Brown Bag (Roy) - EEDI for LNG Tankers
Denunciar
Biswajoy RoySeguir
12 de Sep de 2016•0 recomendaciones•1,765 vistas
Brown Bag (Roy) - EEDI for LNG Tankers
12 de Sep de 2016•0 recomendaciones•1,765 vistas
Descargar para leer sin conexión
Denunciar
Biswajoy RoySeguir
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
HYDROGEN POWERED CARSDarshan Shivanna
Lng vesselsSaurabh Agarwal
HYDROGEN FUEL CELL VEHICLESJJ Technical Solutions
Man diesel & turboMaritime Cluster Funen
CNG as aAlternate fuel for I.C Enginepdsolanki
PROJECT REPORT ON VARIOUS MECHANICAL UNITS INVOLVED IN THE BOTTLING OF LPG CY...Mohit Dhull
Destacado
alternative fuel for marine enginesDelwin CK
How Smart Grid overlaps with Energy EfficiencyJim Thayer
Vessel efficiency compeition case study andrew flockhart cmalKTN
Kra sebi-slideshareWealthPlanned!
“Southern Thailand and the New Silk Roads: Opportunities and Challenges”Klangpanya
EcoMarine PowerAlys Spillman
Similar a Brown Bag (Roy) - EEDI for LNG Tankers
Effect of Modified Design on Engine Fuel Efficiency IJERA Editor
LNG as fuel innovation 220618MARTIAL CLAUDEPIERRE
SMID_016_AeroderivativeGTsforLNGPlantsDexter Vaz
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON PERFORMANCE AND EMISSION ANALYSIS OF SINGLE CYL...IRJET Journal
History of gasoline direct compression ignition (gdci)eSAT Publishing House
History of gasoline direct compression ignition (gdci) engine a revieweSAT Journals
Brown Bag (Roy) - EEDI for LNG Tankers
- 1. Biswajoy Roy Marine Intern Brown Bag Aug 30, 2016 Energy Efficiency Regulations for LNG Carriers
- 2. Brief Details about the study Study encompasses 493 LNG Carriers (>10,000 DWT – EEDI Requirement). Includes vessels on order up to 2019. Includes four major propulsion technologies considered. o Steam Turbine Propulsion System o Dual Fuel Diesel Electric (4 stroke – operates on Otto cycle in Gas Mode) o Slow Speed Diesel Propulsion with Re-liquefaction o Main Engine Gas Injection (ME-GI) (2 stroke – operates on Diesel cycle in Gas Mode) 2
- 3. Background Information History of LNG Carriers and subsequent technological development
- 4. History of LNG Carriers 4
- 5. Oldest vs Largest 1st Commercial LNG Carrier Largest LNG Carrier Ship Name Methane Princess Mozah Entered Service June 1964 September 2008 Gas Capacity 27,400 cubic meters 266,000 cubic meters Number of tanks 9 5 Length 188 345 Width 24 54 Propulsion Type Steam Heavy Fuel Oil - Motor http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/50th-Anniversary-of-First-Commercial-LNG-Tanker-2014-06-19
- 6. How does it look ?? • View of a Q-Max ship - 266,000 cubic meters cargo capacity • One cargo can light up approximately 70,000 US homes for one year. (2008 Figure)
- 7. How does it look ?? http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd188/bulkers/LNG-Carriers/Mozah-3.jpg • Inside an LNG tank – Prismatic Membrane type made of 1.2 mm thick stainless steel. • Cargo capacity– 57,700 cubic meters (98.5% of size)
- 8. Challenges in carrying LNG Liquefaction temperature of -161 °C – Cryogenic Cargo. Special materials and insulations required to contain the cargo in liquid form. Due to such low temperature, there is continuous generation of Boil-off Gas (BOG) which must be controlled to maintain the tank pressure. Is highly flammable and has extremely high energy.
- 9. Technical Details Operating Principle of Engines and Methane Slip
- 10. Propulsion Technologies Propulsion Types Steam HFO with Re- liquefaction Dual Fuel Diesel Electric (DFDE) Main Engine Gas Inject (MEGI)
- 11. Steam Turbine Propulsion System 11
- 12. Dual Fuel Diesel Electric Propulsion 12
- 13. Slow Steam Diesel Propulsion with Reliquefaction 13
- 14. Main Engine Gas Injection – New Build 14
- 15. Main Engine Gas Injection – Retrofit 15
- 16. Marine Engines Operating on Gas ME-GI o 2 Stroke Slow Speed Engines o Operates on Diesel Cycle in Gas Mode DFDE o 4 Stroke Medium Speed Engines o Operates on Otto Cycle in Gas Mode 16
- 17. Diesel Cycle vs Otto Cycle Diesel Cycle Otto Cycle Combustion is a constant pressure process Combustion is a constant volume process Fuel is injected before gas Gas is injected before fuel No pre-ignition/no knocking Pre-ignition/Knocking Less methane slip Significant methane slip High pressure gas injection (300 bar) Low pressure gas injection (<10 bar) Do not meet NOX Tier III standards Meet NOX Tier III standards MEGI Propulsion (slow speed engines) DFDE Propulsion (medium speed engines
- 18. Methane Slip Methane slip is the unburned methane in the combustion chamber which escapes into the atmosphere along with the engine exhaust. Methane has a GWP of 25 for a 100 year period 18http://www.martinottaway.com/blog/rik-van-hemmen/methane-slip-and-marine-industry Engine Type Methane Slip (g/kWh) SFC (g/kWh) % of SFC DFDE (Otto Cycle – Gas) 5.000 162 3.09% MEGI (Diesel Cycle – Gas) 0.693 140 0.49% Diesel (HFO & MDO) 0.034 190 0.02%
- 19. Methodology EEDI for different propulsion type and how methane slip affects it
- 20. Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) EEDI is a performance standard for new vessels, to encourage more efficient ship design. IMO’s main motive behind EEDI was to device an index to represent marine GHG emissions from ships. Since marine GHG emissions consists primarily of CO2, the EEDI is representative of only CO2 emission.
- 21. Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) Originally adopted in 2012 for merchant vessels at MEPC 63 Amended in 2014, with a special category of LNG Tankers, apart from other Gas Carriers at MEPC 66. 21 EEDI = EnvironmentalCost BenifittotheSociety = CO2 emitted Transport mile
- 22. EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index) 22
- 23. EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index) 23
- 24. SFC and CF Values Used 2-Stroke SFC claim to be 20% lesser than DFDE (4-stroke Otto Cycle) These values are without considering the methane slip 24 Technology & Fuel ME SFC (g/kWh) AE SFC (g/kWh) CF (gCO2/gF uel) Otto Cycle – Gas 140 162 2.75 Diesel Cycle - Gas 140 - 2.75 Boiler - Gas 285 - 2.75 Conventional HFO 190 215 3.114 MDO (Pilot Fuel) 6 6 3.206
- 25. CF Including Methane Slip Cycle (gas) SFC (g/kWh) CF (Gas) (gCO2/gFuel) CH4 Slip (g/kWh) CF (gas) with CH4 slip Otto – 4 stroke 162 2.75 5.0 3.437 Otto – 2 stroke 140 2.75 4.0 3.386 Diesel – 2 stroke 140 2.75 0.693 2.860 25 0 1 2 3 4 Otto Cycle - 4 stroke Otto Cycle - 2 stroke Diesel Cycle 2 - stroke CF (gCO2/gFuel) With Methane Slip Without Methane Slip
- 26. EEDI Baseline and Future Standards 26 Attained EEDI £ Required EEDI = 1- x 100 æ è ç ö ø ÷Reference Value Ship Type Size (DWT) Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 01/01/2015 – 08/31/2015 09/01/2015 – 12/31/2019 01/01/2020 – 12/31/2025 01/01/2025 onwards LNG Carrier >10,000 0% 10% 20% 30% ReferenceValue = 2253.7´DWT-0.474 .
- 27. Note Attained EEDI in this report will be referred to as EIV– Estimated Index Value This is because, the attained EEDI calculated in this project might differ from the actual attained EEDI on board the ship during sea trial.
- 28. Delivery of LNG Carriers 28
- 29. Results & Analysis Calculation of EIV (Estimated Index Value) for different propulsion carriers
- 30. EIV for Steam Propulsion 30
- 31. EIV for HFO Propulsion with Re-liquefaction Plant 31
- 32. EIV for Dual Fuel Engines using Otto Cycle in Gas Mode (DFDE) 32
- 33. EIV for Dual Fuel Engines using Diesel Cycle in Gas Mode (ME-GI) 33
- 34. EIV Compliance Without Methane Slip 34
- 35. EIV Compliance With Methane Slip 35
- 36. Policy Alternatives Ways to make the EEDI Regulation more effective
- 37. Policy Alternatives 1. No Change in Current Baseline o On paper EEDI Regulation would still seem to be effective. o However, would not encourage technological development towards reduction of marine GHG emission o Continue to ignore methane slip 37
- 38. Policy Alternatives 2. Maintain Present Reference Baseline with more stringent reduction o IMO probably have underestimated the technological development that has taken place o Reduce 2020-2025 standards by 25% from the baseline. o Reduce 2025 standards 40-50% from the baseline as per needs. o MEPC can have a constant check on the emission levels and decide future reductions accordingly. 38
- 39. Policy Alternatives 3. Change the current Reference Baseline o Since last reference line based on 2000-2010. Mostly represent steam vessels o Since steam propulsion is getting obsolete, make a new baseline representing current technologies representing dual fuel engines. 39
- 40. Policy Alternatives 4. Include Methane Slip in EEDI Calculations o EEDI calculation is not representative of the marine GHG emissions for LNG carriers o Inclusion of methane is important to correctly represent the marine GHG emissions. o This can be done without changing the current reference baseline, or along with any of the other policy alternatives suggested above. 40
- 41. Policy Alternatives 5. Correction Factor for methane slip o Propulsion Methodology based correction factor which can be directly multiplied with CF. o SlipCH4 will depend upon the engine stroke and engine cycle. 41 Engine Cycle & Stroke Correction Factor Otto Cycle – 4 Stroke 1.25 Otto Cycle – 2 Stroke 1.23 Diesel Cycle – 2 Stroke 1.04 CorrectionFactor = 1- SlipCH4 SFCgas(ME) æ è çç ö ø ÷÷+ SlipCH4 ´GWPCH4 SFCgas(ME) ´CF æ è çç ö ø ÷÷
- 42. Conclusion This presentation tries to find out whether the current EEDI regulation is incentivizing the technological improvement, it aimed at doing. We see that the EEDI regulation needs to be revamped to make it more relevant and provide a regulatory push to reduce marine GHG emissions. Inclusion of methane slip for LNG Carriers is necessary if IMO wishes to use EEDI as an index for marine GHG emissions and just not CO2. The policy alternatives suggested might provide some answers to make the EEDI regulation more effective 42
- 43. 43 QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Thank You !!! Acknowledgements: Special Thanks to the ICCT Marine Team: Bryan, Dan, Xiaoli and Naya. It was an enjoyable learning experience. Grateful to everyone at ICCT for their warmth and friendliness!
Notas del editor
- Thank you Bryan for introducing me. It has been a privilege and fun working at ICCT with all the colleagues, and specially the marine team here at DC. Over the last one month, I have worked upon this project of Energy Efficiency Regulations for LNG carriers. It mainly covers the efficacy of the energy efficiency regulation for gas carriers.
- Some very brief details about my project. This study encompasses 493 vessels, of 10,000 DWT and above – according to IMO regulation. This includes vessels on order up to 2019. The study is based on the four main LNG propulsion technologies: Steam Turbine Propulsion System Dual Fuel Diesel Electric Propulsion (DFDE) Slow Speed Diesel Propulsion with Re-liquefaction plant. Main Engine Gas Injection (ME-GI) Propulsion
- Some background history on LNG Tankers First purpose built LNG tanker was Methane Princess built in 1964 Then for almost half a century it was dominated by steam propulsion up to 2000. Around 2004 DFDE technology came – which is dual fuel engine operating on otto cycle in gas mode. Then 2007 came Re-liquefaction technology, and them conventional HFO propulsion was possible for LNG carrier Finally, 2011 came Main Engine Gas Injection technology. 2014, EEDI for LNG carriers was adopted as an amendment to Marpol Annex VI.
- This is a comparison between the first LNG ship methane princess and the largest LNG ship Mozah. It has almost 10 times cargo carrying capacity, double the length and width.
- That’s view of how an LNG cargo tank looks from inside. It is one of the modern LNG containment system – GTT Mark III (1.2 mm stainless steel) – primary barrier Any guesses for capacity of this tank – 57,700 cubic meters Triplex – aluminium foil 80 micros between glass cloth (0.7 mm thick) – secondary barrier Re-enforced polyurethane foam as insulator (100 and 170 mm) and then finally plywood (12.5 mm). That’s the ship Mozah One cargo of it provides energy for up to 70,000 US homes (2008 figure – when the ship was built).
- Liquefaction temperature is -161. Such low temperature is a major challenge. Special materials required to contain the cargo in liquid form (Invar, plywood and stainless steel). Such low temperatures lead to constant production of BOG, which must be taken out of the tank to maintain the tank pressure. Also, it is highly inflammable and has extremely high energy (40 atom bombs supposedly).
- Steam is the oldest form of propulsion. Due to the system’s innate ability to handle BOG, this was prevalent over many years until DFDE technology came across. The steam was generated in Boiler which burned the BOG in boiler.
- The first motor propulsion alternative for the LNG Steam propulsion came as DFDE. This dual fuel technology used four stroke medium speed engines operating on Otto Cycle. These engines are used as auxiliary engines to generate electricity and then propeller is driven by an electric motor. This system requires a GCU – Gas Combustion Chamber for maintain the tank pressure.
- Finally, 2007 first ship with LNG re-liquefaction technology developed which could be propelled on conventional HFO. These are the largest type of ships with cargo carrying capacity of 266,000 cubic meters. The technology is not a big success, so there is no current order based on this technology.
- Most recent technology. Based on 2 stroke slow speed dual fuel engines – working on diesel cycle while in gas mode. Auxiliary engines are also dual fuel 4 stroke medium speed similar to DFDE engines.
- So primarily as mentioned before there are currently two major dual fuel technologies One DFDE based on Otto Cycle and the other is MEGI based on Diesel Cycle.
- This graph a comparison between Otto Cycle and Diesel Cycle As shown in the diagram, the primary operating difference is that the Otto cycle has a constant volume process during the combustion, whereas the Diesel Cycle follows a constant pressure process during the combustion. Due to this operating principle the engines in Otto cycle has a higher methane slip (lower injection pressure) compared to the ones operating on Diesel cycle (higher injection pressure) The MEGI technology is based on Diesel Cycle while the DFDE technology is based on Otto Cycle.
- Since EEDI is an index to determine the GHG emission, the methane slip becomes important since methane is one of the major contributors in GHG emissions. Methane slip is the unburned methane in the combustion chamber that escapes along with the engine exhaust. The table shows the methane slip percentages for the different engine types. It is the highest for the Otto cycle and much lower for the Diesel cycle dual fuel engines. It is almost negligible for engines operating on HFO.
- So EEDI can be simply described as the cost to the environment by the benefit to the society which in technical terms is grams of CO2 emitted per transport work. IMO devised the EEDI as an index for marine GHG emission, which was primarily CO2, as marine vessels traditionally used HFO for propulsion. However, the methane slip in modern dual fuel engines questions the efficacy of EEDI regulation for LNG carriers.
- Originally EEDI was adopted at MEPC 63 in 2012 by IMO. MEPC is the Marine Environment Protection Committee which is an IMO sub-committee looking after policy regulation for marine environment and related emissions. EEDI for LNG Carriers was adopted at MEPC 66 in 2014 as an amendment to Marpol Annex VI EEDI Regulation. It was adopted as IMO recognized the LNG tankers did not represent conventional propulsion technologies.
- This is taken from ICCT’s first policy update on EEDI around 2012. The EEDI formula at the first glance very complicated.
- However, in this report there are no cases concerning shaft generator and efficiency technologies. So our formula gets reduced a bit simpler. Also, the capacity adjustment factor in the denominator is considered to be 1.
- Table showing the values of SFC and CF assumed for calculation. SFC for 2 stroke ME using both Otto and Diesel Cycle is assumed as low as 140 g/kWh because mentioned 20% lesser than DFDE engines (162). Since very recent technology, no sea trial SFC available. CF values are as provided in MEPC reports and sample examples
- Table provides CF corrected by including the methane slip. The maximum change is for engines using Otto cycle - 23%. Medium speed Otto Cycle engines have CF values using 3.437 Diesel Cycle 2 stroke have lesser effect of 6% increase.
- Attained EEDI is the value calculated using the formula shown in the first few slides. Attained EEDI must be less than or equal to than the required EEDI standards. Here x is the % reduction from the reference baseline value. 10% every 5 years
- This bar chart provides information about the ship delivery from 1990 onwards. This chart provides the first glimpse as to why EEDI for LNG carriers is questionable. Blue is Steam. Red is HFO – was not much successful and no further orders. Green – Otto Cycle DFDE engines. Purple – Diesel Cycle MEGI engines (newest technology). Shows how steam vessels suddenly has got out of favor from 2010 onwards. Between 2001-2010 maximum number of steam vessels were delivered. And this is the period that ships delivered were considered for the EEDI reference baseline. However, the current deliveries are dual fuel engines (motor propulsion) compared with EEDI baseline based on steam vessels.
- Graph of steam vessels attained EEDI. As shown previously, these vessel types are fast getting obsolete. Oldest propulsion type, most of them do not conform with future regulations. However, there are a few outliers.
- Graph of HFO Propelled vessels with re-liquefaction plant attained EEDI. These vessels were built before 2010. Some of them able to comply standards up to 2019. However, none of them can comply with future regulations.
- Graph shows the attained EEDI for Dual Fuel Engines operating on Otto Cycle in gas mode. Transparent triangles are the EEDI values including the methane slip, and blue circles are without the methane slip. The increase is proportional to their EEDI i.e. 23% increase from their EEDI without methane slip.
- Graph shows the attained EEDI for Dual Fuel Engines operating on Diesel Cycle in gas mode. Transparent squares are the EEDI values including the methane slip, and purple circles are without the methane slip. The increase is proportional to their EEDI i.e. 6% increase from their EEDI without methane slip.
- This graph shows percentages of different vessel types complying with various EEDI standards – without the methane slip Blue is 2025 onwards and more than 60% of dual fuel engines operating on Otto Cycle. Purple is for reference baseline. Diesel Cycle DF engines – newest technology. However, most of them just are just able to comply with the current regulations. HFO and Steam ships still manage to comply with some of the future regulations.
- This is the same graph including the methane slip. Percentage of DF Otto cycle engines change drastically – 2025 onwards less than 30%. DF Diesel Cycle engines are not able to comply with current regulations – even though small increase. No change in steam and HFO vessels.
- Coming on to the policy alternatives part. First is that we make no changes to the current EEDI Regulation for LNG Carriers. On paper everything would still seem efficient, as lot of the vessels will be complying with future regulations. Closer look and we will see that the EEDI levels are constant for more than a decade and there has not be much regulatory push to reduce marine GHG emissions.
- Second option is that we maintain the current reference baseline but have more stringent future reduction. This is because IMO might have under estimated the technological development that has taken place in the last few years. Like 25% reduction from the reference baseline for 2020-2025 standards Also 40-50% reduction from the reference baseline for 2025 onwards. This should be decided at future MEPC meetings depending upon the current emissions levels.
- Third alternative is to change the current reference baseline, to represent the modern fleet of LNG tankers Since 2001-2010 steam carriers was the predominant deliveries, and now they are almost obsolete. The current EEDI baseline is not a good reference point for new deliveries. With the new reference line, we can continue with the same reduction of 10% every 5 years.
- Include methane slip in the EEDI calculations. The inclusion will make EEDI correctly reflect the marine GHG emissions
- A way to do it probably is to provide a propulsion methodology based correction factor. This will depend upon the engine operation type and stroke. The correction factor is as shown in the formula The table provides the correction factor values for the currently three possible dual fuel engine options.
- Concluding … so we can see the EEDI regulations for the LNG Carriers is not representative of the current fleet and does not provide sufficient regulatory push to improve their current EEDI standards. Also, Methane slip needs to be considered if IMO wishes to use EEDI as an index to measure marine GHG emissions. Policy alternatives suggested might be a way forward to make the EEDI more representative of the current LNG fleet.
- Thank you. Any questions?