Fuel selection for Ro-Ro
Vessels
Oskar Levander
Director, Concept Design
Ro-Ro Shipping Conference 2011
10.3.2011, Copenhagen
1
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Content
• Introduction
• Fuel scenarios
• Fuel comparison
– Example: Large RoRo
– EEDI and fuel choice
• LNG as a marine fuel
• Can LNG be an option for ocean going vessels?
– Example:Next generation PCTC
• Conclusions
2
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Environmental challenge
3
NOx
SOx
CO2
PM
Acid rains
Acid rains
Greenhouse
gas
Harming humans
and animals
Tier II (2011)
Tier III (2016)
3.5% (2012)
ECA 0.1% (2015)
Under evaluation
by IMO
Along with SOx
reduction
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
NOx reduction – IMO requirements and methods
Specific NOx emissions (g/kWh)
Tier I (present)
18
16
Dry methods (engine optimization)
14
- Concepts are ready
12
Ships built 2000 onwards
Engines > 130 kW
Retrofit: Ships built
1990 – 2000
Engines > 90 litres/cylinder
and > 5000 kW
Wärtsilä: RTA, W46, W64
10
8
- SCR Catalyst
- Alternative pathways under
6
4
Tier III (ECAs 2016)
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Rated engine speed (rpm)
© Wärtsilä
Ships keel laid 2011 onwards
Engines > 130 kW
investigation (Combined measures)
2
4
Tier II (global 2011)
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Ships in designated
areas, keel laid 2016
onwards
Engines > 130 kW
IMO Sulphur Limits
4,5%
World
3,5%
1,5%
ECA
1,0%
0,5%
0,1%
5
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
EU in ports
Greenhouse emission reductions
The public is demanding lower CO2 emissions from ships
IMO is trying to respond the demand by introducing guidelines for:
– Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
– Energy Efficiency Operational Index (EEOI)
– …
3 paths to CO2 emission reduction:
– Reduce power demand
– Improve efficiency
– Change to alternative fuels
6
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
New regulations: how to meet compliance?
Greenhouse gases (GHG)
global warming caused by human activities
Regional
pollutants
NOx
- Primary dry
methods (engine
technologies)
-Primary wet methods
(water use)
- Secondary methods
(after treatment)
7
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
SOx (& PM)
GAS
- Primary methods
(low sulphur fuels)
- Secondary
methods (after
treatment)
Three scenarios to 2020-2025
• Abatement technologies not
completely accepted by the
market and/or regulators
• Not sufficient supply of distillates
and/or high price premium of
distillates vs. other fuels
• LNG infrastructures developed:
terminals, bunkering facility
• Competitive LNG price
• Successful development of
technologies to use nonconventional marine fuels,
including renewable energy
Fuels
mix
Majority
Low S
fuels
• Stable or decreased demand for
distillates from road transportation
(electric cars)
• Downstream investment in additional
refining capacity (M-E, India, China);
investments supported by availability
of engineering skills / materials
• Regulators or market not accepting
exhaust abatement technologies
8
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Majority
HFO
• Regulators + market acceptance of
exhaust abatement technologies
• High demand from road transportation
high pressure on refining capacity
high price of distillates
• Slow downstream investment
• CO2 taxes limiting expansion of energy
intensive refineries
Mapping of fuels
Sulphur emission regulations impact the choice of fuel
The choice of fuel is not a simple one!
HSFO
+
–
Distillates
(MDO - MGO)
© Wärtsilä
Biofuels*
• Cost comp. to
MGO
• Availability
• Low emissions
• No treatment on
board
• Very low
emissions
• High efficiency
• Low ship
operating costs
• Low SOx and CO2
emissions
• Requires
scrubber in SECA
• Treatment on
board
• Price
• Long term
availability
• Viscosity issues
• Availability /
logistics
• Space on board
• Price
• Availability
• Not sustainable
from food crops
* Includes raw vegetable oils, biodiesel, synthetic fuels (BTL)
9
Natural Gas
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Marine Fresh Water Scrubber System
Exhaust
Gas
Closed loop works with
freshwater, to which
NaOH is added for the
neutralization of SOx.
CLOSED LOOP
=
Zero discharge
in enclosed area
pH
NaOH unit
pH
Fresh water
Scrubber
Water Treatment
Cooling
Holding tank
Process tank
Seawater
10
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Sludge tank
Fuel prices
35
LNG Japan average [USD/MBtu]
30
NG Henry hub [USD/MBtu]
HFO 380cst Rotterdam [USD/MBtu]
25
USD/MBtu
MGO Rotterdam [USD/MBtu]
20
15
10
5
O
ct
-0
Fe 1
b0
Ju 2
n0
O 2
ct
-0
Fe 2
b0
Ju 3
n0
O 3
ct
-0
Fe 3
b0
Ju 4
n0
O 4
ct
-0
Fe 4
b0
Ju 5
n0
O 5
ct
-0
Fe 5
b0
Ju 6
n0
O 6
ct
-0
Fe 6
b0
Ju 7
n0
O 7
ct
-0
7
Fe
b0
Ju 8
n0
O 8
ct
-0
Fe 8
b0
Ju 9
n0
O 9
ct
-0
Fe 9
b1
Ju 0
n1
O 0
ct
-1
0
0
Sources: www.lngoneworld.com, www.bunkerworld.com, LR Fairplay
11
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Expected LNG prices
Energy price
Price between HFO-LNG
1,4 x price HFO
Price similar
to HFO
"SMALL SCALE" LNG
Purchase price (gas or LNG)
12
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
DISTRIBUTION FROM LNG TERMINALS
LNG production
Freight and terminal costs
Bunkering
Example:
RoRo vessels concept for
operation inside ECA
14
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Efficient RoRo concept
15
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
RoRo main particulars
16
•
Size
•
Length
225 m
•
Length, bp
213 m
•
Beam
28.2 m
•
Draft
7.0 m
•
Depth, main deck
9.7 m
•
Speed, service
•
Lane meters
4 500 m
•
Deadweight
12 500 tons
•
Propulsion power
•
Aux power
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
35.000 GT
~21 knots
17.5 MW (installed)
3 MW (installed)
Oskar Levander
RoRo vessel cargo arrangement
• Large cargo deck areas
• Ramps to upper deck located on outside of ship
– Faster loading and unloading
– Ramps do not block the loading of the main deck
17
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Ramp arrangement
Conventional RoRo
The new cargo deck and
ramp arrangement allow for
faster loading
To upper deck
To lower hold
To main deck
More free lanes, since the
ramp to the upper deck is
moved outside the hull
New RoRo arrangement
To upper deck
To main deck
To lower hold
To main deck
To upper deck
18
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Triple screw
• With almost the same appendage resistance as twin shaft lines, why
not have 3 propellers?
– Centre propeller shaft inside the skeg, no shaft supports needed
– A skeg is anyway needed for course stability
• Lower propeller loading with 3 propellers
– Better open water efficiency!
– 7% lower power demand compared to twin shafts
19
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Better manoeuvring with triple screw
LIFT
Twin screw
– One propeller is driving
forward and one is reversing
– Only one rudder is generating
side force
LIFT
Triple screw
– The two side propellers are
driving forward and the centre
one is reversing
– Two rudders are generating
side force
20
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LIFT
Machinery comparison: Cases
21
• Case 1:
MGO + SCR
• Case 2:
HFO + SCR + Scrubber
• Case 3:
LNG
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Case 1
MGO
SCR
SCR
5.8 MW
SCR
SCR
GEAR
8L38
SCR
1.11 MW
SCR
6L20
5.8 MW
PTO
2.5 MW
1.11 MW
GEAR
8L38
6L20
5.8 MW
GEAR
6L20
8L38
2 x 1.2 MW
17.4 MW
3.3 MW
MDO
22
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
G
1.11 MW
MSB
Installed propulsion power:
Installed aux power:
G
HFO
G
Case 2
HFO
Integrated
Scrubber
SCR
SCR
5.8 MW
SCR
SCR
GEAR
8L38
SCR
1.11 MW
SCR
6L20
5.8 MW
PTO
2.5 MW
1.11 MW
GEAR
8L38
6L20
5.8 MW
GEAR
6L20
8L38
2 x 1.2 MW
17.4 MW
3.3 MW
MDO
23
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
G
1.11 MW
MSB
Installed propulsion power:
Installed aux power:
G
HFO
G
Case 3
LNG
5.85 MW
GEAR
6L50DF
1 056 kW
6L20DF
5.85 MW
PTO
2.5 MW
1.056 kW
GEAR
6L50DF
6L20DF
5.85 MW
GEAR
6L20DF
6L50DF
2 x 1.2 MW
17.55 MW
3.17 MW
MDO
24
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
G
1.056 kW
MSB
Installed propulsion power:
Installed aux power:
G
LNG
G
Fuel prices
USD/ton
EUR/ton
USD/MBtu
HFO
415
340
10.8
MGO
660
540
16.2
LNG
510
420
11.0
Source: www.bunkerworld.com (June 2010), LNG price estimated
1 EUR = 1.22 USD
25
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Annual operating cost
12 000
SCR operating costs
-2.4%
-3.9%
Lubrication oil costs
Annual operating cost [kEUR]
10 000
- 2.7 M€
- 3.7 M€
8 000
Scrubber operating
costs (NaOH + Fresh
Water)
Fuel costs
6 000
Used fuel prices:
4 000
HFO
340 €/ton
(415 USD/ton)
MGO
540 €/ton
(660 USD/ton)
LNG
420 €/ton
(11 USD/mBTU)
Consumables:
2 000
Urea (40%) 240 €/ton
0
MGO
26
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
HFO
LNG
NaOh
225 €/m3
FW
3 €/m3
Machinery investment cost indication
20 000
18 000
Scrubbers
16 000
Machinery first cost [kEUR]
SCR
14 000
Fuel system (LNG
tank etc.)
12 000
Steering
10 000
Propulsion train
8 000
Aux engines
6 000
Propulsion engines
4 000
2 000
0
MGO
27
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
HFO
LNG
Annual machinery related costs
14 000
12 000
Operating cost
Annual operating cost [kEUR]
-2 380 k€
-2 850 €
10 000
Capital cost
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
Time:
10 years
Interest rate: 6 %
0
MGO
28
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
HFO
Oskar Levander
LNG
Exhaust emissions
CO2
NOx
SOx
140%
Relative exhaust emissions
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
MGO
HFO
LNG
Note that all cases fullfills IMO NOx Tier III, For MGO concept
the NOx reduction is IMO Tier II – 90%.
29
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Transport efficiency - EEDI
EEDI value [CO2 ton / dwt * kn]
40
30
DNV baseline proposal (2009)
20
10
0
MGO
HFO
NOTE: The values are based on the proposed formula. Not yet finalised.
Ice class is not included in the values
30
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LNG
EEDI and fuel selection
31
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
IMO Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
32
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
IMO Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)
CO2 emissions
EEDI =
Transport work
33
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
EEDI – the speed limit
• The EEDI is penalising speed to a high
degree
• A ships EEDI value is more dependent
on the speed than on how well the ship
has been designed
• EEDI is a power limit and thereby
virtually a speed limit at sea
• Can it cause an undesired modal shift
away from sea transportation to land
based transportation?
35
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Propulsion power in existing RoRo vessels
Propulsion power - DWT
Ro-Ro vessels, +20 knots
30000
Main engine power [kW]
25000
Min power in current designs
20000
New RoRo concept
15000
10000
Max allowed main engine power
for 20 knots at 75% MCR *
5000
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
DWT, design [tonnes]
Existing RoRo vessel with a service speed of 20 knots or more have clearly
more installed power than what is allowed by the EEDI (HFO operation).
* The max allowed main engine power is calculated with the baseline proposed by DNV. It is assumed that there is
not PTO, ice class or any energy saving device onboard. The speed is assumed to be 20 knots at trial conditions
with 75% MCR. The SFOC is based on values for typical diesel engines in the 5000 -12 000 kW range
36
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Assumptions:
EEDI vs speed estimation
Length, wl
220 m
Beam
28.2 m
Draft
DWT
7 m
12 500 ton
EEDI value for RoRo
50
45
[g (CO2) / dwt*kn]
40
Calculated EEDI
(HFO)
35
30
Limit according to the proposed baseline
25
NOTE: not yet approved by IMO
20
EEDI requirement
at 12 500 dwt
15
10
Speeds resulting in EEDI value
exceeding baseline limit!
Speeds with
OK EEDI
5
0
16
17
18
19
20
21
Speed [kn]
37
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
22
23
24
25
Assumptions:
EEDI vs speed estimation – HFO vs LNG
Length, wl
220 m
Beam
28.2 m
Draft
DWT
7 m
12 500 ton
EEDI value for RoRo
50
45
[g (CO2) / dwt*kn]
40
Calculated EEDI
(HFO)
35
30
-26%
Calculated EEDI
(LNG)
Proposed baseline
25
20
15
EEDI requirement
at 12 500 dwt
~2.5 knot speed
increase possible
with LNG!
10
5
0
16
17
18
19
20
21
Speed [kn]
38
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
22
23
24
25
EEDI advantage with LNG
If the current EEDI proposal will come into force for RoRo vessels:
LNG will offer clear advantages for ships requiring high
installed power!
39
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LNG
40
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Cleaner Exhaust Emissions with LNG
• 25-30% lower CO2
– Thanks to low carbon to hydrogen ratio of fuel
• 85% lower NOX
– Lean burn concept (high air-fuel ratio)
• No SOX emissions
– Sulphur is removed from fuel
when liquefied
• Very low particulate emissions
• No visible smoke
• No sludge deposits
41
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Dual-fuel engine range
20DF
6L20DF
1.0 MW
8L20DF
1.4 MW
9L20DF
34DF
6L34DF
9L34DF
12V34DF
1.5 MW
2.7 MW
4.0 MW
5.4 MW
16V34DF
7.2 MW
20V34DF
50DF
6L50DF
9.0 MW
Higher output for 60Hz / Main engines
5.85 MW
8L50DF
7.8 MW
9L50DF
8.8 MW
12V50DF
11.7 MW
16V50DF
15.6 MW
18V50DF
0
42
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
17.55 MW
5
10
15
LNG fuelled PSV: Viking Energy & Stril Pioneer
Viking Energy / Stril Pioneer
Designed by: Wärtsilä Ship Design
LNG tank = 220 m3
4 x Wärtsilä 6L32DF gensets = 8080 kW
43
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LNG fuelled PSV: Viking Queen & Viking Lady
Viking Queen / Viking Lady
Designed by: Wärtsilä Ship Design
LNG tank = 220 m3
4 x Wärtsilä 6L32DF gensets = 8080 kW
44
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Conversion of Bit Viking
45
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Conversion of Bit Viking
46
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Conversion of Bit Viking
• 25,000 dwt Twin Screw Chemical Tanker by Wärtsilä Ship Design
• Classification society GL
• Main Engines:
2 x Wärtsilä 6L46 / 5850 kW
• 2 x W6L50DF / 5700 kW
• Autonomy = 12 days operation on ~80% load
• 2 x 500 m3 LNG tanks
47
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LNG fuelled ferries
Large ferries running on LNG
Coming soon to a port near you….
48
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LNG development pax vessel projects
Wärtsilä is actively developing solutions for
LNG fuelled passenger vessel:
– Fast LNG RoPax (2001)
40 000 gt
– Cruise Ferry (2005)
10 000 gt
– RoPax (2006)
30 000 gt
– PaxCar Ferry (2007)
65 000 gt
– Cruise ship (2007)
125 000 gt
– Cruise Ferry (2009)
60 000 gt
49
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Wärtsilä LNG fuelled ships
Bridge
LNG tank (pressurized - IMO type C) + tank room
Bunker station with valves and connections to shore
Vacuum insulated pipes (liquid LNG)
Process skid (valves and evaporators)
Gas ramp (gas valve unit)
51
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Water/glycol system design
Automation and controls
Gas detection system
Operating manual and class approval
LNGPac Simplified P&ID
LNG
Gas
Anti - freeze heating media
Bunkering station
LT - water
Product
evaporator
PBU
Tank room
LNG heating circuit connected
to AC cooling circuit
52
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
To GVU
Stop valve &
master valve
LNG storage
Storage volume (Relative)
4,5
Volume relative to MDO in DE
4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
Diesel
Fuel
53
© Wärtsilä
Tank
11 March 2011
LNG (10bar)
Tank Room
Oskar Levander
LNG storage location
Gas storage below deck
LNG tank
Min. B/15 or 2 m (the lesser)
Never less than 760 mm
Min. B/5 or 11,5 m (the lesser)
LNG tank
Never less than 760 mm
54
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Conventional tank location
55
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LNG tanks located vertically
56
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LNG tanks located outside
The LNG tanks can be located outside
• Does not take up space inside ship
• Good ventilation
• No ventilation casing needed
trough accommodation
• Visible location for good PR
57
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LNG containers lifted onboard
60
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Bunkering
• Tanker truck
• Containers lifted onboard
• Trailers loaded onboard
• Land based storage tank
• Tanker ship / barge
61
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Bunkering from LNG truck
63
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LNG bunker barge/tanker
64
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LNG barge carrier – operation principle
65
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LNG barge carrier – operation principle
66
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Total Concept Optimization
Wärtsilä engineers solutions for LNG delivery, storage,
transportation and utilization onboard.
67
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Can LNG also be an option for
ocean going vessels?
Example: New PCTC generation
68
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Next generation PCTC
69
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
PCTC and Panama canal locks
Present locks
Chamber Length
Max vessel LOA
Max vessel B
Max vessel T
70
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
305.0 m
294.0 m
32.2 m
12.0 m
Oskar Levander
New locks
Chamber Length
Max vessel LOA
Max vessel B
Max vessel T
427.0 m
366.0 m
49.0 m
15.2 m
PCTC - Improved cargo handling
71
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Main deck Lay-out
Ramp up
Ramp down – ramp cover
DECK 5
Ramp up
Quarter ramp
72
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Side ramp
PCTC - Midship section
73
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
LNG
• Consumption per day at 17 knots
Incl. 10% Margin
• Total demand for 12 500 NM range
Tank configuration: 6 x 530 m3 (net)
74
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
39 tons
90 m3
100 m3
3 100 m3
3180 m3
Capacity
Medium speed engines are lower than low
speed main engine
– One cargo deck more on top of engine
room
– 1 170 m2
Exhaust is located outside of superstructure
– No casing inside ship
– Added deck area
– 1 130 m2
Area savings: 2 300 m2
2 400 m2 of deck area needed for the LNG
tanks (3 180 m3)
75
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Machinery configuration
1 MW
5.85 MW
6L20DF
6L50DF
GEAR
1 MW
5.85 MW
6L20DF
PTO
2 MW
6L50DF
MSB
2 x 1 MW
MDO
11 March 2011
76
© Wärtsilä
G
1 MW
6L20DF
Oskar Levander
G
LNG
G
Emissions per transported car
CO2
NOx
SOx
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Conv (HFO, 19 knots)
77
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Conv. (HFO, 17 knots)
New concept (LNG, 17
knots)
NPV – 20 years - relative to reference vessel
60000
Assumptions:
Servicing only Japan – Europe route
NPV – M$
50000
Fuel prices (2 % escalation p.a.)
HFO: USD 630 /ton
(16,4 $/mBTU)
LNG: USD 540 /ton
(12 $/mBTU)
40000
30000
Manning, spares, lube oil and voyage
costs (excl. fuel) are fixed (price
escalation 2-3 % p.a.)
20000
Finance 50 % with amortizing loan
Interest rate 7,5 %
Maturity of 6 years
10000
Required return on equity: 15 %
0
Conv (HFO, 19 Conv. (HFO, 17 New concept
knots)
knots)
(LNG, 17 knots)
78
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
Conclusions
Both “HFO + Scrubber” and “LNG” offer clear advantage over “MGO”
LNG has most potential for new short sea shipping vessels
•Proven technology available
•New bunkering solutions will be introduced
79
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander
www.wartsila.com
Contact:
• Oskar Levander
• Director, Concept Design, MLS
+358-40-832 2256
• oskar.levander@wartsila.com
80
© Wärtsilä
11 March 2011
Oskar Levander