Transcript Clean Fuels for Ships Practical Solution for MARPOL Annex VI and GHG

Clean Fuels for Ships
Practical Solution for
MARPOL Annex VI and GHG
Emissions Reduction
MARTECMA Seminar
21 January 2008
Athens
Dragos Rauta - INTERTANKO
Transport Mode Efficiency
(assumes Aframax Tanker burning 2.6% Sulfur Fuel
with return voyage in ballast)
•Shipping is the most efficient mode for moving cargo
Energy Use
(kW h / t km)
Aframax
Tanker
0.01
Emissions
(g / t km)
Aframax
Tanker
Rail
(Diesel)
0.07
Rail
(Diesel)
Truck
0.18
Truck
Air
(Boeing 747)
2.00
Air
(Boeing 747)
NOx
0.15
0.35
0.31
5.69
SOx
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.17
PM
CO2
0.01
5
0.01
17
0.01
50
n/a
552
Source: Herbert Engineering, April 2007
Transport Mode Efficiency
One litre of fuel used to move one tonne of oil on a VLCC more than 2,500 km.’
This is more than twice a 20 years ago.
Sulphur limits in modes of transportations
4.50%
1.50%
0.1%
0.001%
Source: European Environmental Agency
Sulphur limits in land transportation
Source: IEA MEDIUM-TERM Oil Market Report – July 2007
The choices to MARPOL Annex VI
Solution
1. HFO with abatement technologies
2. Cleaner fuels = LSFO or Distillate
Application
1. Globally*
2. Locally/regionally
*No SECAs, no fuel switch over, no complicated bunker storage
systems, no responsibility to find the right fuel for the right
region, no responsibility to prove compliance on fuel
switch over or on operating abatement technologies and
disposal of waste, no fuel treatment: minimal sludge, little
to incinerate & minimal waste to handle and dispose
37%
32%
Mdl distil. - % share
27%
Fuel oil - % share
22%
HFO supply – constant decrease
17%
HFO demand – constant growth
?
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
1979
1977
1975
1973
1971
1969
1967
1965
12%
REFINERY PRODRUCT STREAMS
Source: Shell Guide
~7% ~8%
to supply
the
additiona
l MDO
Exhaust Gas Scrubber
Case Study
•
•
Scrubbers installed only on 50% (18
MW) of the engines onboard
Dimensions
–
–
–
•
•
ME 12 MW: 3.80 m diameter x 11.2 m height
AE 3.2 MW: 1.85 m diameter x 5.98 m height
AE 2.4 MW: 1.40 m diameter x 4.90 m height
New funnel
Cost
–
–
–
–
US$5.6 m for equipment
US$0.5 m transportation cost of the units
US$1,3 m for installation
US$0.9 m/year operational costs
Exhaust Gas Scrubber Development
Case Study
•
•
260 kW to run the scrubbers – more CO2
Scrubbing water - 16 t/h/MW to remove
1.0%S
Key factor is "back pressure"; the main
engine is utilised with an economizer and
placing the scrubber behind/before this
economizer would generate too much
back pressure for the main engine thus the
economizer would need to be removed
SECA operations:
•
•
–
–
–
1.0% S cap = HFO to be used < 2.5% S
0.5% S cap = HFO to be used < 1.25% S
14,000 t/day of seawater + > 5,000 t/day for dilution
to restore the water pH
Distillates – The Benefits
•
Applies to existing ships/engines, as well
as new
•
With no other measure, immediately
reduces:
- SOx emissions by 80 to 90 %
- PM emissions by 90 %
- NOx emissions by 10 to 15 %
•
Facilitates further NOx reductions by inengine modifications (for IMO’s Tier II & III)
•
Facilitates further improvements in energy
efficiency (and GHG reductions)
•
Improves engine reliability
•
Reduces onboard fuel generated waste
Cleaner, Simpler
and more Efficient
ships
Distillates – The Benefits
•
Reduces onboard plant and
maintenance
•
Reduces workload for ER crew by 70%
•
Provides safer working environment for
ships’ staff and shore side workers
•
Avoids carriage of multi-fuels and fuel
blending/switching problems
•
Reduces control and monitoring
requirements
• Lessens harmful impact of bunker
spills
•
Lowers burden for crew
Cleaner, Simpler
and more Efficient
ships
The CO2 Equation
CARBON NEGATIVE
• SOx deposits in Ocean
• CO2 buffering by sea
water (scrubbing or not)
• Energy required to run
scrubbers
• Energy required to
produce LSFO/Distillates
CARBON POSITIVE
Burning Distillate vs HFO
• Low sulphur – little or no
CO2 from buffering
• Lower fuel consumption
• No pre-treatment
• No post-treatment
required of fuel wastes
• No sludge, no
incineration
• Fuel efficient new
engines
The Cost Issue
MDO/DMB grade 0.5%S
• Refineries investment for distillate globally
US$126 bn (2020)
• For 10 year recovery + associate costs =
US$40 to US$80/t
• Premium paid today: US$300/t
• Refinery efficiency = Less HFO supply
SCRUBBERS
• 60,000 ships x US$5m/ship = US$300 bn.
• Large installations = retrofitting not possible
• Time to retrofit = 7 years or more
Conclusions on Global 0.5% S MDO
• Solid platform of requirements
• Long term and positive reduction of air
emissions from ships
• Long term and a predictable regulatory
regime
• Prevent fragmented regulations
• A global standard for at sea, coastal and
at berth operations (no SECAs)
• Realistic and feasible solution
Conclusions on Global 0.5% S MDO
• Regulations based on a fuel standard rather
than an emissions performance standard only
• At least carbon neutral, probably carbon
positive, i.e. net beneficial effect
• Leaves open options for better solutions for
NOx and CO2 emissions
• Better to deal with the cause of a problem than
to concentrate on the effects only!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
QUALITY PROBLEMS WITH
RESIDUAL MARINE FUEL OILS
HIGH ABRASIVE FUELS
HIGH ASH
LOW FLASH POINT
HIGH SEDIMENTS
HIGH DENSITY
FUELS CONTAINING USED LUBE OILS
POLYETHYLENE CONTAMINATION
POLYSTYRENE CONTAMINATION
HIGH CALCIUM & HIGH SODIUM
HIGH WATER CONTENT
CONTAMINATED FUELS
INCOMPATIBILITY OF BLENDS
ALL these avoided with use of MDO
GHG Emissions
• GHG emssions & solutions
– HFC: reduce use & no leakages
– O3 (NOx & VOC):
• NOx:
• VOC:
MDO + in-engne solutions
KVOC + VOCON valve/procedure
– CO2:
• MDO – higher energy/kg than in HFO
• Measure to minimise the energy used
• GWP (gobal warming potential)
– CO2 = 1; - O3 = ~ 20; - N2O = 310;
– HFC-23 = 12,000; - HFC-134a = 3,830
Measures for GHG Redcution
• Reduce heat losses
• No unecessary operations, e.g. no tank
cleaning between same cargo
• Cargo filling – 98%
• Minimise/no waiting time in port
• Reduce ballast legs
• Carbon capture
Measures for GHG Redcution
• Larger ships
• More efficient engines – LS MDO/MGO required
• Smoother hull surfaces - (silica/nanotechnology, air skirts; seachests shape; hull
weld protrusions, other protrusions)
• Reduced wave resistance
• Reduced hull resistance (non biocidal AF
paints are proposed - they slime bad; the cost
of slime in terms of drag is under researched;
hard hull cleaning versus soft slime brushing
... benefits, cost and drawbacks .. )
Measures for GHG Redcution
• Improved propulsive efficiency
(propellers, smoothness, cleaning ...
position ; rudders, shape ... position ....
relation to position of propeller ..)
• Composite materials
• "Air friction" to reduce drag - WAIP (Wing
Air Induction Pipe) technology (would the
degree of drag reduction due to air
bubbles be sufficient to overcome the
increase of drag by injectors/protrusions
of such a system?)
Questions?
[email protected]
Anti-Trust/Competition Law
Compliance Statement
INTERTANKO’s policy is to be firmly committed to maintaining a fair and
competitive environment in the world tanker trade, and to adhering to all
applicable laws which regulate INTERTANKO’s and its members’ activities in
these markets. These laws include the anti-trust/competition laws which the
United States, the European Union and many nations of the world have
adopted to preserve the free enterprise system, promote competition and
protect the public from monopolistic and other restrictive trade practices.
INTERTANKO’s activities will be conducted in compliance with its Antitrust/Competition Law Guidelines.