................................................................................. 20 5.4 Reduction reductions .......................................................................................... 21 6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX A -‐ LONG LIST ................................................................................. 27 APPENDIX B – PLOT OF FERRIES ...................................................................... 31



Abbreviations BC Black carbon B20 Conventional fuel blended with 20% biofuel B100 100% biofuel CAPEX Capital expenditures CASS Combustion Air Saturation System CO2 Carbon dioxide DME Dimethyl ether DWI Direct Water Injection DPF Diesel particulate filters ECA Emission control area EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation FBC Fluidized Bed Combustion GHG Green House Gases HAM Humid Air Motors HFC Hydrofluorocarbons HFO Heavy fuel oil ICR Intercooler Recuperative gas turbine IEM-‐ADV Internal engine Modifications -‐ Advanced IEM-‐SV Internal engine Modifications -‐ Slide Valves IMO International Maritime Organization LNG Liquefied Natural Gas MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships MDO Marine distillate oil MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee MCR Maximum Capacity Rating MW Megawatt NA Not available NECA Nitrogen oxides Emission Control Area NOx Nitrogen oxides NR Not reported ODS Ozone Depleting Substances OPEX Operating expenditures PACR Plasma assisted Catalytic Reduction PM Particulate matter REFS Renewable Energy from Shore SCR Selective catalytic reduction SECA Sulphur Oxide Emission Control Area SEEMP Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan SFOC Specific fuel oil consumption SHS Scrubber High Sulphur SLS Scrubber Low Sulphur SOx Mono-‐sulphur oxides SNCR Selective Non Catalytic Reduction SSDR Slow-‐steaming de-‐rating ULSD Ultra-‐low sulphur diesel VOC Volatile organic compound WIF Water in Fuel systems or Water in Fuel Emulsions



1 Introduction This technical report is the appendix 2 to the report “Grøn Profil for Kommunale Færger” (Green Profile for Municipal Ferries). It considers air emission technologies and their applicability to Danish ferries. It reviews abatement technologies and presents cost calculations for installment, operation and the associated reduction potential for the respective technologies.



2 Long List A number of scientific articles and reviews have been investigated to produce a long list of abatement technologies for reducing emissions to air in ships. The long list is presented in Table 2. The technologies on the Long List are given colour codes according their ability to generate reductions beyond the current compliance level, see Table 1. A full long list with references are given in the Appendix.

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4

NOx ≥80% (comply with Tier III)

50-‐80% (comply with Tier II)

20-‐50% (comply with Tier II)

>0-‐20% (does not comply with Tier II)

SOx >90 % 60-‐90 % 40-‐60% >0-‐40 %

CO2 >30% 20-‐30% 10-‐20% >0-‐10%

PM >80% 60-‐80% 25-‐60% >0-‐25%

BC >80% 60-‐80% 30-‐60% >0-‐30%

VOC >80% 60-‐80% 30-‐60% >0-‐30%

GHG >50% 30-‐50% 10-‐30% >0-‐10%

For all emissions, red indicates an increase in emissions or no change.

Table 1 Color codes for long list

technologies



Technology Fuel

savings (%)

VOC (%)

NOx (%)

SOx CO2 (%)

GHG (%)

PM (%)

BC (%)

Available <5 years

Retofit/

newbuild

Post engine technologies

Diesel Particle filter (DPF) -‐ -‐ 0 0 -‐3.5 -‐ 85 85-‐99 No R & N

Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) -‐4 -‐ 35 -‐80 0-‐19 NR -‐ 40 -‐ 58 0 Yes N

Plasma Assisted Catalytic Reduction (PACR) -‐ -‐ 80-‐97 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ No

Scrubber Low Sulfur (SLS) -‐ -‐ Y, No 90-‐95(a) -‐3 -‐ 75(a)-‐80 37.5 Yes R & N

Scrubber High Sulfur (SHS) -‐ -‐ Y, No 90-‐95(a) -‐3 -‐ 75(a)-‐80 60 Yes

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) -‐ -‐ < 95 0 NR -‐ 25 -‐ 45 >35 Yes R & N

Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) -‐ -‐ 50 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ Yes R & N

Fuel switching

Biofuel -‐ -‐ -‐47.1 to

-‐1.6 20 -‐ 100 40-‐85(b) -‐ 25 -‐ Yes

Dimethyl Ether (DME) -‐ -‐ 35 -‐ 95(b) -‐ 97 -‐ No

Fuel cells/Hydrogen -‐

< 100 100 20 -‐ 100 -‐ 100 100 No

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) -‐ 50 60-‐90 90-‐100 22.5 0-‐25 < 99 93.5 Yes

Renewable energy from shore (REFS) -‐ 94 97 -‐ -‐ -‐ 94 -‐ NR R & N

Solar energy Few % -‐ -‐ -‐ 1-‐2 -‐ -‐ -‐ NR

Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel (ULSDF) -‐ -‐ -‐ 90 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ NR R & N

Wind power 5 -‐20 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ NR R & N

Wave power Limited -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ NR

Combustion modification

Combustion Air Saturation System (CASS) -‐ -‐ 30-‐60 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ No

Direct Water Injection (DWI) -‐ -‐ 42-‐60 -‐ -‐2-‐0 -‐ < 50 -‐ Yes R & N

Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC) -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ No

Humid Air Motors (HAM) -‐ -‐ 30 -‐ 70 -‐ -‐ -‐ < 50 -‐ NR R & N

Internal Engine Modifications -‐ Slide Valves -‐ 50 30 -‐ 0 -‐ 80 25 Yes R & N

Intercooler Recuperative gas turbine (ICR) 25-‐30 -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ NR N

Limestone 50-‐60 NR

Water in Fuel (WIF) -‐ -‐ 20-‐55 Yes 0 -‐ 30 70 Yes R & N

Operational measures

Slow steaming(c) (no derating/re-‐tuning) 7-‐25 7-‐25 -‐30 -‐ 0 Yes

Slow steaming(c) (with derating/re-‐tuning) 8-‐29 8-‐29 0-‐30 Yes (a) Only stated for scrubber in general, (b) If produced from biomass, (c) engine load from 100% to 40%, (d) 100% biofuel (B100)

Table 2 Long List of reduction technologies (R= retrofit, N= newbuild), simplified version. The full long list with references is

presented in Appendix A. NR = not reported



3 Short List Criteria The technologies on the long list are evaluated with regards to reduction potential, maturity and uptake time. In order to be shortlisted:

• The reduction potential will have to exceed the required compliance levels in existing regulation (and near future compliance requirements, i.e. SOx in 2015, Tier III NOx reduction in 2016 and CO2 reduction in 2015)

• The technology needs to be commercially available and implementable

within a five-‐year timeframe.

3.1 Existing Regulation on Air Emissions for Ships Trading in Danish Waters

The existing and planned regulations on air emissions, for ships trading in Danish waters, are governed by the IMO International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ship (MARPOL 73/78), which entered into force in May 2005. MARPOL comprises six Annexes with Annex VI covering the prevention of air pollution from ships. There is a number of specific provisions in MARPOL relating to the area to which the regulation applies (e.g. within or outside of 12 nm, in special areas, in ports with reception facilities) and to the timing of the implementation as governed e.g. by the ship’s year of build and size class. The emission parameters, which are regulated comprise: nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphuric oxides (SOx), ozone depleting substances ODS and CO2. There is currently no direct regulation in Denmark concerning particulate matter (PM)1 in emissions from ships or volatile organic compounds (VOC)2 as well as green house gasses (GHG) apart from those covered under ODS, SEEMP and EEDI (see section 3.1.4).

3.1.1 Regulation of NOx

NOx reduction from shipping is addressed in Regulation 13 under MARPOL Annex VI. The regulation applies a three-‐levelled tiered approach, where compliance requirements with Tier I and Tier II are already in force. Tier III requirements will enter into force in 2016, however the compliance date is subject to a technical review (to be concluded 2013) and could be delayed. Tier III applies for ships operating in NOx Emission Control Areas (NECAs) that fall under the following categories: 1) built on or after the 1st of January 2016, 2) of 400 gross tonnage or above and 3) with an engine power output of more than 130 kW. The Danish waters comprise parts of the OSPAR and HELCOM areas (North Sea and Baltic Sea3). The OSPAR and HELCOM areas do not have NECA status, though work is beeing undertaken to apply for such in both areas. There is at this point no affirmative information on when and if the status for these areas will change in the near future following the discussion of NECAs at MEPC 65 in May 2013.

1 PMs are indirectly addressed under SOx regulation. 2 Except for tankers under MARPOL Annex VI 3 Baltic Sea are in the context of HELCOM understood as also comprising Kattegat and Belt Sea



In 2009, MEPC approved an application from USA and Canada to designate North American waters as SECA and NECA from 2016.

3.1.2 Regulation of SOx

SOx reduction is addressed in Regulation 14 under MARPOL Annex VI. The emission requirements are linked to the sulphur content in fuels. From 2012 is the sulphur content limit in fuels globally <3.5% and from 2010 <1% in SOx Emission Control Areas (SECAs). Both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea have status as SECA (from 2007 and 2006, respectively (IMO, 2013b)). Specifically, ships at berth in EU harbours and in canals have been regulated since 2010 and must comply with a 0.1% sulfur limit (EU directive 2005/33/EC, 2005). The same sulfur content limit of 0.1% will apply also for SECA waters in 2015.

3.1.3 Ozone Depleting Substances

The use of ODS is addressed in Regulation 12 under MARPOL Annex VI and applies to all equipment not permanently sealed. Installation of equipment containing ODS (except HCFCs) on ships constructed on or after May 19th 2005 is prohibited. HCFCs will be prohibited on ships constructed on or after 2020. Coming EU legislation will from 2014 strengthen ODS regulation on EU flagged ships prohibiting service on equipment containing ODS, though still allowing the equipment to stay on board.

3.1.4 CO2 emissions

Regulation of CO2 emissions is included in MARPOL Annex VI under the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and the Ship energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP). The regulation applies to all new ships constructed on or after 1st of January 2013 as well as for existing ships, which undergo a major conversion. EEDI regulates new ships to be more energy efficient (less polluting) with regards to design, equipment and engines. The EEDI provides a specific figure for an individual ship design, expressed in grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per ship’s capacity-‐mile. (IMOc, 2011). The EEDI requires step-‐wise improvements to the energy efficiency of new build ships, starting at 10% reduction in CO2 per tonne-‐mile from 2015, increasing to 20% and 30% from 2020 and 2025, respectively. The Ship energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) is mandatory for all existing and new ships over 400 GT from January 2013 (MEPC.203(62), 2011). The SEEMP is an operational measure that establishes a mechanism to improve the energy efficiency of a ship in a cost-‐effective manner; however, it does not apply any reductions requirements.



*HFCs: Hydrofluorocarbons

3.2 Technology Availability

The technologies are assessed with regards to commercial availability and with an implementation horizon within five years. Prior use as abatement technologies in the maritime sector is also a necessity, as maritime applications need to be type approved prior to use.

3.3 Short List of Technologies

The following technologies listed below are chosen for further assessment, based on the Short List criteria described in section 3. The shortlisted technologies are all suited for being installed as either newbuilds or retrofits, except EGR, which is integrated into the engine and is therefore only installed on new engines. Though slow steaming is not a technology but an operational measure, it is also included as a significant reduction of emissions is obtained as a consequence of less use of fuel. Engine modifications are not addressed as separate abatement measures, as none of the modifications can reach or exceed emission compliance levels for NOx, SOx or CO2 by themself.4 In the cases where an abatement technology on the short list results in a rise in other emissions, potential mitigating engine modifications are mentioned. A description o the selected technologies are given in section 4.

• SCR • ERG • Scrubber

4 Pers. Com. Man Diesel

Emission Applicable 1/1/2013 1/1/2015 1/1/2016 1/1/2020 1/1/2025

NOx NECA Tier II, 20% reduction -‐

Tier III, 80% reduction

-‐ -‐

Global Tier II, 20% reduction -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

SOx SECA – berth/ canals

<0.1% sulfur content in fuel

-‐ -‐ -‐

SECA – open waters

<1% sulfur content in fuel

<0.1% sulfur content in fuel

-‐ -‐ -‐

ODS Global ODS prohibited except HFCs*

-‐ -‐

HFCs* prohibited

-‐

Denmark All ODS prohibited

CO2 SEEMP EEDI: 10% reduction

-‐ EEDI: 20% reduction

EEDI: 30% reduction

PM No specific regulation (indirectly regulated under SOx) VOC No regulation GHG No further regulation, follow EEDI and SEEMP

Table 3

Existing regulation on air emissions for

trading in Danish waters.



• LNG • Biofuel • Slow steaming

It should be noted that a couple of current projects also consider or are in the process of installing of battery packs. These will be charged with surplus energy during the voyage and used as required. The routes include Spodsbjerg-‐Tårs, where a combination of LNG and battery use is investigated and the international routes Rødby-‐Puttgarten and Helsingør-‐Helsingborg. Smaller ferries may be particularly adapted for using land-‐based power for this purpose, but this application is not exempted from tax and levies, as is bunker oil. The batteries must work with diesel-‐electric engines and this limits the applicability for the current ferries and since only very limited information is available on investment and operational costs no calculations have been made in present report. The technology may present a promising way forward for new ferries or retrofit.

3.3.1 NOx Reduction Technologies

The short listed NOx reducing technologies are presented in Table 4. Though EGR currently does not exceed the compliance requirements of an 80% reduction (Tier III) an initial assessment is included, as it is uncertain when (and if) the waters, in which the Danish ferries trade, are assigned status as NECA. The technology will in the meantime reduce NOx more than required (-‐20%) and at the same time be sufficient to comply with Tier III. The technology can, however, not be retrofitted and is only considered applicable when a new engine is installed. Newer two stroke engines may have EGR integrated. No calculations are therefore included with regards to EGR.

Technology NOx reduction potential Available <5 years

EGR 35-‐80% Yes SCR Up to 95% Yes

LNG 60-‐90% Yes

3.3.2 SOx Reduction Technologies

The Baltic Sea and the North Sea have status as SECAs and the current sulphur content limit in fuels is limited to 1% when sailing in open waters. As the sulphur limit of 0.1% applies from January 1st 2015 only the technologies that performs better than the 2015 requirement are included. The shortlisted SOx reduction technologies are presented in Table 5.

Technology SOx reduction potential Available <5 years

Scrubbers 90-‐95% Yes

Biofuel 20-‐ 100% Yes

LNG 90-‐100% Yes

Table 5

Short listed SOx reduction technologies.

Table 4

Short listed NOx reduction technologies.



3.3.3 CO2 reduction technologies

The EEDI requires a 10% reduction of CO2 by 2015, which will increase to 30% by 2025. All the CO2 reduction abatement technologies, which live up to the short list criteria could be included, however, the requirements do only apply for new ships. In order to include CO2 reducing technologies that comply with the 2020 target are chosen for the short list. These are presented in Table 6. DME, which is not included, is a new promising technology currently under testing. It has been assessed that it will not be available in commercial form in less than five years. It may, however, be available for pilot tests.

Technology CO2 reduction potential Available <5 years

Biofuel 40-‐85% Yes

LNG 22.5% Yes

3.3.4 Other emission parameters

Particulate matter (PM) is also an emission of concern and PM is briefly covered here as it is addressed indirectly under MARPOL SOx regulation. SOx constitute a large fraction of the PM emission and can therefore be reduced by use of scrubbers (see technology description on scrubbers in section 4.3) and with a more general technology, the diesel particulate filters (DPFs). DPF systems are very efficient at the removal of PM as well as BC and the use has been successful on inland waterway vessels and on highway trucks (LITEHAUZ, 2012). However, commercial use of DPFs on the open water fleet has yet to be seen. Reductions of PM emissions are not assessed further as a separate emission parameter in the present report since it is not regulated for ships. DPF may reduce PMs up to 85% and up to 80% may be achieved when using scrubbers.

3.3.5 Operational measures

Slow steaming is not a technology as such, but it should be considered a “low hanging fruit” with regards to reduction of emissions, as even a small reduction in speed will contribute positively to most of the emissions, hereunder specifically SOx, NOx and CO2. However, the options for slow steaming are heavily influenced by the actual engine, its condition and the load during operations.

Technology NOx SOx CO2 reduction potential

Available <5 years

Slow steaming* Follow fuel reduction**

Follow fuel reduction

Follow fuel reduction Yes

*With a 5% reduction in speed ** Can result in a slight increase due to incomplete combustion, however this is dependent on level of reduction and specific engine.

Table 6

Short listed CO2 reduction technologies.

Table 7

Reduction potentials from slow

steaming



4 Technology Description and Cost The technology descriptions were compiled from a host of pier reviewed and official reports, as well as information from manufacturers. The website retro-‐fitting.dk has also been consulted. Once installed, the abatement measures do not require additional crew competencies, except LNG for which an estimated 10% additional crewing cost is required due to the complexity and safety requirements of the systems.

4.1 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is a NOx reduction technology that treats the exhaust gas with an additive. The additive is ammonia or urea, which is fed through a catalytic converter at a temperature of 300 to 400 oC. The chemical reaction is selective and reduces the NOx with more than the required 80%. The side effects such as oxidation of sulphur dioxide to sulphur trioxide will be suppressed in the catalytic process (MAN Diesel & Turbo, 2013). About fifteen gram of urea is needed per kWh energy from the engine to obtain a 90% NOx reduction (EEB et al., 2004; Andreoni et al., 2008). The catalyst will also reduce noise with up to 10 – 35 dBA (Lövblad and Fridell, 2006). The equipment comprises a catalyst reactor and a urea storage tank as well as premixing and injection systems, with a footprint of around 50 – 100 m3 (Lövblad and Fridell, 2006), though primarily associated with the urea tank. The lifetime of the SCR catalyst depends on the sulphur content of the fuel. SO3 is formed during combustion, which combined with ammonia creates ammonium bisulphate that sticks to the surface of the catalyst and air heater. This causes major clogging problems of the catalyst (Gutberlet et al., no date) greatly affecting the lifetime of the technology. In general the case is that the higher the sulphur content, the shorter the lifetime of the catalyst. SCR Systems treating exhaust gasses, from engines running on heavy fuel oil, may need replacement of the catalyst after approximately 40,000 hours of operation (4.5 years) (Andreoni et al., 2008). Even systems treating exhaust gas from fuel containing 1.5% sulphur could require catalyst replacement every five years (Lövblad & Fridell 2006). Low sulphur systems (max 0.2%) may run for a considerably longer time without replacement of the catalyst; e.g. the ship Aurora of Helsingborg in Sweden operated with the same SCR catalyst installed in 1992 using fuel with sulfur content of <0.1% (SMA, 2006). SCR catalysts, which operate with high sulphur content, are in the development phase. The estimated lifetime of other components than the catalyst itself ranges from to 12.5 years (Entec, 2005), up to 15-‐25 years (Wärtsilla in Kali et al., 2010). Usually more than 20,000 hours of SCR operation are guarantied (Lövblad and Fridell, 2006). For a retrofit, the capital expenditures are estimated to range between 60 to 100 EUR/kW (Lövblad and Fridell, 2006). The highest cost burden lies within the operational cost, which is around 3.5 to 4.2 EUR/MWh. The cost is mainly related to the procurement of urea. Urea is a common commodity and therefore easily



obtainable. The specific Fuel Oil Consumption (SFOC) penalty is 1-‐2 g/kWh (MST, 2012). See table below for an overview of costs.

Cost SCR (4stroke) Medium rpm range Unit

Capital expenditure (retrofit) 60-‐100 EUR/kW Operational expenditure 3.5-‐4.2 EUR/kWh SFOC penalty 1-‐2 g/kWh

4.2 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR)

Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is an after-‐treatment of emissions that recirculates the exhaust gas into the charge air. The process lowers the oxygen content in the cylinder and increases the specific heat capacity of the air, which results in a reduction of the amount of NOx generated during combustion (MAN Diesel & Turbo 2013). There is certain limitations associated with the technology: EGR is only available for ships using 0.2% sulphur marine distillate (Andreoni et al., 2008), unless a SOx scrubber is also installed before the EGR, but most important with regards to applicability to Danish ferries, the EGR cannot in practice be retrofitted and may be installed with a new EGR fitted engine. It should be noted that in the case were a new engine is installed it should following MARPOL Annex VI and comply with the NOx emission requirements which is applicable at the time of installation. There is a minor increase in fuel consumption associated with the technology. The lifetime is estimated to 30 years (interview with MAN Diesel and Turbo5, CIMAC, 2012; Khalilarya et al., 2012). The cost of the EGR equipment ranges from 32-‐39 EUR/kW (for use on a 4-‐stroke engine at 400-‐1,600 rpm) and an installation cost of 10 EUR/kW. This gives a total capital expenditure of 46-‐55 EUR/kW. Operational expenditures are estimated to 5-‐8% of the fuel cost, which comes from the SFOC penalty (MST, 2012).

EGR Amount Unit

Capital expenditure 46-‐55 EUR/kW

Equipment 36-‐45 EUR/kW

Installation 10 EUR/kW

Operational expenditure 5-‐8 % of fuel costs

SFOC penalty See operational expenditures

5 Interview with Fahimi, Sulai, cited in icct (2012).

Table 8

Cost of selective catalytic reduction as

abatement technology.

Table 9

Cost of EGR as abatement technology.



4.3 Scrubbers

Scrubbing is an after-‐treatment of emissions, reducing SOx by washing it out of the exhaust gas. Several types of scrubbers exist, hereunder seawater scrubbers and freshwater scrubbers in different constellations; open loop systems, closed loop systems, hybrids (both closed and open). Seawater water scrubbers use no additives when in open loop mode, but utilize the alkalinity (HCO3

-‐) in the seawater to neutralise the sulphur oxides in the exhaust gas. The chemical reactions between SO2 and the bicarbonate result in formation of sulphates, which are re-‐circulated back into the sea with the scrubber water. When trading in low alkaline water or in freshwater, a closed loop scrubber may be used adding a caustic soda (NaOH) solution to aid the neutralization of the sulphur (CNSS, 2011). Sludge is generated during the operation of the scrubber, which will need to be handled, i.e. delivered to a port reception facility. The SOx reduction is almost proportional to the SO2 content of the fuel used (Hansen, 2012) and up to a 95% reduction can be obtained. Reductions of PMs are also obtained (up to 80%) as well as reduction of black carbon of over 30%. According to Hansen (2012): “The CO2 content in the exhaust gas is almost constant (4.3%), though a slight increase (+3%) has been seen (Litehauz, 2012). The cost of installing a scrubber is highly dependent on ship and engine type and type of scrubber. Scrubber cost for a retrofit case is estimated to 280 EUR/kW for a retrofit case incl. offhire and drydocking (MST, 2012). Operational costs are estimated to 3% of newbuild cost for small ships (<6000kW), 2% for medium ships (≥6,000 to <15,000 kW) and 1% for large ships (≥15,000 kW) (Entec, 2005).

Scrubber Amount Unit

Scrubber cost (newbuild) 250 EUR/kW

Scrubber cost (retrofit) 280 EUR/kW

Operational costs – ships <6000kW 3 % of newbuild

Operational costs – ships ≥6,000 to <15,000 kW

2 % of newbuild

Operational costs – ships ≥15,000 kW 1 % of newbuild

4.4 Biofuel

Biofuel can be used as a fuel switch option. There are basically two types of biofuels on the market, “first generation” biofuels and “second generation” biofuels. The first generation biofuels are produced from vegetable, sugar starch, or animal fats. The second generation biofuels are made from lignocellulosic biomass (dry biomass such residual non-‐food crops, non-‐food parts of current crops (leaves, stems), and industry waste. First-‐generation biofuels have been criticized for being unsustainable because

Table 10

Cost of scrubber as abatement

technology.



the production threatens food supply, water resources and biodiversity (IMO, 2009). A “third-‐ generation” biofuel is under way using algae as basis but this technology is still in the development phase (IMO, 2009). Biofuels can be used as fuel in ships with no or minimal adjustment of the engine. However, biodiesel and crude vegetable oil seem to be the most promising. Potential alternatives could be pyrolysis oil, rape oil, soya oil, residual oils, palm oil or sunflower oil. For replacing marine distillates, biodiesel is most suitable, while for replacing residual fuels (e.g. HFO) vegetable oil is most suitable (Opdal and Hojem, 2007). Thorough cleaning and gas freeing of fuel tanks is necessary when using blends of 5% biofuel or more. 100% biofuel (B100) require special handling and fuel management and potentially also additional equipment and modifications to the engine, such as the use of heaters and new seals and gaskets that come in contact with the fuel. One of the drawbacks of B100 is that it gels at lower temperatures than most diesel fuels, meaning a rise in viscosity, which can lead to clogging of the filters or eventually cause problems with the pumping of fuel from the tank to the engine (Nayyar, 2010). It is estimated that it is not economically realistic to substitute conventional fuels with 100% biofuel within a timeframe of 5 years. It is considered more realistic that a 20% (B20) biofuel blend with conventional fuel (MDO) may be used at present time. Biofuels are classified to be carbon-‐free in the EU emissions trading scheme and the use of B20 will therefore act to comply with requirements under the EEDI scheme (10% reduction of CO2 for new ships in 2015). In 2020 where a 20% reduction is needed it may be possible to raise the biofuel content further to exceed compliance with 2020 requirements. A B20 mix will not comply with the coming SOx limits (<0.1%) when mixed with HFO but may be used in combination with a fuel that complies with the existing regulations to exceed compliance levels. The use of biofuels has been reported to lead to an increase in NOx emissions; however, NOx generation can be reduced with engine optimisation such as fuel injection rate and timing, (IMO, 2009), split injection (Hajbabaei et al., 2012), and EGR, though the latter will require a instalment of new engine. According to Nayyar (2010) the effect of biodiesel on NOx emissions can vary with engine design, calibration and test cycle. At present time the data available indicates that a rise in NOx emissions are between 1.5%-‐6.9% (Hajbabaei et al., 2012) when using B20. The capital expenditures related to biofuels are limited and comprise an initial cleaning of the tank. “The Washington State Ferries Biodiesel Research and Demonstration Project” has tested cleaning by wiping the tank walls with B100. The costs reported were 160 EUR/m3 of tank capacity (WST, 2004). For a B20 mix, instalment of heaters and change of seals and gaskets is not considered to be a requisite. Microbial growth leading to formation of sludge, clogging the filtration system, was experienced on B20 blend trials of three ferries. The sludge problem was solved by application of a biocide in the fuel (WST, 2004).



The added operational expenditures from the B20 biofuel compared to MDO are 6 EUR/tonnes.6 In addition are maintenance costs, as well as the potential adding of biocides, however there is not sufficient data available to quantify maintenance costs. It is, though, expected that maintenance costs will increase significantly in commercial marine applications where biofuels are used (Nayyar, 2010). B100 biodiesel contains 8 – 11% less energy than conventional diesel (Petzold et al., 2011; Wue et al., 2011, US-‐EPA, 2002, Jayaram et al., 2011) and fuel consumption will therefore increase by the same amount.

Biofuel Amount Unit

MDO 818 EUR/tonnes Biodiesel (B20) 824 EUR/tonnes

Price difference from MDO 6 EUR/tonnes

Tank cleaning 160 EUR/m3 tank capacity SFOC penalty (B100) 8 -‐ 11 %

4.5 Liqified Natural Gas (LNG)

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is an alternative fuel, which MAINLY REDUCES emission of NOx, SOx and CO2. As a natural gas, it is comprised of methane (predominant component), ethane and small amounts of heavy hydrocarbons. LNG is stored as a liquid at -‐162°C. The LNG engines for ships are either mono-‐type engines, which solely use LNG as fuel, or dual fuel-‐type engines that can switch between conventional fuel and LNG. LNG dual fuel systems, with diesel electric propulsion units for better efficiency, are used on vessels with short journey times such as e.g. ferries, cruise liners, and supply vessels. LNG tankers commonly use dual fuel system on 4-‐stroke engines. Two-‐stroke engines are a recent contribution where both MAN Diesel and Wartsila have announced that they have LNG-‐powered two-‐stroke engines available for marine propulsion (Litehauz, 2012). SOx can be reduced by up to 100%, NOx by 90% and CO2 by approximately 20%. Other emission parameters include reduction of PM, black Carbon (BC), VOC and other GHGs. There is however the potential risk of methane slip, a GHG that is 20 times more potent than CO2 (Litehauz, 2012). Risk of release of uncombusted methane can be mitigated with technical measures, e.g., better design of combustion chamber. It is expected that requirements for methane leakage from new LNG engines will be included in future regulation. MAN Diesel advises that an LNG retrofit is not possible on a two-‐stroke, mechanically controlled fuel system and that a conversion to an electro-‐hydraulic common rail fuel system (ME-‐B) is required.7 Though LNG has higher energy content than MDO and less fuel is needed, it requires close to double the fuel tank volume compared to fuel oils due to pressure, insulation and gas handling equipment, which is a challenge for

6 Pers. Com. Peter Christoffersen, Head of Sales, Q8, Includes, blending and delivery 7 The CAPEX can be reduced by 20% if the vessel has an electrohydraulic common rail fuel system (ME-‐B, ME-‐C or RT-‐Flex) already installed.

Table 11 Cost of switching to biofuel



vessels with limited or no deck space. Furthermore, the availability of fuel in ports limits the use of LNG (CNSS, 2011). Cost estimates for LNG fuel tanks range from USD 1,000/m3 -‐ USD 5,000/m3 (Litehauz, 2012). Additional crew competencies are also needed due to the complexity and safety requirements of the systems. 10% additional crewing cost is assumed.

LNG Amount Unit

Cryogenic plant 1,140,000 EUR LNG tank cost 760 EUR/m3

LNG tank capacity 2,000 m3

LNG machinery conversion 32 EUR/kW

NORD Butterfly ME-‐B conversion* 9,480 kW

CAPEX* 610,000 EUR

ME-‐B conversion cost* 64 EUR/kW

Total Engine LNG conversion cost (excl. inst.) 96 EUR/kW

Total Engine LNG conversion cost (incl. inst.) 347 EUR/kW

Pilot fuel consumption penalty 2.0% kg/kWh

Cryogenic pump fuel penalty 1.2% kg/kWh

Total penalty 3.2% kg/kWh

4.6 Slow steaming

Slow steaming is a reduction from full ship speed to a lower speed. This option is a operational emission reduction option as fuel consumption increases as a cubic function of vessel speed (Harvald, S., 1977). A slower vessel speed will therefore naturally have a significant reducing effect on emissions. Figure 1 shows the connection between MCR and fuel consumption for mechanical and electronically controlled two-‐stroke engines (MEPC 61/INF.18, 2010). For four-‐stroke engines the curve lies approximately 5% higher.

Table 12 Cost of switching to LNG

Figure 1

Specific Fuel Consumption of mechanically

controlled and electronically controlled

diesel engines



It is possible to just reduce speed without adjusting the engine to the new load (re-‐tuning/derating), however the emission reductions will not be as high as when the engine is tuned correctly to the new operating load. In addition, low load operation on conventional engines may lead to problems with e.g. loss of main engine turbocharger and propeller efficiency, hull fouling, and economizer soot build up. According to MAN Diesel it is not possible to reach compliance levels with tuning/derating alone. Electronic engines (ME, ME-‐B and RT-‐FLEX) are flexible with regards to low load operation and thus more suitable for slow steaming. It is therefor recommended to convert all mechanical injection main engines to electronically controlled engines (Litehauz, 2012). An increase in the voyage time, may lead to a reduced capacity to move goods, passengers and to maintain delivery schedules. However, in case of ferries, an increased voyage time may be counterbalanced by a shorter turnaround time, if it is possible to optimize the transfer of goods and passengers. If a lost capacity is remedied by the operation of additional ships, the added cost reduces or completely removes the benefit of slow steaming. In practice, it is seen that a 10% reduction in speed results in a net 20% reduction in fuel consumption overall when adjusted for loss of capacity (Maersk, 2010). The capital expenditures comprise the conversion cost to ME-‐B, which is estimated to 64 EUR/kW8 (Litehauz, 2012). If a vessel already has an electronic engine installed, the CAPEX will be reduced by approximately 45-‐50%.

Amount Unit

Capital expenditures (incl. conversion) 610,000 EUR

Capital expenditures (ex. conversion) 274,000-‐305,000 EUR

Cost for ME-‐B conversion 64 EUR/kW

SFOC penalty* -‐5% %

* With a 10% speed reduction and adjusted for loss of capacity.

8 Conversion was done from a 6S50MC-‐C (9,480 kW) motor to a 6S50ME-‐B motor with the same effective power

Table 13

Cost of changing to slow steaming.



5 Examples of technology application

5.1 Choice of ferries

The list of considered ferries includes 39 vessels. Ferries are often bought or built to the specific route and ports and the hull is kept shipshape for much longer than is the case for other commercial vessels. However, the wear and tear of the engine can only be kept at bay for so long, and it is also found that approx. one third (12) of the +30 year ferries in Denmark has had new engine(s) installed at some point (and sometimes more than once – e.g. M/F Egense). Whereas it would be a very serious concern in the merchant fleet if a particular abatement technology required substantial changes to the engine or even a new engine this may not necessarily be the case for all ferries. Examples of ferries more than 30 years with the same engine include M/F Ida (Bogø-‐Stubbekøbing), M/F Næssund (Mors-‐Thy), Sønderho (Esbjerg – Fabø), and M/F Strynboen (Strynø – Rudkøbing). Installed effect on these smaller ferries range from 150 to 250 kW, which is typical for inshore ferries. In order to select two ferries for example calculations an analysis of the aforementioned list of Danish ferries where conducted. The analysis comprised making plots of installed effect vs. numbers of ferries, travel distance vs. number of ferries etc. From these plots, the ferries were divided into two distinct groups, see Appendix B. The first group comprises ships that have an installed power smaller than 5000 kW, with a travel distance shorter than 30 km and built before 1995. The second group comprises ships that have an installed power larger than 5000 kW, with a travel distance longer than 30 km and built after the 1995. The groups are termed “small ferries” and “large ferries” respectively. Average values for travel distance and installed power were assessed within each group and used to single out two ferries, one for each group, that best represent the groups. For small ferries Odin Sydfyen where chosen, which operates the Bøjden -‐ Fynshav route and for large ferries, Kattegat,9 which operates the Århus – Kalundborg route. The base data used in calculations for the ferry Odin Sydfyen is presented in Table 14. The specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC) for four-‐stroke diesel engines is based on Friis et al. (2002) and represents the lower SFOC value (range 175-‐195 at 80% MCR). SFOC may therefore potentially be larger than the used 175 g/kWh for smaller engines. If a higher SFOC is applied changes in the emission pattern will be proportional. The capital investments will be the same, but operational expenditures will be higher, as the fuel consumption is higher.

9 During the finalisation of this report it was announced that the route on which the ferry Kattegat is operating will be terminated on the 12th October 2013.



Odin Sydfyen (Small ferry) Amount Unit

Year 1982 -‐

Engine 2 x B&W Alpha -‐

Max power output 1280 kW

Assumed operating power 896 kW

Travel distance (back and forth) 14.3 NM

Travel distance (back and forth) 26.5 km

Travel time in a year 613.33 hours

Assumed SFOC 175 g/kWh

Fuel capacity 20 m3

The data for the ferry Kattegat is presented in Table 15.

Kattegat (Large ferry) Amount Unit

Year 1996 -‐

Engine 2 x B&W/MAN -‐

Max power output [kW] 11700 kW

Assumed operating power 8190 kW

Travel distance (back and forth) 84.7 NM

Travel distance (back and forth) 156.9 km

Travel time in a year 4160 hours

Assumed SFOC 175 g/kWh

Fuel capacity 500 m3

5.2 Feasibility of technologies for example ferries

The short listed technologies described in section 3 and 4 where assessed with regards to applicability on the example ferries, as well as if combinations of the short listed technologies where feasible. This led to the inclusion of an SCR/Biofuel combination. All other combinations were deemed to be unsuitable or excessive. EGR is not considered as this technology only are relevant when installing a new engine.

Table 14

Data for Odin Sydfyen.

Table 15

Data for Kattegat.



5.3 Cost Calculations

An overview of installation and operational costs for the respective ferries are given in Table 16 and Table 17. It is seen that the use of biodiesel (B20) and slow steaming (with no engine modifications) do not result in any significant investments, however there is OPEX associated with biodiesel and savings with slow steaming. The CAPEX ranges from approx. DKK 600.000 to DKK 3.3 mill. for Odin Sydfyen and from DKK 600.000 to DKK 30 mill. for Kattegat. LNG is the most expensive investment, however considerable saving may be gained from the use of the alternative fuel. The missing infrastructure is, however, not considered and should be taken into account. The Danish Maritime Authority has estimated the costs of installing a relative small bunkering station to 15 mill. € (yearly capacity 52.000 m3), and OPEX of 3 mill. €. Though this estimate relates to a LNG bunker station, which are far more capacity than needed for both example ferries (approx. 220 m3 and 15.000 m3 respectively for Odin Sydfyen and Kattegat), considerable additional investments have to be considered if LNG is to be used. This will have a large impact on the individual business case. For all other technologies, except slow steaming and LNG, the OPEX is higher than when MDO is used. For the slow steaming scenarios a 5% reduction in speed will result in loss of turn-‐around time in the order of 2-‐3 minutes for Odin Sydfyen and approx. 20 minutes for Kattegat. Change of time schedule has not been considered in the calculations. Apart from the specific cost profile of and the reduction potential of the technologies, also combinations have been investigated. E.g. SCR biodiesel, seem to be a good combination due to reduction of NOx which may rise from the use of biodiesel. Obviously slow steaming can be combined with all the other shortlisted technologies, and also SCR/scrubber combination may be feasible, however, these combinations are not investigated further.

Odin Sydfyen CAPEX [DKK]

Low High

OPEX [DKK/year]

Low High SCR 570.000 960.000 16.000 20.000 Slow steaming (excl.)* 0 -‐65.000

Slow steaming (incl.)* 610.000 -‐65.000 Scrubber 2.700.000 70.000 Biodiesel 25.000 145.000 150.000

LNG (incl. inst.)** 3.300.000 -‐216.000 SCR/ Biodiesel 600.000 980.000 160.000 170.000 * 5% reduction in speed. “excl.” No modification of motor. “incl.” includes modification of engine. **Investments in infrastructure is not included

Table 16

Cost associated with installment of

technologies for Odin Sydfyen



Kattegat CAPEX [DKK]

Low High

OPEX [DKK/year]

Low High SCR 5.200.000 8.700.000 1.100.000 1.300.000 Slow steaming (excl.)* 0 -‐2.200.000 Slow steaming (incl.)* 5.600.000 -‐2.200.000

Scrubber 24.400.000 440.000 Biodiesel 595.000 1.100.000 1,300.000 LNG (incl. inst.)** 30.300.000 -‐14.700.000

SCR/ Biodiesel 5.800.000 9.300.000 2.200.000 2.700.000 * 5% reduction in speed. “excl.” No modification of motor. “incl.” includes modification of engine. **Investments in infrastructure is not included

5.4 Emission reductions

The yearly reduction profiles of CO2, NOX and SOX of the respective ferries are given in Table 18 and Table 19. The largest CO2 reductions are obtained from LNG, slow steaming and biodiesel, as well as from the combination of SCR and biodiesel. For SCR and scrubbers can be seen a rise in CO2 emissions, due to energy consumption from the use of the technologies which only addresses NOx and SOX emissions. Obviously, the highest NOx reductions are found from the use of SCR, as well as LNG, as LNG has higher energy content than MDO10 and less fuel is needed. A smaller rise in emissions is seen from biodiesel for the reversed reason as it has lower energy content. The largest SOx reduction comes from use of scrubber and LNG, as well as a smaller reduction from use of biodiesel and combination technologies, which comprise biodiesel. The scrubber washes the SOx from the exhaust whereas the reduction seen from LNG and biodiesel is due to no SOx content in these alternative fuels. The reduction from use of biodiesel may therefore be larger if e.g. B30 or higher is used instead. The emission scenario from use of MDO is presented in Table 18 for comparison.

Emissions from use of MDO CO2

[tones/year] NOx

[tonnes/year] SOx

[tonnes/year]

Odin Sydfyen 357 6,5 0,2 Kattegat 24.000 440 15,7

10 MDO 44 MJ/kg compared to 50 MJ/kg for LNG.

Table 18

Estimated emissions from use of MDO

operating the two example ferries

Table 17

Costs associated with installment of

technologies on Kattegat



Odin Sydfyen CO2 [kg/year] Low High

NOx [kg/year] Low High

SOx [kg/year] Low High

SCR -‐2 -‐4 6,2 6,2 0 0 Slow steaming* 34,8 0,6 0 Scrubber -‐7,1 -‐10,7 -‐0,1 -‐0,2 0,2 Biodiesel 23,3 54,2 -‐0,2 0 LNG 80,4 3,9 5,8 0,2 SCR/ Biodiesel 23,3 54,2 6,0 0 * 5% reduction in speed. The given reductions for slow steaming relates to fuel consumption and an eventual impure combustion is not considered her, which may give a lesser reduction. This is, however, linked to some degree of uncertainty as it is marginal reduction of speed and it is an assessment, which should be done on a case by case. The reduction potential may be used fully with re-‐tuning and modification of engine.

Kattegat CO2 [kg/year] Low High

NOx [kg/year] Low High

SOx [kg/year] Low High

SCR -‐138 -‐277 420.000 0 Slow steaming* 1.100.000 21.000 0,7 Scrubber -‐485.000 -‐725.000 -‐8.800 -‐13.200 14.400 15.300 Biodiesel 1.600.000 3.600.000 -‐16.000 -‐18.600 2.900 LNG 5.400.000 264.000 396.000 14.100 15.700 SCR/ Biodiesel 1.600.000 3.600.000 405.000 2.800 2.700 * 5% reduction in speed. The given reductions for slow steaming relates to fuel consumption and an eventual impure combustion is not considered her, which may give a lesser reduction. This is, however, linked to some degree of uncertainty as it is marginal reduction of speed and it is an assessment, which should be done on a case by case. The reduction potential may be used fully with re-‐tuning and modification of engine.

Table 19

Yearly emission reductions for Odin

Sydfyen

Table 20

Yearly emission reductions for Kattegat



6 References Alfa Laval, 2011, Reduktion af NOx og svovl -‐ Sådan håndterer vi luftforurening i skibsfarten, presentation at Danish Shipowner Association: available at. http://www.tinv.dk/public/dokumenter/tinv/Konferencer%20og%20arrangementer/Afholdte%20arrangementer/A6%20CSR/111122%20-‐%20Reduktion%20af%20NOx%20og%20SOx/13%2015%20%20%20Alfa%20Laval%20Aalborg_Jens%20Peter%20Hansen.pdf Andreoni, V., Miola, A., Perujo, A., 2008, Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the Emission Abatement in the Shipping Sector Emissions, European Commission, viewed 17/1/2013, http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/7978/1/reqno_jrc49334_eur_report_cost_effectiviness.pdf%5B1%5D.pdf CNSS, 2011, Air pollution Technologies, viewed 8/1/2013, http://cleantech.cnss.no/air-‐pollutant-‐tech/ Corbett, J. J., Winebrake, J. J. and Green, E. H., 2010, An Assessment of Technologies for Reducing Regional Short-‐Lived Climate Forcers Emitted by Ships with Implications for Arctic Shipping, Carbon Management 1(2): 207-‐225 10.4155/cmt.10.27 Dieselnet, 2008, IMO adopts Tier II/III emission standadrs and fuel requirements for ships, dieselnet, viewed 8/1/2013, http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2008/10imo.php Entec, 2005, Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-‐based Instruments, Task 2c – SO2 Abatement, European Commission Directorate General Environment, Entec UK Limited EU directive 2005/33/EC, 2005, Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 amending Directive 1999/32/EC EU, no date, Abatement Technology, viewed 1/8/2013, http://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fenvironment%2Fair%2Ftransport%2Fpdf%2FAbatement%2520technology.xls&ei=JEH5UN76G-‐eD4ATr4YDQCA&usg=AFQjCNEbf_QFVR1fpHjXM2xfFQG0zvrvvg&bvm=bv.41248874,d.bGE Faber, J., Nelissen, D., Hon, G., Wang, H. and Tsimplis, M., 2012, Regulated Slow Steaming in Maritime Transport: An Assessment of Options, Costs and Benefits Fellowship, n.d., Technology, viewed 17/1/2013, http://vikinglady.no/technology/ Friis A. M., Andersen P., og Jensen J. J., 2002, Ship Design Part 1, Technical University of Denmark, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Coarsta, Martitime and Structural Engineering, ISBN 978-‐87-‐707-‐800-‐49 Gutber H. Schlüter A., and Licata A., nd, Deactivation of SCR catalyst. Availbale at:



http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/00/scr00/LICATA.PDF

Hansen J. P., 2011, Svovlreduktion med havvands-‐ og ferskvandsscrubbere -‐ Udfordringer og erfaringer fra DFDS skibet Ficaria Seaways, presentation at the conference “Reduktion af NOx og svovl -‐ Sådan håndterer vi luftforurening i skibsfarten”, Alfa Laval, Aalborg, at the Danish Shipowner Association, 22nd of November 2011. Hansen, J., P., 2012, Exhaust Gas Scrubber Installed Onboard MV Ficaria Seaways, Public Test Report, Environmental Project No. 1429, 2012, Danish Ministry of the Environment. Harvald, S., 1977, Prediction of Power of Ships, Lyngby, Denmark: Department of Ocean Engineering, Technical University of Denmark. icct, 2012, Marine Black Carbon Emissions Reduction Strategies and Technologies, The International Council on Clean Transportation, access: http://www.theicct.org/blogs/staff/edit-‐blog-‐post-‐arctic-‐maritime-‐shipping-‐and-‐black-‐carbon IMO, 2009, Second IMO Greenhouse Study 2009, viewed 8/1/2013, http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=27795&filename=GHGStudyFINAL.pdf IMO, 2011a, MARPOL 2011, fifth edition, IMO publication, London IMO, 2011b, Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, IMO, viewed 7/1/2013, http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/GHG-‐Emissions.aspx IMO, 2013a, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), Adoption: 1973 (Convention), 1978 (1978 Protocol), 1997 (Protocol -‐ Annex VI); Entry into force: 2 October 1983 (Annexes I and II)., online the 15th of May 2013. http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-‐Convention-‐for-‐the-‐Prevention-‐of-‐Pollution-‐from-‐Ships-‐(MARPOL).aspx

IMO, 2013b, Special Areas under MARPOL, viewed 24/7/2013, http://www.imo.org/ourwork/environment/pollutionprevention/specialareasundermarpol/Pages/Default.aspx Jayaram, V., Agrawal, H., Welch, W. A., Miller, J. W. and Cocker, D. R., 2011, Real-‐Time Gaseous, PM and Ultrafine Particle Emissions from a Modern Marine Engine Operating on Biodiesel, Environmental Science & Technology 45(6): 2286-‐2292 10.1021/es1026954. Kristensen H. O., 2012, Energy Demand And Exhaust Gas Emissions Of Marine Engines, Technical University of Denmark, Project no. 2010-‐56, Emissionsbeslutningsstøttesystem Work Package 2, Report no. 05 September 2012



LITEHAUZ, 2012, Investigation of appropriate control measures (abatement technologies) to reduce Black Carbon emissions from international shipping, IMO, viewed June 18th 2013, http://www.imo.org/ourwork/environment/pollutionprevention/airpollution/documents/air%20pollution/report%20imo%20black%20carbon%20final%20report%2020%20november%202012.pdf Lloyds, 2010, Maersk and Lloyd’s Register team up for marine engine bio-‐fuel tests, http://www.lr.org/news_and_events/press-‐releases/181528-‐maersk-‐and-‐lloyds-‐register-‐team-‐up-‐for-‐marine-‐engine-‐biofuel-‐tests.aspx Lövblad, G., Fridell, E., 2006, Experiences from use of some techniques to reduce emissions from ships, Göteborg: Swedish Maritime Administration and Region Västra Götaland. Maersk, 2010, Slow Steaming Here to Stay MAN Diesel & Turbo, 2013, Secondary Measures, viewed 17/1/2013, http://www.mandieselturbo-‐greentechnology.com/0000489/Technology/Secondary-‐Measures.html MEPC.203(62)add.1, 2011, Amendments To The Annex Of The Protocol Of 1997 To Amend The International Convention For The Prevention Of Pollution From Ships, 1973, As Modified By The Protocol Of 1978 Relating Thereto (Inclusion of regulations on energy efficiency for ships in MARPOL Annex Vi, Annex 19, The Marine Environment Protection Committee, IMO

MST, 2012, Economic Impact Assessment of a NOx Emission Control Area in the North Sea, Environmental Project no. 1427, 2012, Incentive Partners and Litehauz, published by Danish Ministry of Environment. ISBN: 978-‐87-‐92903-‐20-‐4 Nayyar, 2010, The use of biodiesel fuels in the U.S: Marine Industry Opdal O. A. and Hojem J. F., 2007, Biofuels in ships, ZERO-‐REPORT -‐ December 2007 ZERO – Zero Emission Resource Organisation. Petzold, A., Lauer, P., Fritsche, U., Hasselbach, J., Lichtenstern, M., Schlager, H. and Fleischer, F., 2011, Operation of Marine Diesel Engines on Biogenic Fuels: Modification of Emissions and Resulting Climate Effects, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(24): 10394 -‐ 10400 10.1021/es2021439 Swedish Maritime Administration (SMA), 2006, Certified NOx Measures in Ships, Sweden (cited in icct, 2007, Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ocean-‐going Ships: Impacts, Mitigation Options and Opportunities for Managing Growth) U.S. Department of Energy, 2013, Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report, viewed June 17th 2013, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/alternative_fuel_price_report_jan_2013.pdf



US-‐EPA, 2002, A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions -‐ Draft Technical Report. EPA420-‐P-‐02-‐001, http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/analysis/biodsl/p02001.pdf Xue, J., Grift, T. E. and Hansen, A. C., 2011, Effect of biodiesel on engine performances and emissions, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15(2): 1098-‐1116 10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.016 Scrubbers for the Baltic Sea – B-‐M Kullas-‐Nyman, Wärtsilä p. 6. Viewed 16/08/13 IACCSEA White Paper Dec. 2012 – viewed 20/08/13



Appendix A -‐ Long list

Technology Fuel savings VOC NOx SOx CO2 GHG PM BC

Post engine technologies

Diesel Particle filter* No2 No2 -‐3.5%2 85%2 85%2 95-‐99%13(28,23,27,32)

Exhaust Gas Recirculation -‐4%7 80%1

35%6,7 No2

NR2 40-‐58%13(20) No/ NR2 > 70%7 19%13(20)

Plasma Assisted Catalytic Reduction 97%8, 80-‐907

Scrubber Low Sulphur* Y2, No8 90-‐95%3**,7 -‐3%2 75%2** 37.5%2 80%7

Scrubber High Sulphur* Y2, No8 90-‐95%3**,7 -‐3%2 75%2**

60%2 80%7

Selective Catalytic Reduction* Up to 95%1,7 No2 NR2 25-‐40%3, 30-‐45%7 >35%13(3)

Selective Non Catalytic Reduction* 50%8

Fuel switching

Biofuel* Increase 7-‐10%4 100%12b

Now limited4, biodiesel, 85%13(13,26,29) 25%13(13,26,29)

20%12b 40-‐45%8 Dimethyl Ether (DME) 35% 100%15 95%(b) 97% Fuel cells/Hydrogen 90%12 100%12 Up to 20%12 100%12 100%13(9,40)

100%13(9,40) 100%13(9,40) Liquefied Natural Gas 50%7 80-‐90%1 60%7 90-‐100%3,7 22.5%2 0-‐25 %3*** 72%3,7 99%13 93.5%2 Renewable Energy from Shore* 94%7 97%7 94%

Solar energy* Few % energy saving4

1-‐2%7

Ultra low suphur diesel fuel 90%

Wind power* 5% (15 k) 20% (10 k)4

Wave power Limited4

Combustion modification

Combustion Air Saturation System3 30-‐60%3, 50-‐60%7

Direct Water Injection (DWI)*

Up to 50-‐60%1 -‐2-‐0%3 Negli-‐

gible6 Up to 50%7

42-‐60%7 Fluidised Bed Combustion -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

Humid Air Motors* >50%5,7 Typical

<30%5 Up to 50%7 >70%1,7

Internal Engine Modifications -‐ Slide Valves 50%7 20%3,7, 30% in test7 0%2 80%7 10-‐

50%13(45) 25%2

Intercooler Recuperative gas turbine 25-‐30%8

Limestone 50-‐60%

Water in Fuel* >55%1 20-‐50%7 Y2 No2 30%2 70%2

Operational measures

Slow steaming(c) (no derating/re-‐tuning) 7-‐25 Follow fuel

consumption

Follow fuel consumption

7-‐25

Slow steaming(c) (with derating/re-‐tuning) 8-‐29 Follow fuel

consumption

Follow fuel consumption

8-‐29

*) Can be applied on both new build and existing ships **) Only stated for scrubber in general ***) Risk of methane slip (a) Only stated for scrubber in general, (b) If produced from biomass, (c) engine load from 100% to 40%.



The references used for the long-‐list are given below. Reference number 13 is an overview of reduction technologies made by the International Council for Clean Transportation (icct). Whenever information from this reference is used it is indicated by “13” followed by brackets where the original references are stated. These references can be found in the table below reference number 13. References: 1. Incentive Partners and LITEHAUZ, 2012, Economic Impact Assessment of a NOx Control Area in the North Sea, Danish EPA 2. LITEHAUZ, 2012, Investigation of appropriate control measures (abatement technologies) to reduce Black Carbon emissions from international shipping, IMO 3. CNSS, 2011, Air pollution Technologies, viewed 8/1/2013, http://cleantech.cnss.no/air-‐pollutant-‐tech/ 4. IMO, 2009, Second IMO Greenhouse Study 2009, viewed 8/1/2013, http://www.imo.org/blast/blastDataHelper.asp?data_id=27795&filename=GHGStudyFINAL.pdf 5. DNV, 2012, Shipping 2020, viewed 8/1/2013, http://www.dnv.nl/binaries/shipping%202020%20-‐%20final%20report_tcm141-‐530559.pdf 6. European Commission, 2005, Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market-‐based Instruments, viewed 9/1/2013, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/task2_shoreside.pdf 7. EU, Factsheet Abatement Technology, viewed 1/8/2013 8. Andreoni, V., Miola, A., Perujo, A., 2008, Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the Emission Abatement in the Shipping Sector Emissions, European Commission, viewed 17/1/2013, http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/7978/1/reqno_jrc49334_eur_report_cost_effectiviness.pdf%5B1%5D.pdf 9. MAN Diesel & Turbo, 2013, Secondary Measures, viewed 17/1/2013, http://www.mandieselturbo-‐greentechnology.com/0000489/Technology/Secondary-‐Measures.html 10. DNV, 2012, Fuel cells for ships, viewed 17/1/2013, http://www.dnv.com/binaries/fuel%20cell%20pospaper%20final_tcm4-‐525872.pdf 11. Fellowship, n.d., Technology, viewed 17/1/2013, http://vikinglady.no/technology/ 12. Biello, D., 2009, Worlds First Fuel Cell Ship Docks in Copenhagen, Scientific American, viewed 17/1/2013, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=worlds-‐first-‐fuel-‐cell-‐ship 12b. EMSA, 2012, Potential of biofuel for shipping, viewed 17/6/2013, http://emsa.europa.eu/main/air-‐pollution/items/id/1376.html?cid=149 13. icct, Emissions Reductions Strategies and Technologies, viewed 18th of June, 2013, http://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theicct.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FICCT_Emissions_Control_Strategies.xlsx&ei=TmjAUZH0NOSh4gTfkYHwDw&usg=AFQjCNFu1lINS91tTGcFbz8d_BSgtuHxkQ&sig2=VO0glwtN7TmnjxOypNRGmA&bvm=bv.47883778,d.bGE 15. HALDOR TOPSØE: Spireth: Methanol fuelled Diesel engine using the OBATETM technology, Christophe Duwig, R&D Division



1 Alfa Laval. PureSOx Exhaust Gas Cleaning. Alfa Laval Corporate AB, EMD00281EN 1107.

2 API Technology Issues Work Group. Technical Consideration of Fuel Switching (2009).

3 CARB. Effect of SCR Unit on Emissions from Auxiliary Engines, April 2009.

4 Caterpillar Marine Power Systems. Cat Common Rail: Less Fuel and Reduced Emissions Mean More Environmental Care. Leaflet No. 245 ·∙ 12.11 ·∙ e ·∙ L+S ·∙ VM3 (2011).

5

CIMAC. "Background information on black carbon emissions from large marine and stationary diesel engines-‐ definition, measurement methods, emissions factors and abatement technologies". The International Council on Combustion Engines (2012).

6 Clean Marine. Integrated Multistream Exhaust Gas Cleaning.

7 Confurto, Nick. Belco-‐DuPont Interview.

8 Corbett et al. “An assessment of technologies for reducing regional short-‐lived climate forcers emitted by ships with implications for Arctic shipping”. Carbon Management 1(2), 207-‐225, 2010.

9 DNV. “Fuel Cells for Ships”. Research & Innovation, Position Paper 13. 2012.

10 Fahimi, Sulai. MAN Diesel & Turbo Interview.

11 Flanagan, Jim. "Maersk Pilot Fuel Switch Initiative". Maersk, 16 May 2008.

12 Germanischer Lloyd SE & MAN. Costs and benefits of LNG as ship fuel container vessels: Key results from a GL and MAN joint study (2012).

13 Ghosh, Sujit and Tom Risley. Alternative Fuel for Marine Application Final Report. US MARAD 29 February 2012.

14 GL. Measurement of particulate emissions before and after COUPLE SYSTEMS DryEGCS on MV "TIMBUS". GL-‐Reg.-‐No.90577. CL-‐T-‐SC (2012)

15 Hafkemeyer, Jan and Olaf Knueppel. "The very new exhaust gas cleaning systems". Couple Systems

16

Jayaram, Varalakshmi, J. Wayne Miller, Abhilash Nigam, William Welch, David Cocker. "Effects of Selective Catalytic Reduction Unit on Emissions from an Auxiliary Engine on an Ocean-‐Going Vessel". California Air Resources Board, April 2009

17 Juliussen, Lars R., Michael J. Kryger and Anders Andreasen. "MAN B&W ME-‐GI Engines. Recent Research and Results." Proceedings of the International Symposium on Marine Engineering, 17-‐21 October 2011, Kobe, Japan.

18 Jurgens, Ralf. Couple Systems Interview.

19 Karlsson, Sören, Mathias Jansson, Jens Norrgård, Jens Häggblom. "LNG Conversion for Marine Installations". Wartsila Technical Journal 01.2012.

20 Khalilarya et al. “Simultaneously Reduction of NOx and Soot Emissions in a DI Heavy Duty diesel Engine Operating at High Cool EGR Rates.” International Journal of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering 6:1 2012.

21 Khan, M. Yusuf, et al. "Benefits of Two Mitigation Strategies for Container Vessels: Cleaner Engines and Cleaner Fuels". Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 5049-‐5056, 2012.

22 Lack & Corbett. "Black carbon from ships: a review of the effects of ship speed, fuel quality and exhaust gas scrubbing." Atmos. Chem. Phys. 12, 3985-‐4000, 2012.



23

Lack et al. “Impact of Fuel Quality Regulation and Speed Reduction on Shipping Emissions: Implications for Climate and Air Quality.” Environmental Science & Technology 45(20): 9052-‐9060, 2011.

24 Lauer, P. "First DPF at a Medium Speed 4-‐Stroke Diesel Engine on Board of an Ocean Going Vessel". MAN Diesel & Turbo SE, Augsburg, Germany.

25 MAN Diesel and Turbo. Diesel-‐Electric Drives: Lower emissions, greater reliability.

26 MARAD. Alternative Fuel for Marine Application Final Report (April 2012).

27 Meng Lee, YAP , Silvia HENG, BOO Puay Yang. "Excellent verified results of CSNOx by ABS on 11MW main engine, a world's first". Ecospec Global Technology Pte Ltd, 25 Feb 2010.

28 Mitsui O.S.K. Line <http://www.mol.co.jp/pr-‐e/2012/e-‐pr_1209.html>

29 Nayyar, Pradeep. "The Use of Biodiesel Fuels in US Marine Industry". MARAD April 2010

30 Nils, Tove. Clean Marine Interview.

31 Posada, F. CNG Bus Emissions Roadmap: from Euro III to Euro VI. icct, December 2009.

32 Rosatom <http://wwwrosatom.ru/en/>

33 Rypos, Inc. <http://www.rypos.com/products/adpfc-‐for-‐rtg-‐cranes/>

34 Sames et al. "Costs and benefits of LNG as ship fuel for container vessels" MAN Diesel & Turbo, May 2012.

35 Sember, William J. "The Trade-‐Off Between LNG and CNG Shipping". ABS Europe, Marseille Maritime 2008: The Mediterranean Basin Shipping Future, 16 September 2008.

36 Slettevoll, Hollvard. STADT Interview.

37 STADT. "STADT has introduced Sustainable Electric Propulsion". 2012.

38 Verbeek et al. "Environmental and Economic aspects of using LNG as a fuel for shipping in The Netherlands". TNO-‐RPT-‐2011-‐00166, 2011.

39 Verbeek, Ruud , Mark Bolech and Herman den Uil. "Alternative fuels for sea shipping". TNO-‐060-‐DTM-‐2011-‐04219. 2011.

40 Wallenius Marine <http://www.walleniuslines.com/News/News-‐archive/2010/Unique-‐Fuel-‐cell-‐onboard-‐mv-‐UNDINE/>

41 Wartsila. "Shipping in the Gas Age". 2010.

42 Wartsila. "Wartsila SOx Scrubber System". 2012.

43 Winebrake, J.J., J.J. Corbett and E.H. Green. Black Carbon Control Costs in Shipping. ClimateWorks Foundation, 31 January 2009.

44 Yuska, Dan. MARAD Interview



Appendix B – Plot of ferries

Technical)review) Catalogue) of#redu · PDF fileTechnical)review) –!Catalogue) ......

Documents

Transcript of Technical)review) Catalogue) of#redu · PDF fileTechnical)review) –!Catalogue) ......