EGCS + HFO versus Compliant Fuel in 2020

Dr. Elizabeth Lindstad - Chief ScientistSINTEF Ocean AS

THIS STUDY HAS BEEN FINANCED BY SFI SMART MARITIMENORWEGIAN CENTRE FOR IMPROVED ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND REDUCED HARMFUL EMISSIONS FROM THE MARITIME SECTOR.www.smartmaritime.no

Global crude oil and shippings consumption

• Total crude Oil 4.5 billion tons

• Shipping consumes 300 million tons

• 75 % of consumption is residual HFO

• 23 % of consumption is distillate (diesel)

• 2 % is LNG and other

3

Options for satisfying IMO 2020 Sulphur cap

• HFO in combination with an exhaust gas scrubber

• Desulphurised HFO, i.e. LSHFO both as

Vessels above 8500 kW accounts for 20% of the fleet and 67% of the consumption source: Lindstad and Eskeland 2016

Fuel prices and differentials as a function of crude oil pricefrom 2021 onwards (2020 might be bumpy) Source: Lindstad et al 2017

Abatement cost with scrubber versus LSHFO and Diesel (source: Lindstad et al. 2017)

Cost of Abatement options

Fuel and Abatement Option Legislation

50 USD

per

barrel of

crude oil

Price

Increase

compared

to HFO

Basic

Capex

cost

Cost per

1000 kW

installed

power

Equipment

and

installation

7.5MW

vessel

Equipment

and

installation

25MW

vessel

Annual

GHG

USD/ton USD/ton MUSD MUSD MUSD MUSD

Newbuilt Cost 35 75

HFO 300 - - - - - -

LSHFO < 0.5% S Sox,Nox tier 2 400 50 - 200 - - - - -

Diesel Sox, Nox tier 2 500 100 - 300 - - - - -

HFO - Open loop basic Scrubber Sox, Nox tier 2 300 0 2.0 0.07 3 4 -

HFO & Hybrid Scrubber with EGR Sox, Nox tier 3 300 0 4.0 0.10 5 7 -

HFO & Hybrid Scrubber &EGR &

Slender Hull & Aero

Sox,Nox tier 3,

EEDI phase 3300 0 9.0 0.30 11 17

15-20%

reduction

LNG - High pressure (Diesel-cycle) &

EGR

Sox,Nox tier 3,

EEDI phase 3? ? 6.0 0.50 10 19

15-20%

reduction

LNG - Low pressure (Otto-cycle)Sox,Nox tier 3,

EEDI phase 3? ? 2.0 0.40 5 12

+5%

increase

Abatement cost per ton of fuel with scrubber and 2012 speeds and

consumption (table does not include all vessel types and size groups)

No. of

vesselsDWT

Installed

Power (kW)

Fuel per

vessel

(ton)

Scrubber

open loop

Scrubber

Hybrid

Service - Tug 14 600 120 2 300 500 539 815 7.3

General Cargo 11 600 1 900 1 100 600 435 662 7.0 5 %

Fishing 22 100 180 1 000 700 375 571 15.5

Tankers 2 400 47 600 9 600 3 000 127 198 7.2

Ferry - Ro-Pax 1 700 400 1 500 2 200 135 212 3.7 24 %

Dry Bulk 5 400 41 700 10 100 4 000 101 160 21.6

Container 1 100 8 600 6 000 3 700 98 157 4.1

Dry Bulk 2 300 82 000 10 900 6 200 73 119 14.3

Container 1 700 46 800 30 500 14 600 54 90 24.8

Ro-Ro&Vehicle 1 300 11 800 10 100 9 200 55 92 12.0

Tankers 600 313 400 27 700 19 100 45 76 11.5

Cruise 250 7 300 42 600 42 000 34 61 10.5 67 %

LNG & LPG 50 121 300 37 400 34 100 36 67 1.7 4 %

Totals 106 000 291.0

Ship type

Average per VesselAbatement Cost

per tonPercentage

share

Total fuel

consumption

in million ton

HFO operation in ECA - Exhaust Scrubbing and EGR

Partners: Solvang, Wärtsilä Moss, SINTEF Ocean

Source: NOx Tier III and ECA sulfur compliant operation on heavy fuel: combining EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) and sea water scrubbing, 2019Sergey Ushakov, Ingebrigt Valberg, Per Magne Einang and Tor Øyvind Ask

Clipper Harald – NOx emission

Original

Engine modification – NOx optimization

SINTEF Ocean test EGC + EGR (December 2015)

SINTEF Ocean test EGC + EGR (March 2018)

Clipper Harald Operating at 60% Load

This is work in progress, but the results so far indicates full compliance with SOx, and Nox tier 3 requirements. Moreover particles matters (PM) are reduced compared to with distilates

Large diesel engines & with scrubbers & EGR and after treatment of the exhaust gas allows us to run the engine on HFO and meet all air emission regulations

Source: Input figures and drawing from Man B & W, animation from wikipedia.org

Exhaust gas75.8% N213.0% O25.35% H2O94.15% in Subtotal

5.2% CO20.25% NOx = 22 g/kwh (Tier 1 =17)0.15 % SO20.045 % HC0.015 % CO5.66 % in Subtotal

BC - Black Carbon PM2.5 - Particles Other 0.19 % in Subtotal

Air

8.5 kg/kWh

21% O279% N2

Lube1 g/kWh

97% HC2.5% CA0.5% S

Fuel175 g/kWh97% HC3% S

Work

Heat

16

Cost Minimizing speeds 110' dwt Aframax tanker source: Lindstad et al 2017

17

Main Conclusions - Retrofit

• HFO & Scrubber encourage higher operational speeds, diesel

reduces the speed

• Scrubber is most cost efficient for large vessels at high fuel

prices for nearly all vessels

• Versus retrofitting, LSHFO

HFO & Scrubber versus compliant fuel assessed with focus on reaching IMO's 2050 GHG reduction target

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

16 different scenarios developed by the Third IMO GHG study

World Energy Consumption 1971 – 2015 Source: www.iea.org

Report delivered to UN General Secretary on United Nations Climate Summit September 2019

Potential contribution of five areas of ocean-based action to mitigating climate change in 2050 (maximum GtCO2e) – the orange is our focus

• Present sea-trial procedures for EEDI adjust to ‘calm water conditions’ only, as a comparative basis,

despite calm sea being the exception in the World. We find that this adjustment procedure excessively

rewards full bodied ‘bulky’ hulls which perform well in calm water conditions.

• In contrast, hull forms optimized with respect to performance in realistic sea-conditions are not

rewarded with the current EEDI procedures.

• Our results indicate that without adjusting the testing cycle requirements to also include a threshold for

performance in waves (real sea), the desired reductions will be short on targets and GHG emissions

could potentially increase.

The investigated designs

Required Power for alternative Supramax designs as a function of speed, design and sea states

27

Power and cost for alternative Supramax designs with 50% calm sea and 50% head sea Hs= 3m,

(237 days sailing at sea and a fuel price of 500 USD/ton)

28

All exhaust gases from combustion gives a climate impact

Radiative forcing components

Source: Leland McInnes based on IPCC Natural Drivers of Climate Change, Figure SPM.2, in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007

Temperature response by component for total anthropogenic emissions for a 1-year pulse

Source: Climate Change 2013, IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Myhre et al. 2013

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#CITEREFIPCC_AR4_WG12007

Global warming Potential - GWP

• Metrics that weight emitted gases according to their global warming potential (GWP),

to report them in terms of "CO2 equivalents", have become standard currency to

benchmark and communicate the relative and absolute contributions to climate

change (Shine, 2009).

• GWP gives negative weights to emitted exhaust gases and particles that have a cooling

effect, and positive weights to those that have a warming effect.

• GWP is usually integrated over 20 or over 100 years, where the longest time horizon

gives greater weight to CO2, which stays up in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

• With the current need for rapid reductions of GHG emissions within the next decade

and a 50% cut by 2050 (IPCC 2013), there are good arguments for giving larger weight

to the results from using the 20 years horizon (Lenton, 2008).

WTW climate impact including all exhaust gaseswith a 20 (left) and a 100 (right) year time horizon

31

To reach IMO's GHG targets there is a need for including all GHG'semitted by shipping i.e.; CO2, CH4, N2O, VOC, …. and not only CO2

Source: Lindstad Elizabeth 2019 - WTW GWP100 in Gram CO2 eq. per kWh

Well to tank with focus on CO2, N2O, and CH4 only(Transport & Environment web page and Baltic Transport journal)

WTW emissionscomparisonof previousFuel studies (GWP100, i.e. 100 hundredyear time horizon, someof the figuresare normailzedto enablecomparison)

CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2 CH4 N2O Total

HFO 2.7% S Bengtsson (2011) 8.0 73.5 73.5 81.5 92 %

Verbeek (2011) 9.1 0.7 9.8 77.7 77.7 87.5 99 %

Chryssakis and Stahl (2013) 9.2 77.7 77.7 86.9 98 %

Thinkstep (2019) 10.8 2.7 13.5 77.7 77.7 91.2 103 %

Lindstad 2019 9.6 77.7 77.7 87.3 98 %

LSHFO

Thinkstep study of WTT for LNG – marginal variance between regions

WTW Conventionalfuels versus LP (Otto) dual fuel LNG

Sources: Thinkstep 2019; SINTEF 2019; ICCT 2020, Maritime Forecast 2050 DNV-GL, DNV-GL 05/2019 ID 1765300: Tab 3 DNV 2012-0719; Methane slip DNV-GL 2019 assummed to be equal to test bed data from manufacturer

SINTEF 2019

SINTEF

2019

DNV-GL

2019

Thinkstep

2019

SINTEF

2019

ICCT

2020

Lindstad

et. al. 2020

HFO- Scrubber

MGO

WTW Conventional fuels versus HP (diesel) dual fuel LNG (source: Lindstad et al 2020)

Sources: Thinkstep 2019; SINTEF 2019; ICCT 2020, Maritime Forecast 2050 DNV-GL, DNV-GL 05/2019 ID 1765300: Tab 3 DNV 2012-0719; Methane slip DNV-GL 2019 assummed to be equal to test bed data from manufacturer

SINTEF

2019

SINTEF

2019

DNV-GL

2019

Thinkstep

2019

SINTEF

2019

ICCT

2020

Lindstad et.

al. 2020

HFO-

Scrubber

MGO

WTW Conventional fuelsversus LP (Otto) dual fuel LNG20 and a 100 yeartime horizon

WTW Conventional fuelsversus HP (Otto) dual fuel LNG20 and a 100 yeartime horizon

Taking a short term view GWP20 to reach climate target, - Best LNG solution, i.e. High pressure (HP-diesel) is slightly better than HFO & MGO, - While LNG Low pressure (LP-Otto) increases global warming

Cost of Abatement options

Fuel and Abatement Option Legislation

50 USD

per

barrel of

crude oil

Price

Increase

compared

to HFO

Basic

Capex

cost

Cost per

1000 kW

installed

power

Equipment

and

installation

7.5MW

vessel

Equipment

and

installation

25MW

vessel

Annual

GHG

USD/ton USD/ton MUSD MUSD MUSD MUSD

Newbuilt Cost 35 75

HFO 300 - - - - - -

LSHFO < 0.5% S Sox,Nox tier 2 400 50 - 200 - - - - -

Diesel Sox, Nox tier 2 500 100 - 300 - - - - -

HFO - Open loop basic Scrubber Sox, Nox tier 2 300 0 2.0 0.07 3 4 -

HFO & Hybrid Scrubber with EGR Sox, Nox tier 3 300 0 4.0 0.10 5 7 -

HFO & Hybrid Scrubber &EGR &

Slender Hull & Aero

Sox,Nox tier 3,

EEDI phase 3300 0 9.0 0.30 11 17

15-20%

reduction

LNG - High pressure (Diesel-cycle) &

EGR

Sox,Nox tier 3,

EEDI phase 3? ? 6.0 0.50 10 19

15-20%

reduction

LNG - Low pressure (Otto-cycle)Sox,Nox tier 3,

EEDI phase 3? ? 2.0 0.40 5 12

+5%

increase

Options for meeting IMO 2025 EEDI phase 3, Nox tier 3, and Sulphur cap - Versus Cost and GHG reductions

• LP (Otto) dual fuel LNG has the lowest capex cost, however it gives no GHG reductions,

rather increases them -> no contribution to reaching IMO 2050

• HFO & Scrubber & EGR combined with more slender designs including aero reduces fuel

consumption with 10 – 20 % and give similar GHG reductions -> contributes to reaching

IMO 2050 (LSHFO & Diesel gives slightly lower GHG reductions)

• HP (Diesel) dual fuel LNG meets all regulations, and gives 15 % GHG reduction on it's own.

Combined with a more sleder design including aero, it reduces fuel consumption with 10 –

20% (dependent on ship type) it gives 25 – 35 % GHG reductions -> contributes to

reaching IMO 2050

Some References (own) within the scope of the presentation

• Lindstad, E. Borgen, H., Eskeland, G., S. Paalson, C., Psaraftis H. Turan, O. 2019

The Need to Amend IMO’s EEDI to Include a Threshold for Performance in Waves

(Realistic Sea Conditions) to Achieve the Desired GHG Reductions. Sustainability

2019, 11, 3668: doi:10.3390/su11133668

• Lindstad Elizabeth 2019. Increased use of LNG might not reduce maritime GHG

emissions at all. https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications

• 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. Bø, T. Eskeland G., S., 2018 Reducing GHG emissions in shipping –

measures and options . In Kujala, P. and Lu,. L. page 923-930 MARINE DESIGN

XIII, ISBN: 978-1-138-54187-0. Taylor & Francis.

• Lindstad E, Rehn C., F., Eskeland, G., S. 2017 Sulphur Abatement Globally in

Maritime Shipping Transportation Research Part D 57 (2017) 303-313

• 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

• Lindstad, Elizabeth. 2017. Cost Factors – Analysis of alternative Sulhpur

abatement options in maritime shipping from 2020. Bunkerspot page 62 – 64.

Volume 14 Number 3 June/July 2017

• Lindstad, E., Eskeland. G., S., 2016. Policies leaning towards globalization of

scrubbers deserve scrutiny Transportation Research Part D 47 (2016), 67-76

• Lindstad et al., 2015 Assessment of cost as a function of abatement options in

maritime emission control areas. Transportation Research Part D 38(2015),

page 41-48

• Lindstad, E., Verbeek, R., Blok, M., Zyl. S., Hübscher, A., Kramer, H.,

Purwanto, J., Ivanova,O. 2015. GHG emission reduction potential of EU-

related maritime transport and on its impacts. CLIMA.B.3/ETU/2013/0015.

TNO report / TNO 2014 R11601 / 3. July 2015. Delft, The Netherlands

• Lindstad, E. 2013. Strategies and measures for reducing maritime

CO2 emissions, Doctoral thesis PhD. Norwegian University of Science

and Technology – Department of Marine Technology. ISBN 978-82-

461- 4516-6

• Anger, A. Barker, T. Pollitt, E. Lindstad, H. Lee D. and Eyring, V.

(2010). International Shipping and Market Based Instruments. IMO

• Buhaug, Ø.; Corbett, J.J.; Endresen, Ø.; Eyring, V.; Faber, J.; Hanayama, S.;

Lee, D.S.; Lee, D.; Lindstad, E.; Markowska, A.Z.; Mjelde, A.; Nelissen, D.;

Nilsen, J.; Pålsson, C.; Winebrake, J.J.; Wu, W. Q.; Yoshida, K.(2009)

Second IMO GHG study 2009. IMO - London

THANK YOU !

Dr. Elizabeth Lindstad

Lindstad@sintef.no