The Study on Energy Saving Technology

The Study on Energy Saving Technology


2013. 12

Machinery Team II

M a c h in e ry T e a m II


Contents 1.

Introduction ···················································································································· 5 1.1

Environmental Aspects ················································································ 6

1.2

Economic Aspects ························································································ 7

2.

Project Objective ·········································································································· 9

3.

General Process ········································································································ 11

4.

5.

3.1

Pre-feasibility Analysis ·············································································· 11

3.2

Feasibility Analysis ···················································································· 12

3.3

Engineering & Development ···································································· 13

3.4

Construction & Commissioning ······························································· 14

Methodology of Feasibility Analysis ······································································ 16 4.1

Energy Model ······························································································ 16

4.2

Cost Analysis ······························································································ 17

4.3

Emission Analysis ······················································································ 20

4.4

Financial Analysis ······················································································ 23

4.5

Sensitivity & Risk Analysis ······································································ 24

Case Ship and Energy Balance ··········································································· 30 5.1

Operational Profile ····················································································· 31

5.2

Energy Model for Case Ship ·································································· 32

- 2 -



Contents 6.

7.

Study on Energy Saving Technologies ······························································· 39 6.1

LNG Fuelled Ship ······················································································ 39

6.2

CRP propulsion System ··········································································· 50

6.3

Advanced Hull Coatings ··········································································· 59

6.4

Fuel Cells ···································································································· 67

6.5

Electrical Power System ·········································································· 76

6.6

Solar Energy ······························································································· 82

6.7

WHRS ··········································································································· 89

MACC(Marginal Abatement Cost Curve) ·························································· 100

App. 1 Reference

- 3 -



Chapter 1. Introduction

- 4 -



1. Introduction

Recently, the application of new marine systems described as ‘Energy Saving Technologies’ becomes a common issue in shipping industries which are heavily struggling with economic downturn and enhanced environmental regulations.

This harsh global shipping trend encourages

that a number of ship buliders, producers of marine components and systems are grappling with the problems of making ships more fuel efficient.

In addition, ship-owners seek to fuel efficient technologies for

their fleets, which can help to reduce operation costs by cutting fuel consumptions of the vessels.[1] In this regard, Chapter 1 describes why we should pay a keen attention to energy saving technologies in details with the discussion of the following three aspects: Environment, Economy.

1.1. Environmental Aspects

More than 77% of world maritime transport is highly dependent on heavy fuel oil (HFO) or intermediate fuel oil (IFO) which are a viscous residual product remaining at the end of the crude oil refining chain and as such, contains an elevated share of impurities (e.g. oxides, sulphur and water). Carbon dioxide generated from the process of the fuel combustion is considered to be a notorious greenhouse gas, warming the earth's surface to a higher temperature by reducing outward radiation.

In addition to

carbon dioxide, a significant non-greenhouse gas pollutants, in particular NOx, SOx and particulate matters produce acid rains and negative effects on human health etc. The Figure 1 below shows the total F.O consumption of commercial vessels in 2009. The number reaches to approximately 283 Million tonnes resulting in about 887.3Million tonnes of CO2 emission.[2]

- 5 -



Figure 1 Fuel Consumption of Commercial Vessels in 2009

The demand for seaborne trade steadily increases, which will lead to an proportional increase in the air emissions.

It is expected that CO2

emissions will persist, reaching 30% of total global emissions by 2020, approximately 3,650 million tonnes of CO2 emissions by 2050.[3] With

regard

to

this

trend

of

fuel

consumption

in

shipping

sector,

international organizations and local authorities are actively restricting the air emissions through various new regulations and enhanced existing regulations - shipowners, builders and producers are inevitably seeking for ways to meet the strengthened requirements.

1.2. Economic Aspects

World shipping business is highly sensitive to oil prices but not many of ship owners were paying much attention to oil prices until 2004 when oil prices were reasonable – since the average trading price of crude oil was - 6 -



below $200 per ton – and shipping business was prosperous.

However,

since 2004 the big climb started and the price reached to $314 average in 2005, $483 average in 2010, and the continuous rise in oil prices has peaked at up to $675 per ton in 2011, almost 8 times the oil price of $82 per ton recorded in 1978.[4] This

phenomenon

prompted

the

implementation

of

energy

saving

strategies, such as designing more efficient vessels, operating with slow streaming or application of renewable energy sources, to recoup some of the increased costs.

Figure 2 History of Oil Price

- 7 -



Chapter 2. Research Objective

- 8 -



2. Research Objective

This research lays out seven prominent energy efficient technologies - (1) LNG Fuelled Ship, (2) Contra Rotating System (CRP), (3) Advanced Hull Coating, (4) Fuel Cells, (5) Electric Propulsion System, (6) Solar Energy and (7) Waste Heat Recovery System. It is designed to implement cost benefit analysis and air emission analysis, finally, determine the marketability of the proposed systems by applying those systems to a case ship, an 225m long bulk carrier.

- 9 -



Chapter 3. General Process

- 10 -



3. General Process

When it comes to energy project, in most cases, it is very difficult to evaluate exact results with any degree of confidence because it is unable to perfectly delineate potential projects.[5] In order to address this dilemma, prior to energy project implementation, an appropriate procedure is required to be carried out through project process as shown in the figure 3 below. steps:

Pre-feasibility

analysis,

Development and Construction.[6]

Feasibility

The process consists of four analysis,

Engineering

&

For this project of ‘Energy Saving

Technology’, the former two steps of pre-feasibility and feasibility analysis are mainly discussed while the later steps remain for the future study.

Figure 3 Project Process

3.1. Pre-feasibility Analysis

Pre-feasibility analysis describes preliminary assessment of financial and environmental benefits from a new energy project, where a quick and inexpensive initial examination on the plan of project is carried out. As the first step of project process, it is designed to determine whether the proposed energy saving project has a good chance of satisfying the

- 11 -



shipowners for profitability (cost-effectiveness) or regulation requirements, and therefore take the next step to a feasibility analysis where the more serious time investment and resources are required. For the project of ‘Energy Saving Technology’, SWOT1) analysis is taken into account during pre-feasibility analysis phase.

Figure 4 Project Process

This analysis is a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths,

Weaknesses,

Opportunities,

and

Threats

involved

in

the

proposed energy saving technologies, which are implemented based on brainstorming with ask- and- answer questions that generate meaningful information for each category and conduct precise analysis.[7]

3.2. Feasibility Analysis

A feasibility analysis is a method to evaluate the potential marketability of the proposed project which is based on extensive investigation and research to give full comfort to the decisions makers and finally to lead to project’s success.

1) SWOT: Strengths, Harmful, Opportunities and Threats - 12 -



Regarding shipping industries, financial feasibility for a new energy-saving project can be judged on the following parameters[8]: i)　Total estimated cost of the project ii) Financing of the project in terms of its capital structure, debt equity ratio and promoter's share of total cost iii) Projected cash flow and profitability iv) Oil prices, etc This phase typically involves a wide data collection such as price information for products and financial factors and site visits, resource monitoring and more detailed computer simulation etc. The project of 'Energy Saving Technology' focuses on this phase mostly and the details in process of feasibility analysis are discussed in the Chapter 4.

3.3. Engineering Development

Once positive results from feasibility analysis are obtained and the project is decided to move on, technical development and project implementation are followed as the next step where full-scale planning begins. This phase of 'Engineering Development' includes the design and planning of the physical aspects of a project, while development involves the planning, arrangement, negotiation of financial, regulatory, contractual and other nonphysical aspects of the project. Considering this energy saving project of ‘Energy Saving Technology’, it is highly concerned that all the proposed applications, installations and modifications be satisfied with current or emerging conventions – IMO, KR standards - and operational comforts. However, as mentioned in early this Chapter, this stage of actual installation and development of projected energy saving technologies is beyond the scope of this project and left for a future study.

- 13 -



3.4. Construction & Commissioning

As actual construction and application of energy saving technologies to vessels are involved in this stage, the role of site workers and attending surveyors are significant.

Nevertheless, in the same line with the stage of

‘Engineering & Development’, this phase will not be dealt with in this research.

- 14 -



Chapter 4. Methodology of Feasibility Analysis

- 15 -



4. Methodology of Feasibility Analysis

This chapter is designed to illustrate a methodology of feasibility analysis as discussed in the previous chapter. Regarding this project of ‘Energy Saving Technology’, feasibility analysis adopts a series of the following process - Figure 5 below shows a five step standard feasibility analysis.[6]

Figure 5 Process of Feasibility Study

4.1. Energy Model

Energy modeling (Energy balance) is intended to comprehend energy distribution of one’s vessel, which enables ship owners and operators realize the actual fuel consumptions during a certain period time - normally one voyage or year.

For energy modeling on commercial vessels, ship’s

data and its’ operation data, which contain the following factors below, are utilized. i) Ship’s operational profile – speeds and timelines ii) Propulsion power requirements iii) Electricity balance iv) Heat balance, etc - 16 -



As a result of energy modeling, energy leaking areas and potential energy saving areas can be identified, which help ship managers to compose detailed energy saving proposals such as structural modifications, system changes or operational improvements to achieve high energy efficiency for their fleets. On the other hand, for this study, energy modeling is utilized as a monitoring tool to compare energy saving- technology- applied designs with initial designs in the aspect of energy distribution, fuel consumptions and air emissions, etc.

The detailed methodology of energy modeling will be

introduced by directly applying to the case ship in the Chapter 5 - ‘Case Ship and Energy Modeling’.

4.2. Cost Analysis

Cost analysis is a method to ensure the expected costs and benefits from the application of the energy saving technologies to a vessel. In general, the costs charged for the new systems are considered to be the costs of installation, operation & maintenance and even decommission. Meanwhile, benefits are closely related to the energy efficiency of the proposed system and bunker prices; the calculation of the reduced fuel consumptions and the anticipation of oil prices are main concerns.

4.2.1. Costs

Basically, project costs highly depend on proposed systems, which can be largely categorized into three parts: (1) Capital Expenditures (CAPEX), (2) Operating

Expenditures

(OPEX)

and

(3)

Decommission

Expenditures,

shown as below.

- 17 -



Figure 6 Sources for Cost

i) Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) CAPEX can be defined as expenditures for creating future benefits - the costs to purchase non-consumable parts for the proposed products or systems.

In this project of ‘Energy Saving Technology’, CAPEX are safely

matched with the initial costs - installation costs of energy saving technologies to the case ship.

ii) Operating Expenditures (OPEX) OPEX refer to the sum of ongoing costs for operating a product, or system during the project period. For this project of ‘Energy Saving Technology’, OPEX are defined as the costs for bunkers, operation and maintenance including the costs of major overhauls, replacement of components or labor, which are calculated on annual basis.

- 18 -



iii) Decommission Expenditures Decommissioning is a general term for a removal of an existing system from active status and when a project period runs out, decommission expenditures will incur.

The costs significantly vary according to the size

of decommission systems and the degree of the potential pollutions. However, in this project, decommission expenditures are disregarded with one assumption that the applied energy saving systems are intended to be decommissioned together with the dismantlement of all the parts of the case vessel when the ship becomes out of service, which may not claim additional decommissioning costs for the system itself.

4.2.2. Benefits

In a aspect of finance, the benefits refer to the total profits, which can be divided into direct profits and indirect profits.

Direct profits can be

obtained from reduction in fuel consumptions and in emission costs for the places where Emission Trading Scheme is applied and possible discounts of port fee and taxations (for a green-ship emitting less air pollutes, some countries may discount their port berthing fees, a third income), which lead to reduced operational expenditures.

On the other hand, indirect profits

come from potential opportunities such as the enhancement of company’s image, which may attract more environment- keen clients. With regard to this project, reduced expenditures are considered to be only benefits - fuel savings and less maintenance and operation costs for the reasons that markets of Emission Trading Scheme are just localized and the discounts of port bartering fees and taxations are uncertain.[9]

- 19 -



Figure 7 Sources of Benefits

Furthermore, indirect profits from potential opportunities are not considered as its brand values are hard to be measured and converted into monetary values.

4.3. Emission Analysis

For a vessel in service, the quantities of air emissions are directly related to the consumptions of bunkers which produce air pollutes such as CO2, SOx and NOx. mentioned

in

ship-owners or

With regard to the emission- restricting conventions the

previous

Chapter

1,

emission

analysis

enables

operators to monitor or verify whether the vessel’s

performance keeps in line with the regulations.

4.3.1. CO2 Emission

For the calculation of CO2, emission, the carbon conversion factor is applied as

shown in Table 1.

The following carbon factors, CF, are

- 20 -



non-dimensional conversion factors and the values of which vary according to the carbon contents of fuel types.[10]

Table 1 Carbon Factors of bunker oils Regarding this project, EEOI is used as a monitoring tool to evaluate the quantities of CO2 emissions.

Description of EEOI is shown below.

Table 2 EEOI Calculation

4.3.2.

NOX Emission

- 21 -



NOx is produced from the reaction of nitrogen and oxygen gases in engine cylinders during combustion, especially at high temperatures. According to IMO, NOx restriction rule, MEPC.176(58), for the vessels constructed on or after 1 January 2011, the onboard marine diesel engines are to be complied with the requirements of NOx TierII.[11] NOx emission limits for NOx TierII type engines are as follows:

Table 3 NOx limits for Tier II

For this case vessel whose main engine (NOx TierII type) rotates the shaft at 81rpm, max.14.4g/kWh of NOx emission is allowed.

On the other hand,

for the diesel generators (1,320kW, 900rpm), the amount of NOx emission should be limited to max.11.28g/kWh.[11] Figure 8 shows the trend of NOx emissions for main engines according to engine loads.

Figure 8 Average NOx VS Engine Load - 22 -



4.3.3. SOX Emission

Since

marine

bunker

oils

contain

sulfur

compounds,

diesel engines

generate SOx as a byproduct of their combustion activities. According to Reg. 14 of MARPOL Annex VI, the plan to limit SOx emission from vessels engaged in international voyages is designated as below in the Table 4.

Table 4 Scheduled Sox emission limits As to the calculation of SOx emission in this project, it is assumed that the case ship burns F.O (HFO-380cst) containing 3.5[%m/m] of sulfur as this vessel is considered to provide its service only in non-SECA areas.

4.4. Financial Analysis

Financial analysis, which refers to an assessment of the viability and profitability of a proposed project, is a process to measure the total cash flow, the movement of money into or out of this project during the project period. For this research of ‘Energy Saving Technology, financial analysis is designed to evaluate marketability of the proposed energy saving systems, and in order to

conduct this analysis,

various financial parameters

discussed in ‘Cost Analysis’ should be determined in advance. - 23 -



For bunker prices, one of financial parameters significantly affect other parameters, as of 15th April 2013 the price of F.O (HFO380cst) is $614 per metric ton in Singapore.[12]

Considering that the bunker price may

rise/fall throughout the project period, this project of ‘Energy Saving Technology’ sets up four cases; the price of F.O is fixed at $500, $614 and &700 per metric ton respectably. On the other hand, the initial cost for Capital Expenditures (CAPEX) is expected to be implemented at the beginning of year 1 for all energy saving systems. 4.5. Sensitivity & Risk Analysis

Sensitivity & risk analysis comes after financial analysis because the analysis is understood to be an extended financial analysis by means of the application of the time and risk values on the ground of financial analysis.

Regarding sensitivity analysis affected by market fluctuations, the

time value adds various additional financial parameters, such as debt payments, project year, inflation/discount rates, increment/decrement of oil prices into sensitivity analysis. In terms of risk analysis, the risk grades of the proposed systems are evaluated and converted into monetary values, which are applicable to the extended financial analysis. In this research of ‘Energy Saving Technology’, sensitivity analysis is only conducted while risk analysis remains for the future study due to limited time and man power. 4.5.1.

Debt payments

In general, a project can be launched either with owner’s own budgets or with bank loans.

In case that the project is applied with bank loans, the

consideration of the principal and interest should also be followed, which lead to additional costs. In terms of this project of ‘Energy Saving Technology’, it is assumed that

- 24 -



the owner is able to manage the total expenses on his or her own dis-regarding bank loans.

4.5.2. Project Period

As determining the scope of cash flows, project period is another important parameter to evaluate the actual viability of a project.

Project

period is related to the life expectancy of a proposed system or case vessel itself.

In this regard, when confirming the project period, studies

for the life expectancy of the applied technologies and case vessel should be preceded.

For a simple calculation, the project period is set to be

ten years.

4.5.3. Oil Prices

Although future oil prices may be predicable through the historical oil trend, it is difficult to establish, with any confidence, what oil prices will be in the future because oil prices are determined by a variety of political, social and economic factors through the world.

Nevertheless, sensitivity

analysis requires the prediction of future oil prices as the success of the energy saving project is highly connected to the rise and fall in future oil prices. Considering the future trend of the oil price, this project adopts two scenarios- mild and sharp increase in the oil price.

The blue lines in the

two figures below show the trend of the oil prices over the last ten years while the black lines describe the expected trend of the oil price; the left one is steep while the right is gradual.

- 25 -



Figure 9 Scenario 1 – Sharp increase in Oil Price

Figure 10 Scenario 2 – Mild increase in Oil Price

4.5.4. Inflation & Discount Rates

For ‘Energy Saving Technology, the inflation rate and discount rate are considered as the same financial parameter because inflation results in discounted currency values. With regard to economic fluctuation, various discount rates (or inflation rates) of 5%, 10% and 15% are applied to ‘Energy Saving Technology’ from year 1 onward and the timing of cash flows occurs at the end of the year.

- 26 -



4.5.5. Financial Index

In order to confirm the financial success of a projected plan, financial indexes are widely used.

It is a verification tool used by investors and

financial managers to compare costs and benefits of a new system and to figure out the return on the specific investments. There are various financial indexes as shown in Figure 11.

Of them, the

indexes of PBP and NPV are only used to evaluate the marketability of the energy saving technologies in this study.

Details are described as

below.

Figure 11 Financial Indexes

i) Payback Period (PBP) Payback period is widely used because of its ease of use.

Payback

period intuitively measures how long a project takes to pay off its initial and operation costs.

For this index, the time value of money is not taken

into account. All else being equal, shorter payback periods are preferable to longer payback periods.[13]

- 27 -



ii) Net Present Value (NPV) Net present value (NPV) shows the sum of the present values (PVs) of the individual cash flows and it is a central tool in discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis, and is a standard method for using the time value of money to appraise long-term projects.

The research deals with this

analysis for both scenarios with loan and without loan. The Present value (PV) formula consists of four variables as below.

PV : the value at time=0 FV : the value at time=n i : the discount rate, or the interest rate at which the amount will be compounded each period n : the number of periods (not necessarily an integer)

The cumulative present value of future cash flows can be calculated by summing the contributions of

FVt, the value of cash flow at time=t.

This is a very general formula, which leads to several important special cases for cost/benefit analysis.

Project success is derived as followed. NPV > 0 : investment may be fine NPV < 0 : should be rejected

NPV > 0 means the project is worth developing.[14]

- 28 -



Chapter 5. Case Ship and Energy Modelling

- 29 -



5. Case Ship and Energy Modelling

The selection of a case ship and the implementation on energy balance of the vessel are one of most critical parts of this study.

To fulfill the

efficiency comparisons between a technically modified case ship and the original ship, basic specifications and operational profiles of the case vessel should be obtained.

Figure 12 Case Ship Figure 12 shows a general diagram of the case vessel, a computerized 3D modelling.

The new energy saving technologies discussed in the

previous Chapters are intended to be applied to this imaged vessel.

More

specifications of this vessels are described as below in Figure 13.

Figure 13 General Specification of Case Ship

- 30 -



5.1. Operational Profile

Log Books, Abstract Log or Noon Report are informatively used to identify the operational profile of the case ship.

Based on the data collections, it

has been found that the average service speed of the 224m- long bulk carrier is about 13~14.5knot, where its main engine load reaches up to 75.2%.

Figure 14 Operation Profile

Throughout a year, the case ship sails at sea for 6,634 hours, which account for 76% of the total annual service hour.

Spent time for cargo

loading and unloading in ports are 2,102 hours, while only 24 hours taken for maneuvering.

Figure 15 Operational Profiles

Figure 16 Operational profiles

- 31 -



5.2. Energy Model for Case Ship

As explored in Chapter 4.1- ‘Energy Model’, energy modelling for the case vessel refers to the total energy distribution for the vessel, which allows for users to recognize the energy consumption of each machine and to compare

energy

distribution

gaps

between

modification with energy saving technologies.

initial

design

and

post-

In general, energy sources

used in commercial vessels are distributed into the three main fuel consumers – propulsion, the generation of electricity and heat supply.

5.2.1. Energy Distribution for Propulsion

Propulsion can refer to an energy source to propel vessels forwards and backwards, accounting for the biggest portion of energy consumption. Regarding the case ship, the figure 17 shows required powers at the targeted speeds.

Figure 17 Propulsion Power VS Speed According to the curve made up in the figure, to increase 1 knot, less additional power are required at low speed than at high speed – this - 32 -



characteristic of M/E has led ship managers to perform speed reductions as an effort to save fuels during.

i) SFOC Fuel consumptions of main engines are highly related to Specific Fuel Oil Consumptions (SFOCs) whose values vary, depending on main engine loads and engine type - in general SFOC marks its lowest at NCR load. According to the sea trial data, the requirement of propulsion powers are tested.

To be close to actual propulsion powers- considering sea

conditions such as resistance of wave and wind, which may claim additional powers, in this report, 15% of sea margin is added at each speed. In order to calculate annual fuel consumption from propulsion, Specific Oil Consumption of the M/E (MAN Diesel 6L 60S MC) is applied, according to the engine manual provided by the manufacture.

The relations between

SFOC and engine loads are as follows;

Figure 18 Main Engine SFOC VS Load In the context of the figure above, SFOCs of engines at each load are matched with the blue line – the connection of each point in the graphs. Based on the blue line, the closest quadratic functions, the black line is applied with the equation: y = 0.0054x2+0.8572x+204.96. According to the operational profile of the case ship, the annual fuel consumption of the main engine with different loads can be expected as the table shows below – 15% of sea margin and engine margin (SFOC - 33 -



margin) are added in the calculation.

Figure 19 Annual F.O Consumption for M/E

5.2.2. Electric Load Distribution

In general, electricity generated by aux. engines is collected in the main switchboard and allocated to a variety of electric consumers onboard such as deck machineries, E/R motors, fans and general services.

Here, to

make them simple, each consumer is categorized as shown in the table.

Figure 20 Electrical Load Distribution

It can be seen in the table that the vessel requires the highest electricity with

1,166.0kWh

during

unloading.

The

pie

chart

of

Electric

load

distribution shows the electric use of the case ship. The electricity of aux. machinery for propulsion accounts for the largest portion with 22%, which is closely followed by that of HVAC and heating with 18.9%.

- 34 -



For the type of diesel generator engines, this case ship is fitted with Wartsila 6L 20 of 1,320kW. have such a trend.

As shown below, the SFOCs of the engines

Since SFOCs of the engine are only provided at

loads of 100%, 90%, 75% and 50%, the black line in line with a trend of SFOCs of aux. engine is adopted as a reference – the Equation is y = 0.005x2+0.7955x+248.28.

Figure 21 Aux. Engine SFOC VS Load

5.2.3. Heat Load Distribution

For

the

case

ship,

heat

energy

is

utilized

for

heating

tanks,

accommodation and etc. Of them, the largest heat consumer is oil separators, which require 220kWh - 34.3% of total heat consumption, which is 6.66GWh. Heat requirements are quite even through a voyage comparing to those of electricity.

- 35 -



Figure 22 Heat Load Distribution

5.2.4. Annual Fuel Consumption

As a result of energy modelling, it is expected that the case ship annually consumes the total 9,874.7 tonnes of F.O.

In addition, the bulk carrier

burns 8,034.5 tonnes of F.O per year to produce propulsion power, which is about five times the sum of oil consumed for generators and the aux. boiler.

Figure 23 Annual Fuel Consumption

Figure 24 Fuel Consumption (%)

- 36 -



5.2.5. Air Emissions

Based on the total fuel consumptions, the amount of air emissions are determined - the case ship emanates CO2, SOx and NOx of 30,710, 701 and 624 tonnes respectively.

For the emission calculation the Chapter 4.3

‘Emission Analysis’ can be referred.

Figure 25 Air Emission

- 37 -



Chapter 6. Study on Energy Saving Technologies

- 38 -



6. Study on Energy Saving Technologies

The technologies in which much of the effort to cut costs and secure substantiality permeates are described as ‘Energy Saving Technologies’. Approaches under this programs/framework vary from case to case.

This

section is designed to discuss and analyze some of the most promising energy saving methods in shipping industries as mentioned in the previous chapter - (1) LNG fuelled ship, (2) Contra Rotating System (CRP), (3) Advanced Hull Coating, (4) Fuel Cell, (5) electric propulsion, (6) Solar Energy and Waste Heat Recovery system - with application of these systems to the case ship.

6.1. Study on LNG fuelled ship

For the shipping industry, the potential of LNG as a ‘fuel of the future’ is a daily subject we hear about since it has been proven that LNG is a rosy energy source in terms of emissions and costs reductions compared to conventional fossil fuels. Before 2000s, the use of LNG as a vessel fuel was not considered though for a few small ships were propelled by Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).

In 2003, a platform supply vessel, Viking Energy with a sister

ship was introduced as the first LNG fuelled cargo vessel, designed by Vik-Sandvik as a response to industry demands for minimizing greenhouse gas emissions.[15] The Figure 26 shows the picture of the supply vessel.

Figure 26

Viking Energy[15]

- 39 -



Despite short history, as of 2011, total 26 LNG propelled ships are in operation across the world – Ferries (15), Offshore support vessels(5), Coast guard vessels (3), Product tanker (1), LNG tankers (2).

Reflecting

such trend, it is highly expected that more than 50 cargo ships are propelled by LNG fuel in 2013 and this trend is seen to continue to increase.[16]

6.1.1. Technical Aspect

Operating LNG carriers running on LNG is a conventional technology. There are many years of experience in operating LNG carriers on the boil off gas using steam turbines, and Dual Fuel Diesel Electric (DFDE) engines.

However, in this case, the vessel with dual fuel system is

intended to be operated on LNG fluid directly from a fuel tank.

Although

it is yet to be installed on a vessel, the conversion of conventional diesel engines to duel fuel engines is expected not to cause any major technical challenges.

i) Mechanism Duel fuel engines, which can run on both LNG and ordinary marine diesel oil in any proportion, feature its flexibility of fuels.

The storage of the

LNG is in a vacuum insulated tank with a gross volume. This is built as a pressure vessel and a vaporizer with a built-in coil pressurizing the tank. Installation of gas tanks and auxiliary equipment smoothly facilitate vessel conversion. The following diagram of Figure 27 shows a general mechanism of LNGsupplying systems designed by MAN Diesel & Turbo.

LNG stored in

cryogenic tanks is driven to the engine through Fuel Gas System (FGS) where LNG becomes higher pressured by passing through the HP Pump. LNG vaporizer turns the liquid into the state of vapor before entering into the plant.

- 40 -



Figure 27

Process Flow Diagram[16]

In addition, gas pressure dependent on engine loads is controlled by PC valves which operate valves and HP pumps.

The gas is supplied through

large common-rail pipes running along and each cylinder then has an individual feed pipe to the gas admission. On the other hand, duel fuel engines are normally started in diesel mode. Gas admission is activated when combustion is stable in all cylinders. When running the engine in gas mode, the consumption of pilot fuel totals less than 1% of full-load fuel consumption.

ii) Technical Review For the vessel modification for dual fuel system, a number of subjects need

to

be

addressed

and

a

much

more

detailed

design

and

documentation work including risk assessment is to be carried out. However,

based

on

the

conceptual

unsolvable problems has been identified.

design

review,

no

major

and

Therefore, it is concluded that

the project is feasible from a regulative point of view.[17] New rules and regulations from IMO as well as Korean Resister of Shipping are underway and are expected to be implemented in the not-too-distance future.

IMO IGF Code will be much more detailed than

the current IMO interim guidelines and will therefore be addressing more topics to be considered.

Consequently, further pending issues may arise

during the detailed design.

But it is not foreseen to give major problem - 41 -



for the present design proposal. For the vessel in question the influence on the stability aspects (intact and damage) have not been evaluated in details. 6.1.2. Pre-feasibility Study

i) Design Basis This study considers that conventional M/E (6S60MC-C7.1) of the case ship is remodeled to be 6S60ME-C8.2-GI.

The application of duel fuel

system to an existing vessel with diesel engine system requires a huge modification of fuel system.

Conversion of the existing MC type main

engine to ME-GI dual fuel engine requires that the MC engine is firstly converted to a ME-B type engine equipped with electronically controlled fuel injection.

This requires installation of hydraulic equipment for the

electronically controlled fuel injection system and replacement of the camshaft for the exhaust gas valve actuation. In addition, during the process of conversion to ME-B engine, the additional GI conversion can also take place simultaneously.

This requires

installation of new cylinder covers with gas valves and gas control blocks, with all ancillary piping, and the gas chain pipes to supply the engine with gas.

Additional control systems and instrumentation are also required.

Details are as follows; • Main engine conversion from MC-C to ME-GI • Fuel gas supply system • Block and bleed valve arrangement • Gas piping system • Ventilation system • Inert gas system • Sealing oil system • LNG tank • Auxiliary systems • Safety equipment • Instrumentation and control system - 42 -



For operation, it is assumed that the converted vessel is systemized to run on F.O during maneuv22ering.

Otherwise, LNG is used at sea.

In the context of these matters, SWOT analysis has been conducted and its properties are analyzed as below. Strengths ■ Possible operation on both FO and LNG ■ Wide power range applicable ■ Reduced air emission CO2 NOx and SOx etc

Weaknesses ■ Insufficient Bunker Station ■ High Initial Costs ■ Additional spaces required to install gas supply system and LNG Tanks ■ M/E Conversion ■ IMO and classification society standard requirements (ISO 28460, IGF code etc)

■ Big modifications • Rerouting/reinstallation of deck pipes, electrical cable pipes and pipe foundations • Foundations for LNG storage tanks • Foundations for new LNG pipe system

Opportunities

Threats

■ Lower LNG price than F.O price ■ Shipbuilding costs are reasonable with less engine power required ■ Environmentally-friendly propulsion, less emissions ■ Likely to compliant with IMO Tier III

■ Risk to explosion ■ High volatility of shipping and LNG market ■ Failure of system ■ Incompatibility to existing system ■ Human errors in operation

As a result of SWOT analysis, despite the recognized weaknesses and threats, as long as the developers and operators succeed to manage the disadvantages, it is clear that LNG fuelled system is attractive with the recognized strengths and opportunities which probably lead this technology to be promising.

In this regard, we consider the feasibility study for this

technology is worth being conducted.

- 43 -



6.1.3. Feasibility Study on LNG fueled ship

i) Energy Model As discussed in the previous sections, dual fuel system requires big modifications of vessel's fuel system.

Especially, as the main engine is

converted from MC-C type to ME-GI type, revised energy modeling suitable for the new engine should be conducted.

The figure 28 blow

show the SGC and SPOC of 6S60ME-C8.2-GI – the data is referred from the MAN Diesel website.

Figure 28 & 29 SGC and SPOC of 6S60ME-C8.2-GI Revised

Energy

Modelling,

which

applies

expected

LNG

or

F.O

consumptions at a certain engine load, is intended to be used for the comparison of fuel consumption and air emissions between the original and the retrofitted vessel with dual fuel system. As can be seen in the two graphs, 6S60ME-C8.2-GI runs on both F.O and LNG.

However, even in gas mode, small portion of F.O is sprayed

into the chambers for smooth combustion. In terms of operational profile, it is assumed that the same voyage schedule and required propulsion power are applied to the modified vessel.

- 44 -



In addition, the new main engine runs in gas gas mode during the whole voyages, supplmented by F.O as a pilot fuel while F.O mode runs in manurevering and below 10knots.

The figure 30 illustrates F.O and LNG

consumptions at each load.

Figure 30 Fuel Consumption with Dual Fuel Engine During loading and unloading times, which account for 2,102 hours per year, as the main engine stops, propulsion energy consumption for M/E is ignored.

On the other hand, while the case vessel is engaged in sailing,

SGC2) and SPOC3) are determined according to required propulsion powers at target speed, which are finally used to calculate expected fuel and LNG consumption for the vessel. While

the

propulsion

engine energy,

conversion with

regard

makes to

much

electricity

differences

in

and

consumption

heat

required

(distribution), it is simply assumed that any changes are not applicable.

Figure 31 LNG & F.O Consumption

In Figure 32, fuel consumptions for aux. engines and oil fired boiler are 2) Specific Gas Consumption 3) Specific Oil Consumption - 45 -



not changed while LNG consumption for propulsion marks 5,601.8 tonnes / year along with F.O consumption of 2,655 tonnes / year.

Figure 32 Fuel Consumption between Initial Design and After Development Figure 32 shows a simple result in energy balance with comparison between initial design and after-development.

F.O consumption reduces

by 7,219.6 equivalent to 73.1% of original fuel consumption, meanwhile, to offset the reduction in fuel consumption, 5,601.8 tonnes of LNG is expected to be consumed in annual basis.

ii) Cost Analysis As shown in the figure below, The CAPEX for the conversion to the LNG fuelled vessel is expected around $7,060,000 including LNG machinery & Equipment, LNG tank installation.[17]

On the other hand, when it comes to

OPEX, no additional operation costs are expected as it is assumed that the OPEX of the applied LNG systems is equal to the conventional systems. In this regard, OPEX for this feasibility study is zero throughout the whole project years.

Figure 33 Result in Cost Analysis iii) Emission Analysis

- 46 -



LNG as a clean energy source significantly reduce the air pollutants. According to emission analysis, LNG burning for M/E lowers the total amount of SOx by 79.5% and NOx by 23.1% with comparison to the conventional diesel engine.[26]

The figure 34 below summarizes the

analysis result of air emissions.

Figure 34 Emission Analysis For carbon emission, after the development of the new system, the reduction in CO2 is to 7,853 tonnes, 25.6% less than the original vessel and Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) from 0.160 to 0.119 shows

the

LNG

system

requires

about

0.04g

less

fuel

than

its

conventional vessel when carrying a single ton of cargo per mile.

Figure 35 EEOI between Initial VS After developments

iv) Financial Analysis When it comes to financial analysis, the price selection of F.O and LNG is very important as the values are significantly affect the result of feasibility study.

In line with this, it is essential to consider several cases in which - 47 -



different oil and LNG costs are applied. Also, one thing to be noted the LNG prices vary according to where the case ship implements LNG bunkering because the prices of LNG is greatly diverged from region to region.

In general, the LNG prices in Asia

are about three or four times as expensive as in U.S.A – As of April, 2013, LNG price in U.S.A is $4.2 while in South Korea, the LNG is priced at $14.5. For this project, in original case, based on the oil prices in April 2013, $614 of F.O price and $14.2 of LNG price are applied.[18] In this case, the expected payback time is evaluated about 23.2 years. As discussed in the previous chapter, considering the period of this project, 10 years, and dual fuel system on the case ship seems not marketable by the end of the project period. However, as financial index is ever-changing it is essential to predict future financial trends.

In this regard, the application of a variety of cases

for F.O and LNG costs will enhance the accuracy of the financial analysis. $500 and $700 per ton of the fuel oil prices along with $8, $10 and $12 per ton of LNG price are applied to each alternative case for the further calculation of financial analysis.

As a result, the longest payback time

turns out to be about 58.3 years at $500 per ton of F.O price and $12 per ton of LNG price.

Figure 36 Result in Financial Analysis

The result in financial analysis shows the alternative case 2-2 with

- 48 -



$700/ton of F.O and $ 10/ton of LNG. Considering the life expectancy of the vessel (expected to be ten years), it is found that the cases 2-1 and 3-1 are unable to redeem the initial costs by the end of the project period.

v) Sensitivity Analysis When considering the economic fluency, feasibility study will go further as we should apply the changing market value according to the passage of time. In this line, feasibility study considers the following three cases- the decline in annual market value 5%, 10% and 15%. Changes in oil prices and LNG prices as determined in the previous chapter are applied to sensitivity analysis: Scenario 1 – Oil price sharply increases, Scenario 2 – Oil price mildly increases.

In addition, it is

assumed that LNG price increases in the same rate with oil price. This analysis can be concluded that this system, in consideration of neither scenario1 nor 2, is marketable. On the other hand, it might be necessary to calculate the maximum LNG cost which makes this project to be positive at $614/ton of F.O.

When

LNG cost is $11.0, NPVs for each scenario with discount rates of 5%, 10% and 15% turns out positive as Figure 39 shows.

Figure 37& 38 Result in Sensitivity Analysis with Original Case (F.O $614, LNG $14.2)

- 49 -



Figure 39 & 40 Result in Sensitivity & Analysis (F.O $614, LNG $11) According to figure 39 & 40, NPV 5%, 10% and 15% at scenario 1 are higher than those at scenario 2.

As an optimum case, Scenario 1 of

NPV with discount rate of 5%, this project is expected to take five years to recover the initial investment and about $12 million are saved by the end of the project.

On the other hand, the worst case for Scenario 2 of

NPV with discount rate of 15%, about nine years may be taken for redemption of the initial cost.

6.2. Study on Contra Rotating Propeller System

Demands

for

high

performance

propellers,

related

to

lower

fuel

consumption at cruise condition and higher top speeds at given power, are recently stressing the problem of the propeller design not only in the field of commercial vessels but also in the field of pleasure and charter mega-yachts.

A well-known means of overcoming the limitation in the

efficiency

a

of

single

conventional

propeller

is

the

adoption

of

contra-rotating propeller (CRP) system.[19] This chapter specifies the CRP Azipod manufactured by ABB, a leader in power and automation technologies, via the introduction of the system with feasibility study.

- 50 -



6.2.1. Technical Aspects

i) Mechanism The concept of contra-rotating propellers (CRP) is that two different propellers in the same line rotate in the opposite way each other. For a single propeller system, the rotating water passed the propeller contains kinetic energy which leads to considerable energy losses. However, in terms of CRP system, the forward propeller and the backward propeller use fluent dynamic relations. Contra-rotating propellers (CRP) are proposer configurations offering higher efficiency compared to conventional single propellers by recovering the rotational energy in the propeller slipstream. When the system is applied to a commercial ship, about 5~9% of energy efficiency improvement is expected. In addition, according to model tests conducted by ABB, the hydrodynamic benefit of CRP system lowers the requirement of propulsion power to 7% compared to vessels with single screw.[20] On the pictures and sketches below, the initial technology and the dual propeller system are illustrated.

Figure 41 Conventional Propulsion and CRP System[21] - 51 -



An electromotor directly drives Contra Rotating Propeller only by a power generated from aux. diesel engines. With regard to advantages of CRP Azipod system, all pieces in the case are symmetrically arranged, and the electromotor transfers the power to a rotating propeller by means of a straight line via the gear case, and therefore, the propulsion unit has simpler and more compact structure, stable operation and low noise, automatic-regulation adaptation capability and overload protection capability. In the CRP Azipod system, the power distribution ratio between main propeller and Azipod propeller is typically close to 70% and 30%, respectively. With this ratio, the Azipod unit for the optimum size and type with respect to cost and hydrodynamic efficiency can be achieved.[20]

Figure 42 Different Power required VS propulsion system[21]

6.2.2. Pre-feasibility Study

As discussed above, the energy saving value of the whole propulsion unit of the contra-rotating propellers is reasonably high. On the other hand, the SWOT analysis as the pre-feasibility study for CRP Azipod system clearly summarizes its advantages and disadvantages

- 52 -



by categorizing into Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.

■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■

Strengths Improved maneuvering in ports and channels Less need for tug assistance in ports Vessel operation at lower speeds Superior safety in harsh situations such as crash stop, emergency maneuvering and heavy weather High propulsion efficiency Low total installed engine power No need for stern thrusters or

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

rudders ■ Lower excitation forces on the hull from propulsion combination ■ Flexible general arrangement possible ■ Easy-to-adjust propeller loading distribution Opportunities ■ High propulsion efficiency provides better fuel economy ■ Shipbuilding costs are reasonable with less engine power required ■ Better slot time keeping in harbors, as the maneuvering is easier and less tug assistance is needed ■ Environmentally - friendly propulsion, less emissions

Weaknesses Schedule delay for modification High Initial Costs Additional G/E installation (Electric Load increase) Replaces conventional rudder IMO and classification society standard requirements

Threats ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Bunker cost fluctuation High volatility of shipping market Failure of system Incompatibility to existing system Human errors in operation

Despite its Weaknesses and Threats - most of which are manageable, Strengths and Opportunities acknowledged in the analysis attracts the study to the next step. The invention might be the most ideal environmental-protection scheme for - 53 -



the propulsion upgrading and updating of modern ships if it satisfies the remained steps.

6.2.3. Feasibility Study

Prior to the application of a new system, there are a variety of factors to be considered in the feasibility study. Most of the data used in this study was collected based on the CRP Azipod maker – ABB, generator engine maker – Wärtsilä and other relevant researches.

However, as full data

were not secured, a few assumptions were inevitably applied. i) Energy Modelling As mentioned above, according to model test conducted by ABB, the hydrodynamic benefit of CRP system lowers the requirement of propulsion power to 7% compared to vessels with single screw.

In this regard, 7%

improved propulsion efficiency is applied to the concept system for the case ship.[20] In addition, as CRP Azipod system also plays a role for stern thrusters or rudders in maneuvering conditions the electric load for bow thrust can be ignored in the concept system.

For the advanced propulsion system, new mechanical installations to be followed as below;

- Main Engine: No change - Diesel Generators: 1x Wärtsilä 6L20 1,320 kW - Azipod: 1x ABB XC160

The main engine is directly connected to the main propeller through the tail shaft - no modification is intended to be applied to the main propeller

- 54 -



system.

The four sets of diesel generators are working in pairs producing

the appropriate amount of energy for the Azipod (two or three generators are normally running at sea). In extreme demands of loading or discharging conditions in port, and a standby diesel generator may be used in service in order to satisfy the electrical demand of the vessel (normally caused by the operations of cranes, winches, ballasting or de-ballasting etc). As the Azipod propeller (backward propeller) runs by an electrical motor additional generators may be required. The selection for diesel engines should be made. It is prudent to select the same type engine with existing aux. engines (Wärtsilä 6L20 1,320 kW) for new engines as it can minimize the number of spare parts. In terms of the power distribution, 70 % of required propulsion power for the case ship in service is distributed to the main propulsion propeller run by the main engine and the remaining 30 % is delivered by the Azipod Unit.

Figure 43 Expected Fuel Consumption with CRP system

Figure 44 shows calculated annual fuel consumption according to the load distribution of propulsion power and electricity.

The Azipod unit adds

additional loads for generators while M/E loads are reduced by 30%.

Figure 44 Result in Energy Balance

As a result of high propulsion efficiency, according to energy modelling, 145.2 tonnes of F.O from propulsion is expected to reduce each year, - 55 -



accounting for 1.5% of the initial fuel consumption.

ii) Cost Analysis On the basis of the collected date, CAPEX and OPEX of this concept system are determined as the Figure 45 shows. When it comes to CAPEX, the Azipod system for the optimum power of case ship including all the other components are offered by the cost of $6 million, and as for the new generator, the cost of $210/kW is applied to the calculation and totally expected to be $227,200. On the other hand, the 20 day dry dock is to be required for the system retrofit with the Hire-off cost of $17,000 per one day - $ 340,000 in total.

Figure 45 Result in Cost Analysis With regard to OPEX, the costs of L.O and maintenance of both Main & Generator Engines cannot be ignored as the system conversion changes each load of engines. The following table compares the OPEX of the initial system and that of the revised system.

As the load distribution changes - the load of Main

Engine reduces while Generator Engines increases during in service - the L.O consumptions and maintenance costs should be re-considered. For this calculation, 1.1g/kWh of L.O cost is applied to be the calculation. Concerning the maintenance costs of M/E and G/E, $0.6/MWh and - 56 -



$2.4/MWh are applied respectively.

The results of OPEX analysis can be

referred to the Figure 45 – annual OPEX saving is $465.03.

iii) Emission Analysis Basically, the emission analysis was conducted with the result in energy balance, with which the expected changes in fuel consumptions are determined. As a result, the quantities of the harmful combustion gases of NOx and SOx are also significantly reduced-up to 17.3% for NOx, 6.6% for CO2 and SOx when an annual fuel reduction marks at1.5%. In addition, the Energy Efficiency Operation Index (EEOI) clearly show the CO2 reduction after the system application.

Figure 46 Result in Emission Analysis

 EEOIsea reduction by 0.002 (0.160->0.157)

iv) Financial Analysis For financial analysis, the price of F.O, $614 per ton, is applied for the financial analysis.

In addition, as it is hard to predict the future oil prices

and its trends, this analysis also considers more cases when the price of F.O is $500 or $700 per ton. The result in financial analysis, Figure 47, shows that considering the life expectancy of the vessel (expected to be engaged in service for ten years), none of the cases seem able to redeem the initial costs by the end of the project period. With regard to Case 1-2, the fuel cost is $700 per ton, the minimum payback time is estimated about 73.9 years while the maximum payback - 57 -



time is 90.6 years with Case1-1 for $500 per ton. As results, the higher fuel cost leads to the shorter payback time. However, due to its long payback time, this system seems not to be marketable at present, requiring additional efficiency improvement of CRP system.


v) Sensitivity Analysis For the last analysis, as discussed in the previous chapter, two scenarios with different trend of oil price are concerned- one with a sharp oil price trend and the other with a mild oil price trend. The following Figure 48 & 49 clearly shows the cash flows of the following ten years and

it is determined that all the two scenarios are

unable to make NPV of 5%, 10% or 15% higher than zero by the end of the project years.

Moreover, where NPV of 10% or 15% in both

scenarios is applied, profits turn out minus.

Figure 48 & 49 NPV for Scenario 1 & 2

- 58 -



6.3. Advanced Hull Coatings

Untreated fouling growth creates significant hull resistance and ultimately results in high fuel expenditure and produced emissions. The increment in vessel drag (hull frictional resistance), created by the increase in hull roughness, translates into additional needed power requirement (with increased fuel consumption and cost to maintain vessel speed). Equally, maintaining constant power will result in decreased vessel speed and longer voyage turns. For

an

ordinary

cargo

ship,

required

propulsion

power

is

typically

determined by a variety of losses as seen in the Figure 50 below. Concerning viscous resistance taking over 40% of the total propulsion power, hull coatings play a pivotal role to prevent marine microbes from being stuck to the surface of hull, which keeps the hull surfaces sleek and the resistance not to increase.[27]

Figure 50 Consumers of Propulsion Power

In this respect, the qualities of hull coatings are very important - the most ships (90-95%) are coated with traditional biocide-type antifouling coatings while approximately 10% of new ships use foul release coatings (FRCs).

- 59 -



This chapter 6.3 highlights the properties of fluoropolymer foul release (FFR) hull coating technology and carries out an analysis of the potential energy, greenhouse gas (GHG), and climate-forcing emissions reductions that may be achieved with this technology. 6.3.1. Technical Aspects

During last century, biocide antifouling had widely been used. The biocide antifouling works by releasing biocides, most commonly cuprous oxides, when in contact with seawater. The biocide repels fouling organisms and prevents

them

from

attaching

to

the

hull.

With

time,

the

biocide

effectiveness goes down as it starts to deplete, which forces re-coating at every dry-docking. Following the 2001, International Maritime Organization (IMO) banned on tributyltin (TBT) which is the main ingredient of biocidal antifouling. Since then, as an alternative, biocide free foul release coatings were introduced,

unlike

biocidal

antifoulings,

which

do

not

release

any

hazardous ingredients into the marine environment.

i) Mechanism Of biocide free foul release coatings, Silicone based free foul release technology works on the principle of its hydrophobic nature - it tends to repel water (or to not willingly mix with it). As a result, marine organisms only stick to the surface weakly. On the other hand, fluoropolymer foul release coatings go on under the principle of their smooth outer skin, and its amphiphilic nature (hydrophilic and hydrophobic capabilities). According to International Paints - a vessel paint manufacture, which has performed a ‘Life Cycle Analysis’ on several of their products comprising the

three

above

mentioned

technologies - 60 -

regarding

fouling

control,



fluoropolymer foul release coatings proved to be the most efficient regarding environmental and economic aspects.


Fouling is a biological phenomenon whose occurrence is difficult to predict and control.

The type, as well as the severity and extent in which fouling

can occur, will vary depending on the type of antifouling scheme applied to the ship, plus the ship’s own trading activity and speed profile. For the reason above, the importance of underwater hull condition is not to be taken lightly, especially under an economic stance; mostly because any significant increase in hull roughness will result in a proportional rise of vessel operating costs. Considering conducted

the and

characteristics it

summarizes

of

FFR,

SWOT

advantages

and

analysis

has

disadvantages

been by

categorizing into Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats as below. Strengths Weaknesses ■ No release of biocide in to the ■ Higher initial cost of paint and environment. application. ■ Reduced paint volume (and ■ Masking and dedicated equipment solvent emitted) on first required. application. ■ Good antifouling performance on a range of vessel types. ■ Good resistance to mechanical damage. ■ Reduced hull roughness giving improvements in vessel performance and reducing emissions. ■ Less time in dock, paint required and application costs at future dockings. - 61 -



Opportunities

Threats

■ Unlikely to be affected by future environmental legislation.

■ Quality of application is very important. ■ Bunker cost fluctuation ■ High volatility of shipping market

According to SWOT Analysis, Strengths and Opportunities outnumber Weaknesses and Threats. significant

-

most

of

Moreover, those of disadvantages seem less which

are

manageable

and

Strengths

and

Opportunities acknowledged in the analysis attract the study to the next step.


The purpose of this feasibility study is to assess the potential reductions in fuel consumption and air emissions as applying advanced hull coatings, more specifically, fluoropolymer foul release paint schemes. To conduct the cost analysis, a variety of data provided by a manufacturer - International Paint was utilized, which includes initial application and maintenance costs of a fluoropolymer foul release coating scheme, over a period of ten years.

However, on account of the lack of data, some assumptions were

inevitably adopted. On the basis of the study presented by Corbett et al. (2011)[22], results indicate that for a bulk carrier, a minimum of 2.3% reduction on fuel consumption is observed. The data on this table resulted from sources such as International Paint Limited and Newcastle University, among others.

- 62 -



Figure 51 FFR efficiency according to vessel types Aside from above advantages including improving fuel consumption and reducing CO2 emissions, worthy of mention as well, fluoropolymer based paints require less paint volumes compared to other antifouling schemes. Additionally, this paint offers cost advantages at the next dry-docking on treatment and disposal costs of wash water and blasting abrasive since it does not have any biocides.

i) Energy Modelling As the figure 51 above shows, as for bulk carriers, the efficiency of fluoropolymer foul release coating ranges from 2.3% to 22% - the differences occur by vessel conditions such as service routes, vessel lengths or speeds etc. In this feasibility study, it is assumed that the minimum efficiency of 2.3% is applied to the case ship.

Figure 52 Result in Energy Balance The figure 52 shows the result in energy balance in comparison between initial condition - Self Polishing Copolymers(SPC) are applied to the case ship - and the FFR coating - applied condition.

184.8 tonnes of F.O is

expected to be saved on annual basis. ii) Cost Analysis - 63 -



Based on ten year project, the capital costs are required in dry-docking period, every 2.5 years for a commercial vessel.

In terms of SPC

coating, a TBT free coating, initial cost is almost two times the secondary costs in the following dry dockings. On the other hand, the initial cost of FFR is far greater than SPC but the secondary costs are differently applied year by year.

It is because while

SPC coating needs re-coating for the whole hull, FFR is only required to re-coat where damages or pitting are founded.

Figure 53 Result in Cost Analysis

As Shown in Figure 53, the incremental costs of FFR over a ten-year time period are calculated - the costs of coatings are briefly assumed based on actual costs for two bulk carriers of Ikuna Bulk Carrier (IMO NO. 8512073) and J Morning (IMO NO. 9021576) and for one Tanker of Prem Divya(IMO NO.9138599).[22] The cost analysis includes FFR application and repair costs, as well as application and repair costs of SPC coating - an alternative biocide antifouling treatment. We subtract the alternative biocide antifouling costs from FFR costs to obtain incremental costs. The incremental cost is measured by taking the difference of the FFR cost and the biocide alternative cost.

Also, all costs include off-hire costs

when the dry-dock period is extended.

On the other hand, the operational

expense for fluoropolymer foul release coating can be ignored for this

- 64 -



technology. iii) Emission Analysis As a result of fuel savings, the reduction in air emissions are shown as below.

The quantities of the harmful combustion particles of NOx and SOx

are also significantly reduced, as those were expected.

The reduction is

up to 13.8% for NOx, up to 1.9% for CO2 and SOx.


In addition, the Energy Efficiency Operation Index(EEOI) clearly show the CO2 reduction after the system application.  EEOIsea reduction by 0.003(0.160->0.157)

iv) Financial Analysis We subtract the fuel savings for the ten-year period from the incremental costs for the same time period to obtain net costs or benefits. As the original case the bunker price (F.O380) of $614 is applied for the financial analysis, the payback time is turned out to be 12.7 years. In addition, as alternatives, $500 and $700 of the fuel oil prices are respectably applied into Case1-1 and Case1-2. Considering the life expectancy of the vessel (expected to be ten years), it is found that the cases 1-1 is unable to redeem the initial costs by the end of the project period while all the other cases are proven to be marketable.

- 65 -




v) Sensitivity Analysis In order to obtain net costs or benefits, it should be noted that the estimate is to include time value, money, inflation, etc.

In line with

changes in oil prices, two scenarios are concerned: Scenario 1 – Oil price sharply increases, Scenario 2 – Oil price mildly increases. In addition, feasibility study considers the following three cases- the decline in annual market value 5%, 10% and 15%. As a result, when discount rate of 0 or 5% are applied, the new coating is to be profitable in both scenarios while, with discount rate of 10% or 15%, the marketability of this technology turns out negative.


Figure 56 & 57 describes the trends of NPVs when different discount rates are applied. When the project year, Year 10, comes it can be shown that balance and NPV of 5% are only succeeded to mark above zero line in both Scenario 1 & 2.

- 66 -



6.4. Fuel Cells

A fuel cell is a new device that converts the chemical energy from various types of fuels into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent.

Of them, hydrogen is the most common energy

source, but hydrocarbons such as natural gas and alcohols like methanol are often used for the production of hydrogen.

Basically, in terms of

energy generation mechanism, fuel cells are different from batteries in which they require a constant source of fuel and oxygen to run, but they are able to produce continual electricity as long as these inputs keep on being supplied.

Figure 58 Fuel Cell As hydrogen, one of the most plentiful source on the earth, does not generate air emissions, fuel cells are highly considered as an energy producing alternative to conventional combustion engines in the context of a broad energy and environment strategy.


i) Mechanism - 67 -



In a fuel cell package, chemical energy is converted into a usable form of energy as fuel (e.g.

hydrogen) and oxidant (e.g.

oxygen) are fed

continuously to the anode (positive electrode) and cathode (negative electrode) respectively. The electrochemical reaction at the anode produces a flow of electrons to an external circuit as shown in the Figure 59.

Figure 59 Principle of Fuel Cell There are many types of fuel cells, but, basically, they all consist of an anode (negative side), a cathode (positive side) and an electrolyte that allows charges to move between the two sides of the fuel cell. Electrons are drawn from the anode to the cathode through an external circuit, producing direct current electricity.

As the main difference among fuel cell

types is the electrolyte, fuel cells are classified by the type of electrolyte they use. Fuel cells come in a variety of sizes.

Individual fuel cells

produce relatively small electrical potentials, about 0.7 volts, so cells are "stacked", or placed in series, to increase

the voltage and meet an

application's requirements. The DC current output is then used to supply power to some load, or if AC is needed, an inverter is used.

The electrical circuit and chemical

- 68 -



process is then completed when hydrogen, oxygen, and the returning electrons are brought together to form water.

Figure 60 Principle of Fuel cell, Source[23]

In addition to electricity, fuel cells produce water, heat and, depending on the fuel source, very small amounts of nitrogen dioxide and other emissions. The energy efficiency of a fuel cell is generally between 40– 60%, or up to 85% efficient if waste heat is captured for use.[23]

ii) Types of Fuel Cells The general design of most fuel cells is similar except for the electrolyte. The main types of fuel cells, as defined by their electrolyte, are alkaline fuel cells, proton exchange membrane fuel cells, phosphoric acid fuel cells, molten carbonate fuel cells, direct methanol fuel cells, and solid oxide fuel cells.

Alkaline and solid polymer fuel cells operate at lower temperatures

and are mainly designed for use in transportation applications, while the other three operate at higher temperatures and are being developed for use where the waste heat can be used (cogeneration) or in large central power plants.

Ben Wiens makes the distinction between fuel cell types

easier with the following figure 61:

- 69 -



Figure 61 Types of Fuel Cell

With regard to ‘Typical Power Range’, MCFC (Molten carbonate fuel cells) is suitable for commercial vessels. The electrolyte in this fuel cell is usually a combination of alkali carbonates, which is retained in a ceramic matrix of LiAlO2. The fuel cell operates below 650 °C where the alkali carbonates form a highly conductive molten salt, with carbonate ions providing ionic conduction. It can achieve higher efficiencies and have a greater flexibility to use more types of fuels. Fuel-to-electricity efficiencies approach 60%, or upwards of 80% with cogeneration. MCFCs are capable of converting fossil fuel to a hydrogen-rich gas in the anode, eliminating the need to produce hydrogen externally. The reforming process creates CO2 emissions. MCFC-compatible fuels include natural gas, bio gas and gas produced from coal. The hydrogen in the gas reacts with carbonate ions from the electrolyte to produce water, carbon dioxide, electrons and small amounts of other chemicals. The electrons travel - 70 -



through an external circuit creating electricity and return to the cathode. There, oxygen from the air and carbon dioxide recycled from the anode react with the electrons to form carbonate ions that replenish the electrolyte, completing the circuit.

The chemical reactions for an MCFC

system can be expressed as follows.[28] Anode Reaction: CO32−+H2→H2O+CO2+2e− Cathode Reaction: CO2+½O2+2e−→CO32− Overall Cell Reaction: H2+½O2→H2O


Today, fuel cells, mainly MCFCs, are widely used for primary and backup power for commercial, industrial and residential buildings and in remote or inaccessible areas. They are used to power fuel cell vehicles, including automobiles, buses, forklifts, airplanes, boats, motorcycles and submarines. However, so far, the application of fuel cells to commercial vessels has yet to be applied to commercial vessels due to technical and financial barriers. MCFC disadvantages include slow start-up times because of their high operating temperature.

This makes MCFC systems not suitable for mobile

applications, and this technology will most likely be used for stationary fuel cell purposes. The main challenge of MCFC technology is the cells' short life span. However,

MCFCs

hold

several

advantages

over

other

fuel

cell

technologies, including their resistance to impurities. The result of SWOT analysis is shown below.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Strengths Weaknesses Higher efficiency than diesel or ■ Systems are very large gas engines. ■ High Costs Silent operation ■ Durability at high temperature Reduction in air emission ■ Highly Flammable Maintenance is simple less distribution losses - 71 -



Opportunities

Threats

■ Less dependency on oil prices ■ Use of renewable fuels

■ No hydrogen infrastructure ■ Dependency on natural gas, etc ■ Safety concerns with hydrogen


Feasibility study with cost benefit analysis is an important process to be considered before applying a fuel cell system onboard. Here, DEF1500, MCFC type of fuel cell, manufactured by Posco Power, is considered to be applied to the case vessel and this study focuses on the marketability of the proposed system.

i) Energy Modelling With regard to the system concept, the fuel cell replaces one of the diesel generators and it is assumed that the alternative device is full used all the time.

Even when the case ship is at port or in manoeuvring conditions,

the fuel cell is paralleled with diesel generators to cover additional electrical needs. 

Type

of

fuel

cell:

DFC1500

(1

x

1400kW)

POSCO

Power

manufactured.

Figure 62 Application of Fuel Cell System

- 72 -



According to the information of the manufacturer, POSCO Power, the fuel cell system of DFC1500 can be operated with the efficiency of 47%. addition to the electricity, heat efficiency is expected to be 22.7%.[23]

In For

energy modelling, the generated heat is assumed to be utilized for steam generation.

Figure 63 Result in Energy Balance As the result of energy balance, the applied fuel cell reduces the annual fuel consumption by 1,662.6 tonnes while adding 45,213 mmbtu of LNG as a means to resolve hydrogen from water or air.

ii) Cost Analysis The installation costs, operation and fuel costs are calculated on the basis of what POSCO Power provided in Figure 65 - the calculation is based on the data of 2013 and the overall costs can be seen as follows. The life expectancy of the stack of fuel cell is considered five years and the cost of new stacks is assumed as much as 40% of the initial installation costs.


- 73 -



When it comes to OPEX, the electricity generated by the fuel cell is able to reduce the number of the running generators, which leads to the reduction in L.O costs and the maintenance costs of generators.

As a

result, by applying fuel cell, total $17,369.58 is expected to be saved on the annual basis.

iii) Emission Analysis In general, the use of LNG as an alternative energy source leads to great reductions in air emissions. In this same line, as a result of considering fuel savings, the reductions in air emissions are shown as below. The quantities of CO2, SOx and NOx are also significantly reduced, as those were seen below.

In addition, EEOI is expected to drop by 0.014.


iv) Financial Analysis When it comes to financial analysis, the price selection of F.O and LNG is very important as the values are significantly affect the result of feasibility study.

In line with this, it is essential to consider several cases in which

different oil and LNG costs to be applied. As discussed in the previous chapter – ‘LNG Fuelled Ship’, one thing to be noted the LNG prices vary from region to region, and for this project, in original case, based on the oil prices in April 2013, $614 of F.O price and $14.2 of LNG price are applied.[29] As a result of financial analysis seen below, for original case, the expected payback time is evaluated about 19.8 years.

Considering the

project years (ten year), marketability of this system does not seem feasible. - 74 -



As alternatives, $500 and $700 of the fuel oil prices along with $8, $10 and $12 of LNG price are applied to the calculation of financial analysis and the longest payback time is expected about 26.4 years at $500 of F.O price and $12 of LNG price.


v) Sensitivity Analysis With the original case – the prices of $614.0 for F.O price and $14.2 for LNG, discount rates of 5%, 10% and 15% are applied.

In addition,

changes in oil prices and LNG prices as determined in the previous chapter are applied to sensitivity analysis: Scenario 1 – Oil price sharply increases, Scenario 2 – Oil price mildly increases.

In addition, it is

assumed that LNG price increase in the same rate with oil price. Looking into the result of sensitivity Analysis, it can be found that when the expected price trends of F.O and LNG are only applied, as described ‘Balance’, Savings from fuels are greater than the original case.

However,

when NPVs are simultaneously applied, the savings turn out worse than the original. The results are shown as follows;

- 75 -



Figure 67 NPVs VS Year

From figure 67, in economic terms, it is found that fuel cell is not considerable method as all the cases considered failed to recoup the system application costs.

6.5. Electrical Power System

Recently, along with growing concerns of environmental protection and operational economy, ship owners and experts, who are grappling with green and energy efficient vessels, give more attention to the application of electric propulsion system to merchant vessels as electric propulsion itself leads to less energy losses. In the early twenty centuries, especially in the 20s, electrical power transmission set records again and became very popular, in particular on ice breakers due to those demanding torque requirements and research vessels.

During World War II, the electrical propulsion systems were

widely applied in US Navy ships; more than 300 vessels were built including this propulsion system. However, in postwar years, as the mechanical-drive technology was more attracted due to high efficiency diesel engines, electric propulsion systems almost disappeared in merchant vessels until the 1980's.

- 76 -



As early as the 1980's the introduction of new power semiconductor devices revived the development of modern electric propulsion system, which are the breakthrough for the diesel-electric propulsion on cruise ships in the mid-1980s. The "Queen Elizabeth 2", a trendsetter for today's cruise vessels, was the first modern passenger and cruise vessel for which the power station concept was utilised for its 95.5 MW propulsion plant consisting of MAN B&W 9L 58/64-type medium-speed engines to fulfil the stringent noise and vibration requirements- one of the most important criteria for cruise vessels is a maximum in passenger comfort.

6.5.1. Technical Aspect

Diesel-electric transmission doubtlessly provides a number of well-known advantages in flexibility of operation, distribution of propulsion and hotel load, power station concept and flexibility in the arrangement of the main components of generator sets, converters, switchgears and propulsion motors.

Figure 68

Diesel Electric Propulsion System Source[24]

The foundation for this saving comes from the fact that, in a well-designed diesel-electric drive system, the power required by the propeller is “decoupled” from the diesel engine speed- by automatically adapting to the - 77 -



constantly chart load conditions characteristic of every sea voyage. In addition, ships with diesel-electric propulsion are in a better position to reach the attribute of "green ships". For instance, as the engines run at constant speed, they can be adjusted in such a manner that the exhaust gas contains only a minimum percentage of harmful pollutants, in particular if a shipowner decides to use low-sulphur marine diesel oil rather than heavy-fuel oil available as "waste" residues tram the processing and refining of crude oil.

Furthermore, at lower loads, the constant-speed

engine produces less NOx and CO2 than a diesel engine operating at variable speed.


With the increase in demand for alternate propulsion systems that not only improve the overall efficiency of the ship but also reduce the carbon footprints, innovators in the shipping industry are leaving no stone unturned to find a solution to this grave problem. With all the options presently available at hand, electric propulsion system seems to have a promising future.

The following table shows the results

of SWOT analysis.

- 78 -



Strengths ■ Optimal utilization of fuel even in partial load ranges ■ Silent operation ■ Reduction in air emission ■ Reduction in maintenance costs ■ Minimal standstill time for maintenance and service ■ Sharply reduced number of moving mechanical parts ■ Excellent dynamic response from zero to maximum propelling speed ■ Short reversing time ■ Quite operation ■ Minimum mechanical vibrations Opportunities

Weaknesses ■ Systems are very large ■ High initial Costs ■ Increase in required electric power ■ Efficiency of electricity generator is less that of conventional system

■ Flexible arrangement of components ■ Reduced space requirements in the shaft system

■ Dependency on Fossil Fuels ■ Different and improved training for ship’s crews as the system is completely different from mechanical system and involves major automation.

Threats

Putting advantages and disadvantages side by side, from a long term perspective, it could be felt that electric propulsion will not be a bad bet.


For feasibility study, this case ship is considered to apply five gensets of Wartsila 8L 26 (2,720kW) and one propulsion motor by replacing the existing main engine and generators (1,320kW).

i) Energy Modelling With regard to the system concept, the propulsion power is produced by - 79 -



the newly installed generator sets (2,720kW), the number of which in operation are controlled according to electric loads.

The propulsion power

from main switchboard passes through transformer, frequency convertor and gear boxes but the electricity losses for transmission are ignored.

Figure 69 Result in Energy Balance Based on feasibility calculation, it is shown that 11.4% increase in fuel consumption with total 1,129.2 tonnes of additional requirement.

ii) Cost Analysis Lack of data, the installation costs are roughly assumed.

As the cost of

diesel generators are calculated based on $210 per kW installed. The cost date of a newly developed duel fuel electric propulsion LNG vessel was referred in the assumption of installation cost of system's components (motor, converter, transformer and etc).


As the result, total $7,396,000 of CAPEX is expected for this conversion. In terms of OPEX, as main engine is no longer used, its L.O consumption - 80 -



and maintenance costs are not to be considered.

On the other hand,

increased use of generator loads are additionally considered – total $52,828.11 of OPEX is required.

iii) Emission Analysis According to ‘Energy Balance’, it is analyzed that the fuel consumption of the case ship increases when the proposed electric propulsion system is applied.

As this results, the increase in air emissions also follows: CO2

and SOx - 11.4%, NOx - 34.3%. As the result of CO2 emission, EEOI@SEA proportionally increases by 11.4% equivalent to 0.018[g/t·nm].


iv) Financial Analysis The ‘Financial Analysis’ may consider ten years of project period and inflation rate is not considered. As seen in the graph below, linear saving is expected and this electric propulsion system is not marketable with "impossible" as below.

It is

because the new propulsion system is intended to charge more operation costs than the intial design.


v) Sensitivity Analysis - 81 -



On the other hand, in real economics, as time goes by, current values deprecates, which is derived from market inflation. In this regard, feasibility analysis should takes into changes in market values. Assuming NPV 5, 10 and 15% and the trend of current oil price, the following graph shows each feasibilities.

Figure 73 & 74 NPVs of diesel electric propulsion

In the cases of market value 5% NPV recovers higher than 0 during the project years but 10, 15% of NPV fail to repay its costs during the time.

6.6. Solar Energy

Considering the significant progress made by utilizing solar energy in shipping, the research to utilize solar energy in bulk carriers that ferry iron ore seems interesting.

Such carriers usually have spaces above hatch

covers where the installation of solar panels is allowed.

Part of the

reason that this approach has been adopted is that the world’s main iron ore producers are Australia, India and Brazil.

In these regions high levels

of sunshine are recorded. There is certainly much to be gained from this approach. While solar energy may not be able to generate the power needed for propulsion, it should offer enough electricity to support the main

electrical

power

which

runs

auxiliary

machineries

and

control

consoles. - 82 -



This research considers the potential benefits of relying on a photovoltaic system on a bulk carrier.

In doing so, it considers the physical,

mechanical and systematical feasibility and substantiality of reliance on solar energy on bulk carriers.

It proceeds to consider the costs, benefits

and potential profitability of this approach.


A solar panel is a set of solar photovoltaic modules electrically connected and mounted on a supporting structure. A photovoltaic module is a packaged, connected assembly of photovoltaic cells. The solar module can be used as a component of a larger photovoltaic system to generate and supply electricity in commercial and residential applications. Because a single solar module can produce only a limited amount of power, most installations contain multiple modules. A photovoltaic system typically includes a panel or an array of solar modules, an inverter, and sometimes a battery and or solar tracker and interconnection wiring.

i) Mechanism Solar modules use light energy (photons) from the sun to generate electricity through the photovoltaic effect. The majority of modules use wafer-based crystalline silicon cells or thin-film cells based on cadmium telluride or silicon. The structural (load carrying) member of a module can either be the top layer or the back layer. Cells must also be protected from mechanical damage and moisture. Most solar modules are rigid, but semi-flexible ones are available, based on thin-film cells. Electrical connections are made in series to achieve a desired output voltage and/or in parallel to provide a desired current capability. The cells must be connected electrically to one another and to the rest of the system.

- 83 -




Solar energy is becoming increasingly popular.

Skeptics have become

less and less vocal as solar energy’s popularity has grown increasingly unhindered.

However, ins hipping industries, the use of solar energy is

very limited. Below the characteristics of solar energy will be discussed with SWOT analysis.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Strengths Operation Cost is free Silent operation No air pollution Possibly used in distance Long life span of 30~40 years

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Opportunities ■ Solar energy is infinite ■ Continuously decreasing in costs and increasing in efficiencies

Weaknesses Be harnessed when it is daytime and sunny Panels and cells are relatively expensive Batteries are large and heavy and need storage space Low efficiencies Limited area to install onboard Threats

■ Unreliable climate ■ Possibly damaged in harsh weather conditions ■ Possible corrosion by Sea water

As shown above, there are many advantages worth considering when it comes to solar energy and everything that it offers. However, to produce solar electricity there must be sunlight. sourced elsewhere at night.

So energy must be stored or

In this regard, before the application of solar

energy, service routes of vessels seem to be considered.


i) Energy Modeling The study into the possibility of using solar energy on bulk carriers is

- 84 -



based on the case vessel “Westin Seven”. The ship carries nine hatch covers that serve as doors to keep cargo in a cargo hold safely. As with most bulk carriers, the covers occupy 45 - 60% of the breadth and 57 -67% of the length.

Figure 75 The Case Ship with Solar Panels

In

this

regard,

the

space

available

is

significant

measuring

in

at

2

approximately 3,335 m . According to RETScreen®, a prominent energy-related software, 2,058units of mono-si type – PV cell, whose total capacity is 658,560W, are available for the project.[30]

a)　Electricity Distribution The primary function of adopting PV systems on the bulk carrier is energy production.

It is important to consider how it would be distributed after

the energy is produced.

Figure 76 Proposed electricity distribution from PV modules

- 85 -



The projected PV system has an ‘off-the-grid’ mechanism.

This means it

is self-sufficient manner without the need for reliance on one or more external public utilities.

Furthermore, energy generated by the system is

consumed in itself without transferring out of the ship.

Electricity

generated goes directly to the main switchboard making storage in batteries unnecessary. The flow chart shows the proposed distribution of electricity generated by photovoltaic cells. As exploring the process, photovoltaic modules transform solar energy to electrical energy source and it is temporarily stored in a PV array combiner box. applicable electricity.

Inverters then convert the electrical energy to

Following this, the inverted electricity flows into the

receiving panel which directs it to the main switchboard, where the electricity is stored and saved before distribution.

During the distribution

process, electricity is supplied to local machineries and systems.

This

process decrease reliance on diesel resulting in reduced Co2, Nox and Sox emissions.

- 86 -



b) Weather Data

Figure 77 Actual Position

Figure 78 Modified Position

For the weather data, the two maps above are introduced.

The Figure 77

shows actual route of the case ship during the voyage.

On the other

hand, the points on the Figure 78 shows positions applied for the project. Those represent nearest continental position where the weather data can be achieved by NASA. There are a lot of factors which determine useful sun energy. conditions varied seasonally.

Weather

For accurate results, all these weather data

is referred from RETScreen® which expects average 125.4kWh will be generated from the PV system.

Figure 79 Result in Energy Balance From the annual energy generation, it could transform energy to monetary terms.

As the main aim of this project, to confirm the project’s viability it

is essential to calculate annual saving.

In doing so, specific oil

consumption of generators on board are applied.

- 87 -



As a result in energy balance, the Figure 79 compares a gap of fuel consumptions between the initial ship and the projected ship with PV system.

The non-projected case ship burns 9,874.7 tonnes of F.O while

the projected ship uses 9,582.8 tonnes.

Consequently, this project

achieves 291.9 tonnes of fuel savings supplemented by the PV system 3.0% of the amount of the initial fuel consumption.

ii) Cost Analysis The question of the feasibility on a PV system is a matter of system selection. - a single Solar panel manufactured by Sunpower costs $3,200. In addition, 20 day - dry docking will be required to install the proposed system. The Figure 80 shows the total cost of this project - $6,925,600.

Figure 80 Result in Cost Analysis iii) Air Emissions Along with fuel savings, another important benefit from PV system is relating to environmental preservation. proportionate to energy consumption.

Air emissions from fossil fuel are According to the emission analysis,

the reduced amount of CO2, SOx and NOx areas below.

- 88 -



Figure 81 Result in Emission Analysis In terms of EEOI, 0.005 points are expected to decrease. iv) Financial Analysis As a result of financial analysis seen below, for original case with $614 per a ton of F.O, the expected payback time is evaluated about 39.4 years. As alternatives, $500 and $700 of the fuel oil prices are applied to the calculation of financial analysis and the longest payback time is expected about 48.6 years at $500 of F.O price.

Figure 82 Result in Financial Analysis On the other hand, when the cost of F.O is $2,500, the payback time is expected to be within ten years, actually 9.5 years - its marketability seems to begin viable.

v) Sensitivity Analysis With the original case – the prices of $614.0, discount rates of 5%, 10% and 15% are applied.

In addition, changes in oil prices as determined in

the previous chapter are applied to sensitivity analysis: Scenario 1 – Oil price sharply increases, Scenario 2 – Oil price mildly increases. In addition, it is assumed that LNG price increase in the same rate with oil price. The results are shown as follows; - 89 -



Figure 83 & 84 NPV VS Year As the Figure 83 & 84 shows, the consideration of discount rates at any case worsens its marketability. In this regard, it seems unable to recover its initial costs by the end of the project period.

6.7. WHRS

Today, as the fuel energy efficiency of an internal combustion engine is about 50%, main engine exhaust gas, which accounts for about 25.5% of the total loss, is by far one of the most attractive energy source for a ship because of the heat flow and temperature. This Chapter 6.7 describes the technology behind waste heat recovery and the potential for ship-owners to lower fuel costs, cut emissions and the effect on the EEOI value of the ship on condition that this system is applied to this existing vessel.


The principle of the general WHRS is that part of the exhaust gas flow

- 90 -



from the main engine bypasses the main engine turbocharger.

The

bypassed gas is utilized to run power turbine for generator or produce steam in an exhaust gas boiler. At present, several types of different WHRSs have been introduced. Depending on the level of complexity acceptable to the owner and shipyard and the actual electrical power consumption onboard, it is possible to choose between the following systems.

i) PTG – Power Turbine Generator Power turbine standalone generator The simplest and cheapest system consists of an exhaust gas turbine installed in the exhaust gas bypass, and a generator that converts power from the power turbine to electricity onboard the ship. The power turbine is driven by part of the exhaust gas flow which bypasses the turbocharger.

The power turbine produces extra output

power for electric power production, which depends on the bypassed exhaust gas flow amount. Power turbine and steam turbine generator with single or dual pressure steam turbine.

Figure 85 Schematic diagram of the TCS-PTG System

ii) STG – Steam Turbine Generator - 91 -



STG system is installing the exhaust gas bypass and, thereby, increasing the exhaust gas temperature before the boiler without using power turbine.

Figure 86 MAN Diesel & Turbo STG system

iii) ST-PT – Steam Turbine- Power Turbine generator If the electric power demand on the ship is very high, e.g. a container ship, the power turbine and the steam turbine can be built together to form a combined system. The power turbine and the steam turbine is built onto a common bedplate and, via reduction gearboxes, connected to a common generator.

Figure 87 MAN Diesel & Turbo TG-PT system

The selection of WHRS type for a project depends on the power demand - 92 -



onboard, this ship’s running profile, the acceptable payback time for the proposed WHRS solution based on the running profile and the space available on the ship, among others. According to the Maker’s recommendation, the following is stated. - Main engine power > 25,000 kW -> Combined ST and PT - Main engine power PTG or STG - Main engine power < 15,000 kW -> PTG or ORC(organic Rankine cycle) (MAN Diesel & Turbo, 2012)

For the case ship with 10,400kW of M/E, PTG type of WHRS is considered to be applicable.


As discussed in the previous, a waste heat recovery system is an energy recovery heat exchanger that recovers heat from hot streams with potential high energy content, such as hot flue gases from a diesel generator or steam from cooling towers or even waste water from different cooling processes such as in steel cooling.

Below the characteristics of WHRS

will be discussed with SWOT analysis. Strengths ■ Operation cost is free ■ Reduction in air pollution ■ Reduction in auxiliary energy consumption

Weaknesses ■ High capital costs ■ Complexity of the system ■ Big modification

Opportunities

Threats

■ Continuously decreasing in costs and increasing in efficiencies

■ Unable to used less than 50% M/E load ■ Not appropriate for de-rating vessels ■ Quality of heat

- 93 -



According to the SWOT analysis, the recovery process will add to the efficiency of the process and thus decrease the costs of fuel and energy consumption needed for that process. pollution

will

dramatically

decrease

In addition, Thermal and air

since

less

flue

gases

of

high

temperature are emitted from the plant since most of the energy is recycled and as Fuel consumption reduces so the control and security equipment for handling the fuel decreases. Also, filtering equipment for the gas is no longer needed in large sizes. In terms of disadvantages, the capital cost to implement a waste heat recovery system may outweigh the benefit gained in heat recovered. necessary to put a cost to the heat being offset.

It is

Moreover, often waste

heat is of low quality (temperature). It can be difficult to efficiently utilize the quantity of low quality heat contained in a waste heat medium.

Heat

exchangers tend to be larger to recover significant quantities which increases capital cost. 6.7.3. Feasibility Study

When looking at a When looking at a new ship project, and whether including WHRS in the project is a good idea, the question about payback time always comes up. This Chapter, Feasibility Study, is to designed to analyze the marketability of PTG type WHRS – power turbine WHRS.

Figure 88 WHRS recovery ratios

- 94 -



The actual efficiencies of WHRSs vary depending on the ship type, size, speed range, preferred main engine type, engine rating, operational profile, electric power needed at sea, any number of reefer containers, need for power take in (PTI) and/or power take off (PTO), intentions concerning the use of the recovered WHRS energy, the use of PTO and PTI at the different running modes, service steam amount at sea (tropical, ISO and Winter conditions), etc. However, simply put, according to Figure 99 provided by MAN Diesel, in the calculation, it is assumed that the applied PTG WHRS has 4% of its Max. electrical recovery.

i) Energy Modelling In order to evaluate the marketability for the WHRS, the information about the expected operational profile with M/E loads is very important as the system is unable to run below 50% of total output. In this regard, it is useful to utilize the data on energy modelling for the initial case ship as it contains operational profile transformed into engine loads and operational hours at these loads. (Refer to Chapter 5)

Figure 89 Result in Energy Balance The figure 89 shows the result in energy balance in comparison between initial case vessel and after conversion of M/E with WHRS.

By reducing

in loads of G/E, 394.1 tonnes of F.O is expected to be saved on annual basis, which accounts for 4% of the total annual fuel consumption.

ii) Cost Analysis Based on ten year project, the capital costs are required when the WHRS is installed in the form of WHRS package cost, Yard installation cost, Hire-off Cost, which totals 2,555,000 USD. - 95 -



On the other hand, operation costs are categorized into annual F.O costs for WHRS tuning, L.O costs and maintenance costs.

For this system,

differences in M/E L.O and maintenance costs for M/E are disregarded as no load changes are expected during the project years.


As Shown in Figure 90, OPEX saving is estimated at 4,504.03 USD - the incremental costs of FFR over a ten-year time period are calculated – L.O and maintenance costs for G/E are saved as the G/E loads reduce by the reuse of waste heat from M/E.

iii) Emission Analysis As a result of fuel savings, the reduction in air emissions are shown as below. The quantities of the harmful combustion particles of NOx and SOx are also significantly reduced, as those were expected. The reduction is up to 15.2% for NOx, up to 4.0% for CO2 and SOx.

Figure 91 Result in Emission Analysis In addition, the Energy Efficiency Operation Index(EEOI) clearly show the CO2 reduction after the system application.

- 96 -



 EEOIsea reduction by 0.006(0.160->0.153)

iv) Financial Analysis We subtract the fuel savings for the ten-year period from the incremental costs for the same time period to obtain net costs or benefits. As the original case the bunker price (F.O380) of $614 is applied for the financial analysis, the payback time is turned out to be 10.5 years.

In

addition, as alternatives, $500 and $700 of the fuel oil prices are respectably applied into Case1-1, Case1-2 and Case 1-3 and the results are

obvious

that

lower

fuel

costs

lead

to

longer

payback

time.

Considering the life expectancy of the vessel (expected to be ten years), it is found that none of cases is able to redeem the initial costs by the end of the project period.


v) Sensitivity Analysis In order to obtain net costs or benefits, it should be noted that the estimate is to include time value, money, inflation, etc. In line with changes in oil prices, two scenarios are concerned: Scenario 1 – Oil price sharply increases, Scenario 2 – Oil price mildly increases. In addition, feasibility study considers the following three cases- the decline in annual market value 5%, 10% and 15%. As a result, when discount rate of 0 or 5% are applied, the new coating is to be profitable while, with discount rate of 10% or 15%, the marketability of this technology is negative.

- 97 -




Figure 93 & 94 describes the trends of NPVs when different discount rates are applied. When the project year, Year 10, comes it can be shown that balance and NPV of 0% are only succeeded to mark above zero line in both Scenario 1 & 2.

- 98 -



Chapter 7. Marginal Abatement Cost Curve(MACC)

- 99 -



7. Marginal Abatement Cost Curve

Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) is a pathway to low carbon shipping, looking at what could be done to reduce CO2 emissions.

This

study demonstrates the potential for cutting emissions by introducing CO2 emission reduction measures for both existing and new vessels. MACC is a good method to see how much a technology can contribute to the environment and how cost- efficiently the system can reach to the targeted amount of CO2 reduction. The abatement curves for shipping are generally developed based on actual experience or results gained from energy efficiency studies – their estimated cost-effective analysis. Many of the operational and technical measures that have been assessed are available for implementation on existing vessels today and were included in the study of the present abatement potential. Other measures are available for new buildings that are ordered today. Some of the measures are not yet commercially available on a larger scale, and the model assumes they will be implemented at a later stage. Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves are a staple of policy discussions where there is a need to illustrate the incremental contributions of parts to a whole. In this instance, they provide a simple and elegant way to illustrate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction from design standards, retrofit technologies, and operational measures that improve ship energy efficiency relative to their costs. As energy savings are proportionately related to the amount of CO2 reduction, the evaluation of MAC graph will be worth doing, which shows the energy saving efficiency of each item.

- 100 -



7.1. MACC for Studied Energy Saving Technologies

With the result of our studies conducted in the previous chapters, MACC can be drawn and used as a means to explore the trend of the energy efficient technologies for the fleet of bulk carriers.

Figure 95 Study Summery Figure 95 shows the summery of the energy saving technologies as studied in the previous Chapter 6; when F.O price is $614 per ton, LNG %14.2 per ton, discount rate and increase in fuel prices are not considered.

It is seen that WHRS has the shortest payback time with

10.4 years while electric propulsion system marks "Impossible" to repay its costs.

Figure 96 MAC Curve Based on Figure 95, the MACC above is an indication of the expected costs and target CO2 reductions achieved from the application of the new - 101 -



technologies. The each area means total annual costs for annual carbon reductions. For example, WHRS requires $7 to reduce a single ton of CO2 emission during the ten year project period.

The LNG fuel ship can cut

7,853 tonnes of CO2 each year, which costs $50 to reduce a single ton of CO2 – total $3,931,550 are required. In terms of advanced hull coating, $52 is required while fuel cell, solar energy and CRP system require $198, $562 and $ 1,269 respectably. In Figure 96, from left to right, the energy efficiencies go worse in environmental aspects.

In terms of 'Electric Propulsion System', it is

unable to figure out CO2 abatement costs as it increases actual operation costs.

- 102 -



No.

References

[1]

Bo Cerup-Simonsen. (2011, 1). The long and the short of green shipping. The

[2]

Naval Architect , p. 33. International Transport Forum. (2009, 5). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction

[3]

Potential from International Shipping. Discussion Paper No 2009. AEA GROUP. (2008). Greenhouse gas emissions from shipping: trends, projections

[4]

and abatement potential. Didcot: Committee on Climate Change. Akdag, R. (2012, 2 27). Retrieved 2 20, 2013, from More Than Shipping:

[5] [6]

http://morethanshipping.com/oil-prices-and-the-shipping-industry/ Asia, C. D. (2011, 3). Pre-Feasibility Study Guidelines. RetScreen International . (2005). Introduction to Clean Energy Project Analysis.

[7]

Canada. Object Oriented and Multi-Scale Image Analysis: Strengths, W. O.-A. (2008, 1).

[8] [9] [10]

Journal of Computer Science 4 (9), pp. 706-712. Young, G. I. (1970). Feasibility studies. Appraisal Journal 38 (3), pp. 376-383. Kanter, J. (2010). Carbon trading: Where greed is green. The New York Times IMO . (2009, August 17). MEPC.1 Circ 684. GUIDELINES FOR VOLUNTARY USE

[11]

OF THE SHIP ENERGY EFFICIENCY. IMO. (2008, October 10). MEPC.176(58). AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNEX OF

[12]

THE PROTOCOL OF 1997. bunkerworld. (2013, April

[13]

http://www.bunkerworld.com/prices/index/bw380 Warren, R. D. (2009). Financial and managerial accountiing. South-Western

[14]

Cengage Learning. G, A. (1985). Mathematical Methods for Physicists, 3rd Edition. FL:Academic Press,

[15]

(pp. 278-279). Orlando. Viking Energy. (2011). Retrieved July 27, 2012, from Ship

[16]

http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/viking-energy-cargo-vessel/ Stenersen, D. (2011, September 28). Gas Fuelled ships . LNG-Fueeled Engines

[17] [18]

and Fuel Systems for Medium-Speed Engines in Maritime Applications. MARINTEK. Klimt-Mollenbach, C. (2012). GreenShip of the Future. Waterborne Energy, Inc. (2013, May 23). World LNG Estimated June 2013 Landed

[19]

Prices. Emilio Tincani, D. G. (2008). A DESIGN METHOD FOR CONTRA ROTATING

15).

bunkerworld.

PROPELLERS BASED ON EXACT LIFTING SURFACE

CFD Group (pp. 201-214). Italy: Department of Naval

Retrieved

from

Technology.com:

CORRECTION. Marine Architecture and Marine

[20]

Technology, University of Genoa. Petteri, A. (n.d.). CRP Azipod for

[21] [22]

Cost-Effective Solution. Helsinki, Finland: ABB Industry Oy, Marine Group. ABB. (2002). The CRP Azipod Propulsion Concept. Corbett J, W. J. (2011). Energy and GHG Emissions Savings: Analysis of

Ultra Large Container Ships- An Advanced

Fluoropolymer Foul Release Hull Coating. LLC: [23]

Research Associates. POSCO Energy. (n.d.). Product Summary.

Energy and Environmental

Retrieved JULY 31, 2012, from

POSCO ENERGY: http://www.poscoenergy.com/ - 103 -



[24]

MAN B&W. (n.d.). Diesel-electric

Drives - A brief guideline how to design a

[25]

diesel-electric propulsion plant. Byrne. (2010). Hatch Covers on Bulk

[26]

of Changes in Design Pressure. RINA. [26] David Cooper IVL, T. G. (2004). Methodology for calculating emissions from

MAN B&W. Carriers: The Effect on Procurement Costs

ships: 2. Emission factors for 2004 reporting. Norrköping, Sweden: the Swedish [27]

Environmental Protection Agency. International Paint Ltd. (2009).

[28] [29]

http://www.international-marine.com/news/Pages/News20091116.aspx FCTec.com. (2011, August 9). Retrieved from FCTec.com Waterborne Energy, Inc. (2013, May 23). World LNG Estimated June 2013

[30]

Landed Prices. Minister of Natural Resources of Canada. (2005). , RETScreen® Software Online

Retrieved

July

27,

2012,

from

User Manual- RETScreen® Photovoltaic Project Model. Canada.

- 104 -
