Issuu

2 NOV 4 2021 TO

100

2021

YEARS

Copenhagen Denmark

Headline Sponsor :

CONFERENCE HANDBOOK Radisson Blu Scandinavia Hotel, Copenhagen, Denmark Powering shipping’s emissions-cutting ambitions Propulsion stream | Alternative fuels stream | Technical visit Two days of conference streams offering new and retrofit technical/fuel solutions to address upcoming regulatory deadlines from the IMO and EU. Chairmen: Lars Robert Pedersen, Deputy Secretary General, BIMCO Martin Kroeger, Managing Director, German Shipowners Association – VDR Sponsored by:

HEADLINE SPONSOR

SILVER SPONSOR

Supported by:

visit: propulsionconference.com contact: +44 1329 825335 email: conferences@propulsionconference.com

#MotorshipPFF

Organised by:

MOTORSHIP

THE

INSIGHT FOR MARINE TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS

TURN UNCERTAINTY

INTO CONFIDENCE The pressure is on shipping to reduce GHG emissions – but to find the right pathway, you need the right partner. From regulatory compliance, next generation fuels, vessel and operational optimization, to in-depth advice and insight, explore DNV’s decarbonization solutions. And find out how together we can realize a greener future.

Learn more: dnv.com/maritime

Welcome

NICK EDSTROM Editor, The Motorship

Dear delegates, Welcome to the latest Motorship’s Propulsion & Future Fuels Conference. Since we began covering innovations in the marine fuels and propulsive technologies field in 1979, we have seen many changes, with the introduction of commercial LNG-fuelled propulsion among the most momentous. But the sheer range and extent of regulatory, technical and market developments in the gaseous fuels market since 2019 are exceed any previous year that I can remember. This is particularly the case as the market is not just undergoing one transformation, but several concurrently, if we include the ongoing digitalisation story. Gas-fuelled ships have hit the front pages of the media around the world, as the list of commercially available gaseous and liquid fuels from which shipowners can choose expands. High profile stories have included A.P. Moller Maersk’s investment in a series of methanolfuelled container vessels, and on a smaller scale the first bunkering of a green Power-to-X fuel (SNG) near Hamburg at the end of September. We have even seen the entry into service of the first commercial dual-fuel hydrogen engine. It is entirely right and proper that we open our conference with a calm appraisal of the impact of new regulations on the market. Since our last conference in 2019, the IMO has approved the introduction of EEXI and CII rules. The topic of EEXI rules in particular will be explored more deeply in our first session, while the impact of CII rules may prove to be even wider-ranging effects towards the end of the decade. Before that, our conference opens with a topical High Level Panel discussion, which will cover the expected impact of the extension of the EU’s Emissions Trading System to cover CO2 emissions from vessels operating in the waters of the trading bloc’s member states. The extension, which was announced as part of a much wider package of measures, Fit for 55, is also expected to apply to vessels travelling between the EU and third countries. We include a number of technological case studies from shipowners and technology partners who have adopted innovative technologies. The shortlist for the editor’s award focuses on four innovative projects that have demonstrated the potential for GHG emission savings, including

Welcome UECC’s first LNG-fuelled hybrid PCTCs as well as K Line’s deployment of Airseas aerofoil system, but we include presentations from ship owners throughout the programme. Once again, we are fortunate enough to be joined by a strong programme of leading industry experts, class society specialists and ship owners and ship operators. Our thanks go to our dedicated and knowledgeable advisory committee members and our kind sponsors, including Gold Sponsor DNV and Silver Sponsor GTT, without whom this event could not have taken place. It is our hope that our conference permits an exchange of ideas around the decarbonisation issue. I wish you a productive, illuminating and thought-provoking few days in Hamburg and I look forward to witnessing, as always, a generous exchange of ideas. Yours sincerely, Nick Edstrom Editor, The Motorship

Chairman’s Welcome

LARS ROBERT PEDERSEN Deputy Secretary General, BIMCO

Dear delegates, speakers and exhibitors, Welcome to the 42’nd Motorship Propulsion and Future Fuels Conference – this time in Copenhagen as Covid-19 continues to wreak havoc around the world. Fortunately, restrictions in Denmark have been rescinded, allowing us to meet in person for one of the first major international shipping conferences in a very long time. I truly hope you are enjoying the opportunity to meet new faces and discuss the most important issue in shipping: to decarbonise as soon as possible. Much has happened since we last met in Hamburg two years ago. When the pandemic hit in early 2020 with extended lockdowns most of the industry expected that bad would turn to worse. Reality proved otherwise. The shipping industry is currently enjoying unprecedented market conditions, not because the industry was clever to manage the supply/demand balance, but because the pandemic has left the world with strained supply chains and bottlenecks in many parts of the world. In fact, the global supply of almost everything is under pressure, threatening to fuel depression of the world economy if not managed carefully. While the world has undergone dramatic changes over the last nearly two years, the climate has not: global warming continues because human activity continues to emit greenhouse gasses at a rate that is not sustainable. The climate change agenda continues to ramp up and this conference is all about how shipping shall respond to limit its emissions. Shipping is in solutions mode. The challenge is to figure out which solutions fit the operation of each ship. Longevity is a keyword as ships operate for a long time. It is crucial to make the right choices as otherwise we will end up with stranded assets. I hope this conference will inspire and give us all ideas about how to proceed on the journey towards decarbonisation. Remember, business as usual is not a sustainable option for the future. Lars Robert Pedersen Deputy Secretary General, BIMCO

Chairman’s Welcome

Alternative fuels for future shippiing

Martin Kröger Managing Director, German Shipowners’ Association VDR

Dear delegate, What seems in today’s virtual meeting world like a lifetime but is in fact only three years ago, the International Maritime Organization adopted in a very lively 72nd meeting of its Marine Environment Protection Committee ambitious goals for the shipping sector: to reduce CO2 emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008; and that total annual GHG emissions from international shipping are to be halved by 2050 compared to 2008 levels. Although the shipbuilding industry and manufacturers of ship engines continuously optimize their products, it is clear that alone is not enough to achieve the ambitious climate protection goals of the initial IMO strategy on the reduction of GHG emissions from ships. The use of alternative fuels with a much smaller carbon footprint is key for shipping to meet the IMO carbon goals, with a long list of fuels or energy carriers that can be used in shipping. The ones most commonly considered today are Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Electricity, Biodiesel, Ammonia and Methanol. Other fuels that could play a role in the future are Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Ethanol, Dimethyl Ether (DME), Biogas, Synthetic Fuels, Hydrogen and Wind propulsion. Encouraging the take-up of such sustainable fuels and propulsion systems in shipping is the most important element in efforts to reduce shipping’s emissions and move towards the IMO goals. The gradual adoption of these fuels, and the examples set by first movers will be fundamental in paving the way to a wider use of these alternative fuels for a carbon neutral future of shipping. I am looking forward to welcome you in my hometown Hamburg for day two of this year’s MOTORSHIP PROPULSION and Future Fuels Conference 2021. I hope for lively discussions with you on the potential application of these different cleaner fuel solutions, and the challenges they pose to ship design and operations. See you in Hamburg Martin Kröger

FUTURE PROOF SOLUTIONS TO MEET CO2 TARGETS

ALREADY 81 LNG-FUELLED CONTAINER SHIPS*, WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS ?

LNG as fuel not only complies with 2020 Global Sulphur Cap but also future regulations cutting CO2 emissions. Over 55 years, GTT has developed LNG tank technologies employed in more than 550 LNG Carriers**. GTT makes its expertise and experience available for ship-owners looking at switching to LNG. Compared to other LNG tank solutions, GTT technology allows owners to reach the highest autonomy with the smallest impact on their cargo capacity. Today, GTT aims at helping you in your energy transition.

*in operation or in order as of May 30th 2021

** in operation or in order as of March 30th 2021

Learn more on www.gtt.fr

Contents

Contents Welcome ................................................................................................................................003 Opening Session ............................................................................................................... 010 Chairman

Keynote Panel ..................................................................................................................... 014 EU Emissions Trading Scheme and Shipping

Session 1 .................................................................................................................................020 Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI)

Session 2 .................................................................................................................................040 Retrofitting the Fleet

Session 3 .................................................................................................................................088 Current and Future Projects

Session 4 ................................................................................................................................. 120 Today’s Alternative Fuels

Session 5.1 ..............................................................................................................................133 LNG’s Evolution

Session 5.2 ..............................................................................................................................147 Methanol

Session 6.1 ..............................................................................................................................159 Ammonia

Session 6.2 ..............................................................................................................................172 Hydrogen and Fuel Cells

Session 7.1 .............................................................................................................................. 203 Wind Propulsion

Session 7.2 .............................................................................................................................220 Electrification – using electrification to ready fuels for 2030

BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE TOGETHER LET US ASSIST YOU TODAY www.eagle.org/sustainability

SAFETY LEADERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD © Ase/posscriptum/Andrey Suslov/Liu zishan/Shutterstock

OPENING SESSION

Chairman

Chairman’s Profile

LARS ROBERT PEDERSEN Deputy Secretary General, BIMCO

BIOGRAPHY Deputy Secretary General Lars Robert Pedersen is responsible for BIMCO’s technical and operational activities involving all technical and nautical issues within the area of marine environment, ship safety and maritime security. Lars Robert is furthermore responsible BIMCO’s activity related to regulatory developments relevant for shipping at international, regional and national levels. He joined BIMCO In early 2010 after a long career at A.P. Moller-Maersk. For more than 25 years he was involved in regulatory affairs at IMO level, technical management of the Maersk fleet of container ships and prior to that as seagoing engineer officer. Lars Robert holds an unlimited Chief Engineers license.

Chairman’s Profile

Martin Kröger Managing Director, German Shipowners’ Association VDR

BIOGRAPHY Since 2012 Martin Kroeger is Managing Director of the German Shipowners’ Association, VDR, and a specialist in international shipping policy and related government affairs management. He has worked in the international maritime community for over a decade and serves as a leading industry representative to many international and intergovernmental organisations. Martin also holds the position of Managing Director of the German Shipping Foundation, a facility founded to co-sponsor training and education of seafarers in Germany. Martin is delegated member to several European and international maritime related advisory committees and expert groups. As alternate member of the Board of Directors of the European Community Shipowners Association - ECSA in Brussels and acting Chairman of the ECSA Safety and Environmental Committee, he actively engages in EU policy making for the maritime sector. Before joining VDR, Martin worked as Managing Director for the Association of German Seaports Operators and was actively involved in the work of the Federation of European Private Port Operators – FEPORT in Brussels. Martin was admitted to the bar of the State of Hamburg in Germany as attorney-at-law (Rechtsan-walt) in 2007. In the same year, his law and consultancy practice was founded, headquartered in Hamburg, Germany. Martin was educated in Germany and Australia before he graduated in 2001 from the University of Hamburg in Germany with a degree in Law and Legal Studies. In 2003 he earned a Master of Laws degree in Shipping Law with honours at the University of Cape Town. Martin has been awarded with the Capt. Bob Deacon Shipping Law Prize of the University of Cape Town in 2004. In 2006 he was awarded with a Doctor of Laws (Dr. jur.) by the University of Hamburg in Germany. Martin is an alumnus of the Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government executive education program on International Trade Policy, which he successfully concluded in 2016, and the programme on Climate Change and Energy, which he successfully concluded in 2019.

POWERFUL

SIMPLE

SAFE

Flying dynamically over 200m above sea level, Seawing is a 1000m2 wing designed to fully harness the power of the wind, reducing fuel consumption and emissions by up to 40%.

Leveraging automation technologies from the aeronautical sector, Seawing is activated at the push of a button and is 100% automated. It is simple to use, operated from the bridge, with no deck crew intervention required.

Seawing brings the safety measures of the aviation industry to commercial shipping. Digital models are constantly validated with real-life data to guarantee safety.

FIRST SYSTEM INSTALLED IN DECEMBER 2021 Counting Airbus as both a shareholder and customer, Airseas will equip its first vessel (the Ville de Bordeaux) with a 500m² Seawing in December 2021.

2 SYSTEMS FOLLOWING WITH SHIPOWNER “K” LINE Airseas will equip a Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. Capesize bulker with a 1000m² system. An additional 50 vessels are on their way, the work for the first of the series having been started.

COME FLY WITH US ! visit www.airseas.com

KEYNOTE PANEL

EU Emissions Trading Scheme and Shipping With pre-existing global agreements from IMO’s MEPC72 meeting in 2018 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050, will the EU’s proposal hinder or help?

Keynote Panel Speaker

CLAUS W. GRAUGAARD Head of On-board Vessel Solutions, Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping

BIOGRAPHY Claus W. Graugaard will join as Head of On-board Vessel Solutions. Before joining the Center, he was Senior Vice President, Head of Fleet Management, at Lauritzen Kosan (J. Lauritzen). He brings more than 20 years of experience incl. global and managerial positions from the shipping industry. Previous positions include Head of Customer Service & Business Development, New building project management and Ships in Operation in DNV GL and Naval Architect with Carl Bro/Grontmij. Claus has a BSc in Naval Architecture degree from the Technical University of Denmark & University of Strathclyde (Marine & Offshore technology), Scotland and a Diploma in Advanced Management from IESE, Spain.

Keynote Panel Speaker

CHARLES (BUD) DARR Executive Vice President, Maritime Policy and Government Affairs, MSC Group

BIOGRAPHY An experienced global maritime leader in the areas of policy, government, and related law, Bud Darr is Executive Vice President, Maritime Policy and Government Affairs of MSC Group which operates in 155 countries. Having served in the US Navy, Merchant Marine, and Coast Guard, as well as being an accomplished ocean yacht racer, Bud’s longstanding connection with the sea and ships is both personal and professional. Bud began his education in Submarine Nuclear Engineering and later obtained his formal undergraduate education at the US Merchant Marine Academy, where he was trained as a Deck Officer. During his service with the US Coast Guard, he studied law at the George Washington University Law School. He most recently led the Maritime Policy efforts of the Cruise Lines International Association prior to joining the MSC Group in 2017. Today, Bud is engaged across MSC’s Cargo and Passenger divisions, developing the company’s central Government Affairs function, based at the Group’s headquarters in Geneva. He is closely involved in MSC’s response to developments in environmental public policy and regulation and other industry-wide issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, maritime security, safety at sea, and international shipping policy. He serves on the Boards for the UK Chamber of Shipping, BIMCO, International Chamber of Shipping, Liberian Shipowners’ Council, and Society for Gas as a Marine Fuel.

Keynote Panel Speaker

WOLFRAM GUNTERMANN Director Regulatory Affairs, Hapag-Lloyd AG

BIOGRAPHY Captain Wolfram Guntermann graduated with his Masters Licence at the Marine Polytechnic Elfleth/Germany in combination with a scholarship at the Plymouth Polytechnic of Marine Science. He also received his Engineers Licence at the Hamburg Polytechnic in order to serve as Ship Operation Officer holding a dual licence. After having set his feet for the first time on deck a vessel in 1979 he went through the ranks receiving his first command as Master in 1996. He also took various assignments ashore as Trio Tonnage Center London and Director Marine Operations in the Hapag-Lloyd America Office in Piscataway/New Jersey for almost nine years. Upon repatriation to the Hamburg based Headquarters he worked as Director Projects ( Passenger Vessel MV Europa 2 ). With the current function as Director Regulatory Affairs a lot of challenging opportunities are emerging in light of new environmental legislation and initiatives.

Keynote Panel Speaker

CHRISTOPHER FEE General Manager of Environment and Sustainability Oldendorff Carriers

BIOGRAPHY Christopher has been with the Germany-based dry bulk owner and operator Oldendorff Carriers since 2013, where he currently serves as their General Manager of Environment and Sustainability. Since its inception in 2018, Christopher has sat on the Board of the Clean Shipping Alliance where he presently serves as their Vice Chairman. Christopher also serves on BIMCO’s Marine Environment Committee as well as representing Oldendorff at the Global Maritime Forum’s Getting to Zero Coalition.

EXPERTISE FOR SUSTAINABILITY BUREAU VERITAS IS COMMITTED TO REDUCING THE MARITIME INDUSTRY’S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. A SUITE OF GREEN NOTATIONS Bureau Veritas published two new notations in July 2021. Developed with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals in mind, these notations address five areas of sustainability: preventing sea and air pollution; reducing greenhouse gas emissions; protecting marine ecosystems; preparing for ship recycling; enhancing people’s wellbeing on board. Bureau Veritas is giving shipowners a simple, direct way to translate their level of sustainability for marine and non-marine stakeholders. Each SUSTAINABLESHIP notation comprises a range of additional class notations, delivering a clear understanding of what shipowners have accomplished.

RULES & GUIDELINES

2 SUSTAINABLE NOTATIONS SUSTAINABLESHIP - 1 SUSTAINABLESHIP - 2

2 WIND ASSISTED NOTATIONS WPS 1 / WPS 2

Contact our expert: martial.claudepierre@bureauveritas.com

marine-offshore.bureauveritas.com

SESSION 1

Energy Efficiency Existing Shipping Index (EEXI)

Conference Paper

Impact of CII and EEXI on uptake of alternative marine fuels

CHRISTOS CHRYSSAKIS Business Development Manager, DNV

BIOGRAPHY Christos Chryssakis is a Business Development Manager at DNV – Maritime, focusing on decarbonization and marine fuels. In the past, he has worked at DNV Group Technology & Research focusing on alternative fuels and energy efficiency. Before joining DNV he worked as a researcher at the National Technical University of Athens, and at the Institut Francais du Petrole (IFP), in Paris, France. He has more than 10 years of R&D experience in internal combustion engines for marine, automotive and off-road applications, with particular focus on emissions reduction. He has a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from the National Technical University of Athens and a MSc and PhD degree from the University of Michigan.

Conference Paper

Predictive evaluation of existing ships as low emission investments

MIKE KONSTANTINIDIS CEO, METIS

BIOGRAPHY METIS Cyberspace Technology SA Co-Founder and CEO, Mike Konstantinidis holds a BSc and an MSc in Mechanical Engineering and has more than 25 years of experience in business leadership. Over recent years Mike has focused on the maritime sector, as a significant contributor to shipping’s digital revolution and a strong advocate for Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Mike’s main aim is to design, plan and execute operational and business strategies that are enabled by data analytics to help the global maritime sector secure greater competitiveness and profitability.

GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING YOUR PAPER AND PRESENTATION THE PAPER Papers produced in the conference handbook, will be available to all delegates attending the event. A pdf version of papers (and PowerPoint presentations) will be available to download after the conference. The handbook is an important resource for the delegates, which they pay for within their delegate fee – and so it is crucial the deadline is observed in all cases. Formatting: 1. Written in English 2. Use Ariel 11-point font 3. Maximum 10 pages of A4 (21x29.7cm), including diagrams, figures, tables, appendices and references 4. Please send all diagrams, figures and tables separately as pdf, jpeg or gif files 5. Please print a copy of the paper before submitting it to ensure its printability

THE PRESENTATION A PowerPoint presentation is the ideal format to present your ideas, research and/or development to the delegation. A pdf version of papers (and PowerPoint presentations) will be available to download after the conference. Your presentation will be loaded onto a laptop at the venue ready for your use. If you are presenting in a morning session, it is crucial the deadline is observed. Formatting: Remember your presentation must address your paper in three main points. If it does not, it is likely you are covering too much information and the audience will be unable to digest it. Please follow the guidelines below; 1. 16x9 format 2. Written in English 22

Conference Paper 3. Recommendation of 1 slide per minute – check the programme for your allocated time 4. Use clear font, preferably in dark colours to make it easy to read 5. Include minimal text on each slide – recommendation of three points per slide 6. Diagrams and tables must be clear with minimal text 7. Reduce the size of all images Audio visual requirements: Should you have sound clips/DVD or video included in your presentation or have any additional audio- visual requirements, please contact us at least four weeks prior to the conference so the necessary arrangements can be made. Publication policy: Papers and presentations including all associated artwork and illustrations will not be returned unless specifically requested by the author in advance of the conference. Presentations will be uploaded to the conference website as PDFs following the conference and included as part of the download for participants. If you do not wish for your presentation to be circulated, or need to remove sensitive information prior to publishing, please let the team know. Commercialism: Papers must be objective and completely free of advertising and commercialism. Copyright: Any acknowledgement regarding Copyright or support should be included at the end of the text, as the papers will be distributed to attendees and other interested parties post-conference. For full terms and conditions, please see this webpage. Further information: If you require further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact: Markell Charles Bailey, Conference Producer, Mercator Media +44 1329 825335 mcharlesbailey@mercatormedia.com

Conference Paper

Meeting the IMO GHG targets through EEXI and CII – The Shipowners’ perspective

CHRIS WADDINGTON Technical Director, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS)

BIOGRAPHY Chris Waddington is responsible, in conjunction with the Nautical Director for the development and implementation of ICS policy on technical, operational and environmental regulatory risks affecting international shipping. He actively participates in IMO Committees and industry associations, to represent the interests of ICS Members, shipowners and operators. The first 23 years of his career has been founded in the shipping sector, mainly working on the design, construction and operational support of passenger ferries. For the subsequent 15 years he has focused on the floating production sector of the Oil and Gas industry, project managing FPSO and FLNG design work, supporting field developments, and supervising procurement of floating production vessels. He has also acted as Lenders’ Technical Advisor on behalf of banks and Export Credit Agencies. He is a chartered engineer, a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, and a member of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Chris has worked in Australia, Italy, Poland, Singapore, Vietnam and the UK.

Conference Paper Meeting the IMO GHG targets through EEXI and CII - the Shipowners’ perspective 1.0 Introduction The International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO’s) Green House Gas (GHG) reduction strategy has been evolving since 1997, and for specified ship types and sizes, the following are in force: • • •

The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) - Applies to new vessels and is tightened every 5 years. The Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) - An operational efficiency indicator that is mandatory for all ships. Data Collection Systems (DCS) - For purposes of collecting fuel oil consumption data.

In June this year, the 76th meeting of IMO’s Marine Environmental Committee (MEPC) agreed to adopt the following further measures: • •

The Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI). This design index is very similar to the EEDI for new vessels. The Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) is an operational measure that will annually rate a vessel’s efficiency from A (high) to E (low). The required CII will be subject to an annual percentage reduction.

This paper considers the EEXI and CII requirements and discusses how shipowners may meet these new requirements. 2.0 Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) From the first annual, intermediate or renewal IAPP survey after 1st January 2023, EEXI will apply to existing ships. The required CO2 reduction rates are in the range of EEDI phase 2 and 3. Hence EEXI is closely aligned to the current new build requirements. The requirements apply to vessels in excess of 400 gross tons. Vessels may utilise existing EEDI documentation to confirm EEXI compliance. For pre-EEDI vessels, the most challenging aspect of the calculation may be the establishment of the reference speed, particularly for vessels that have no formal speed trial or model test record. In these instances, the reference speed may be based upon an approximate but conservative formula (detailed within the EEXI guidelines). Or alternativelymodel tests or Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) calculations. There is also a proposal currently going through IMO to allow the reference speed to be based on in-service measurements. This has not yet been agreed at IMO, but if adopted at MEPC 77 (22nd – 26th November 2021), could be of assistance to ship owners with incomplete builder’s trial records. EEXI = Propulsion Power x SFOC x CO2 Factor Reference Speed 3.0 The Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) CII is a new IMO requirement for limitation of carbon intensity for both new and existing ships. It will take effect from 1st January 2023. Dependent on the annual reporting of CII values, vessels will be allocated a banded rating from A to E, and those placed in band D for 3 consecutive years, or band E for 1 year, will be required to submit a corrective action plan to the Responsible Organisation (RO). CII = Annual CO2 Emissions Transport Work 25

Conference Paper

The CII bandings will be progressively reduced by the following cumulative factors:

Year 2023 2024 2025 2026

Reduction from 2019 reference 5% 7% 9% 11% Table 1: IMO’s Required CII Reductions

The % reduction for 2027 to 2030 will be decided by IMO on or before 1st January 2026. Guidelines G1 to G4 relating to the calculation of CII were also adopted at MEPC 76 Guidelines G5 relating to vessel specific correction factors are being developed by a working group, which will present it’s final report to IMO’s MEPC 78 meeting in March 2022. Although not initially mandatory, with the eventual implementation of an IMO Carbon Intensity Code (CIC), compliance will in due course be required. It is expected the CIC will apply from 2026 or 2027. 3.1 Voluntary reporting of alternative CII metrics Reporting of carbon intensity will initially be on the basis of the AER and cgDist metrics. AER (emission per dwt-mile) is used for segments where the cargo is weight critical, and cgDist (emissions per gross ton-miles) for volume-critical cargo. However, within IMO, it is acknowledged that for certain ship types, other metrics may be more appropriate. Hence there is provision within the guidelines for additional voluntary reporting by shipowners of the following alternative metrics: • • • •

EEOI EEPI ciDIST CBDIST ciDIST

This data may In due course, lead to refinement of the CII methodology. 4.0 Associated GHG obligations and market influences Although not a mandatory measure, the Poseidon Principles are a set of reporting criteria which enable signatory lenders to measure and publish the environmental performance of their shipping portfolios. The system relies upon the shipowner’s annual return of carbon intensity data through IMO’s Data Collection System (DCS). Hence even before the CII requirements become mandatory, CII performance may influence cost and availability of finance. It is also expected that environmentally focused charterers may rely on the CII ratings when selecting vessels, and negotiating charter rates. Hence the CII ratings may also influence a shipowner’s income.

Conference Paper

5.0 Available pathways for shipowners to meet the EEXI requirements The following sections suggest several measures that may individually or collectively provide compliance. 5.1 Overridable power limitation It is widely anticipated that the most cost effective way that a shipowner can initially meet the EEXI requirements is to fit an overridable power limitation system, which under normal circumstances will restrict the maximum power delivered to the propeller, and therefore the maximum service speed. In case the vessel should encounter heavy weather, or require additional power for other safety reasons, the system is overridable by the master. IMO Resolution MEPC 335(76) provides guidelines for such systems, which can either be a shaft power limitation system (SHaPoLi), or an engine power limitation system (EPL). Instructions on the use of an installed system must be included within the Onboard Management Manual (OMM), and any use of overridable power, must also be recorded within the OMM. Systems can be mechanically or digitally controlled, and Figure 1 below gives details of a simple mechanically controlled system that utilises a wire seal to limit the fuel governor:

Figure 1 Mechanical stop screw - Engine power limitation system Of course, the speed power relationship for a ship’s hull is non-linear, and close to the service speed there is a disproportionately large decrease in resistance (and therefore GHG emissions) attributable to a speed reduction. By way of example, Figure 2 is the resistance curve for a 111 metre LWL container ship. It is apparent from this that a modest 11% reduction in service speed from 18 to 16 knots results in a more substantial 33% reduction in the power requirement. Hence, even after taking account of the 11% increase in time at sea, the overridable power limitation system still provides significant savings and can be an effective and simple way of achieving EEXI compliance.

Conference Paper

Figure 2 Container ship resistance curve However, at this point it would be appropriate to mention some potential limitations. Design of a vessel’s power train (engine gearbox and propeller) is normally optimised around the required service speed, and full load displacement. Although operating at a lower speed will certainly reduce fuel consumption, the efficiency of the power train may be less than originally intended, and in terms of vibration and emissions, may be less optimal than for an equivalent new vessel designed for this speed. 5.2 Alternative fuels For owners willing to consider an engine retrofit, both Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) and methanol are possible under the existing IMO regulations. Use of LNG as fuel on board LNG carriers has been well proven for many years, and has well established regulatory requirements. Since the introduction of the EEDI requirements there has also been a steadily growing list of shipowners committing to LNG powered new-builds. Although LNG offers significant savings in CO2 emissions, over a 20 year time period, Methane has a a global warming potential 85 times greater than CO2 , reducing to about 30 times after 100 years. Consequently there has been significant concern related to methane slip from internal combustion engines. However, using pilot fuel ignition in 2 stroke engines has proved effective in limiting slip, and other measures are at various stages of development, including after-treatment solutions that use oxidation catalysts. Methanol offers more modest reductions in CO2, but adoption of the fuel at this stage would enable the future use of green methanol, hence on a well to wake basis eliminating CO2 emissions. Hydrogen and ammonia as fuels are both under consideration by IMO, and when regulations are in place could provide a very effective means of complying with EEXI and CII. Adoption of green versions of these fuels would also ensure elimination of supply chain CO2 emissions on a well to wake basis. IMO is also currently developing a methodology for Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of alternative fuels. This will enable environmental and other factors to be weighed on a well to wake basis for all alternative fuels and hence guide regulators and ship owners with respect to the best options going forward.

Conference Paper 5.3 Hybrid/plug-in propulsion For vessels that operate under alternating load, retrofitting of a hybrid electric propulsion system can yield significant efficiency gains. The hybrid system smooths the engine load, and if the service duty requires frequent berthing (e.g. a short sea ferry), there may also be the option of periodic topping up of the batteries from shore power.

Figure 3 A ferry equipped with hybrid propulsion (Image by courtesy of Wightlink) 5.4 Propeller optimisation If not already fully optimised, a propeller upgrade could be considered. As well as changes to the form of the propeller itself, various tunnels, ducts, and spoilers could be considered, as well as a rudder bulb or propeller boss cap. Computational Fluid Dynamics can be a useful tool for comparing many options and assessing the potential efficiency gains for a particular vessel. 5.5 Air lubrication An air lubrication system injects and traps air bubbles of uniform size under the flat bottom sections of a ship, thereby reducing the resistance of the hull and giving improved fuel consumption. Vessels currently fitted with this technology include several cruise ships and a bulk carrier. Reductions in CO2 emissions of 10-15% are claimed. However, the shape of the hull is critical for success, with flat bottom sections preferred to v or round sections. There may also be a need for ridges or fences to restrain the flow of bubbles away from the hull. Hence this technology is unlikely to be suited to every existing vessel. 5.6

Wind Assisted Propulsion Systems (WAPS)

Various systems are available, some based on old ideas. For example the vessel the Buckau was fitted with Flettner rotors and crossed the Atlantic in 1925. In recent years, more modern versions of similar rotors have been fitted to a RoRo vessel, a passenger ferry and a bulk carrier. Wing sails have also seen an earlier false dawn with the Japanese Shin Aitku Maru being fitted with two wingsails in the 1970s and the Ashington Collier used for the pilot installation of a Walker Wing sail in 1986. Other concepts such as aerofoil kites have emerged in recent years. 29

Conference Paper Vessels on regular routes such as those seen in the liner trade or passenger ferries may see the greatest benefits, particularly where wind speed and direction are relatively constant and favourable. Within the EEXI calculation, benefit for WAPS is given via the feff and Peff correction factors, that allow for wind availability and power respectively. Under CII the benefit is achieved through lower CO2 emissions. IMO has produced a guidance note (MEPC.1/Circ. 815) on the treatment of innovative technologies within the calculation of EEDI and this includes WAPS. Improvements to this are to be considered at the MEPC 77 meeting later this November. No doubt this will also set the precedent for the EEXI calculation.

Figure 4

A modern example of a Flettner Rotor (Image by courtesy of Viking Line)

5.7 Bulbous bow Fitting of a bulbous bow or optimisation of an existing one could also yield useful efficiency improvements. Again, use of CFD can enable rapid evaluation of many different forms and aid convergence to an optimal solution.

Figure 5 An example of a bulbous bow retrofit (Image by courtesy of Masterbulk Pte Ltd)

Conference Paper 5.8 Waste heat recovery Energy conversion is never 100% efficient. The energy lost (heat in most cases) can be utilized for additional work through energy recovery systems. Ships can employ various types of these systems that could yield efficiency improvements. These include: •

• • •

Waste heat recovery systems that supplement the auxiliary boiler for steam production by utilising exhaust gas economisers. Excess steam can also be used to run steam turbine generators to supplement the ship’s auxiliary power; Turbochargers that supercharge the air to be used for combustion by utilising the energy contained in the engine exhaust gases; Fresh water generators that use the heat contained in the engine cooling system to desalinate sea water; and Shaft generators that utilize the kinetic energy of the propeller shaft to produce electricity.

6.0 Available pathways for shipowners to meet the CII requirements As well as all the measures identified in section 5 of this paper, shipowners have the following options for operational measures to enable a vessel to meet the CII requirements. 6.1 Optimisation of draught and trim For a given cargo, a ship’s crew normally has the ability to vary slightly the fore & aft trim, and the draught (i.e. by using ballast water), and this can yield useful efficiency savings. Even to an experienced crew, the optimal draft and trim may not always be apparent, and hence studies performed by hydrodynamicists can be useful in evaluating the full range of options, and providing summary guidance to the ship’s crew. Of course the capital cost of this measure is limited to the studies and the operations cost is negligible. However, the technique does require careful ongoing attention by the ship’s officers, to fine-tune the ballast arrangement for minimal hull resistance, whilst maintaining stability and propeller immersion. 6.2 Optimised routing On longer routes, careful routing of a vessel to avoid adverse weather and minimise distance travelled can yield worthwhile savings. Various software packages are available which may interface with electronic chart plotters and receive weather information via satellite communications. 6.3 Minimisation of fouling Management of biofouling can be effective in reducing hull resistance and therefore reducing CO2 emissions. Selection of anti fouling coatings and frequency of dockings, in water inspection and cleaning of hull and propeller can all be optimised with respect to minimising hull resistance. This has been recognized by the IMO and is reflected in the 2016 Guidelines for the development of a Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) (resolution MEPC.282(70)). 6.4 Collaboration between owner and charterer With respect to minimising CO2 emissions there are potential conflicting interests between a charterer (seeking to maintain a delivery schedule), and a ship owner, (needing to maintain CII compliance). Hence, careful consideration of the Charter Party Terms and Conditions will be advantageous in incentivising the control of emissions.

Conference Paper

7.0 Summary of measures to meet the EEXI and CII requirements Table 2 below summarises the aforementioned options for EEXI and CII compliance. Description

Notes Indicative savings in C02 equivalent emissions

Vessel Modifications Overridable Power Limitation

Large savings are possible at minimal capital cost, but must be balanced against the vessel’s need to maintain schedule, and the increased operational costs associated with longer voyage durations.

LNG as Fuel

0-25%

Level of reduction is heavily dependent on degree of methane slip and fugitive emissions.

Methanol as fuel

7-10%

7-10% is tank to wake emissions. Green methanol produced from renewable energy offers the prospect of near zero well to wake emissions.

Electric hybrid/plug-in

15-30%

Best suited to vessels operating at variable power load and the ability to occasionally plug in to shore power, e.g. short sea ferries

Propeller Optimisation

3-10%

Air Lubrication

10-15%

Wind Assisted 0-30% Propulsion

Bulbous bow Waste Recovery

Only applicable for suitable hull forms, and may also need ridges or fences to restrain the air bubbles Best suited to vessels that regularly operate in suitable wind conditions (e.g. vessels that operate a liner service with favorable and predictable wind patterns)

4-14% Heat 8-10%

Operational Improvements Optimisation of 2-7% Draught and Trim Optimised Routing Mimimisation Fouling

2-4%

of 0-10%

Collaboration Between Owner & Charterer

Potential reduction is difficult to quantify

Table 2 Indicative CO2 emission savings 32

Conference Paper

8.0 Conclusions and recommendations It is expected that for most ships the initial EEXI requirement will be most easily met through the installation of an overridable power limitation. The CII requirement through to 2026 amounts to a total reduction in carbon intensity of 11%, As may be seen from the above discussion, achieving such reductions should be possible for most vessels. However, going forward it is expected that for IMO to reach its over-riding goal of a 50% reduction in GHG by 2050, the rate of reduction in carbon intensity is likely to increase. IMO is also due to review it’s initial GHG strategy in 2023, and any higher level of ambition will result in further steepening of the required rates of reduction. Hence to mitigate this uncertainty it is suggested that ship owners may develop a base case strategy and a contingency strategy based upon a higher level of IMO ambition being confirmed in 2023. It is unlikely that existing ships will be able to maintain CII compliance through to 2050 without utilisation of alternative low or zero carbon fuels.

Year 2023 2024 2025 2026

Reduction from 2019 reference 5% 7% 9% 11% Table 1: IMO’s Required CII reductions

Conference Paper

EEXI and CII – insights and solutions

NICOLAS DUCHÊNE Chief Operating Officer & VP Technical, Verifavia Shipping

BIOGRAPHY Nicolas Duchêne holds an MSc in Industrial Sciences and Sustainable Development from the Université de Technologies de Troyes, France, and an MSc in Water Pollution Control Technology from Cranfield University, United Kingdom. Nicolas is the Chief Operating Officer (COO) & VP Technical of Verifavia and leader of technical team when it comes to EU MRV, IMO DCS (2000+ ships every year), EEXI / CII as well as IT system certification services. He developed extensive experience in the field of independent verification under the ISO 14065 norm and is an approved EU MRV and IMO DCS lead auditor, as well as an Hazmat expert. He is responsible for the maintenance of the accreditations delivered to Verifavia by COFRAC, UKAS and SAC as well as for the continuous development of innovative tools, methods and processes used by shipping auditors to deliver high quality output. Nicolas speaks English and French and is based in the head office of Verifavia in Paris, France.

ABSTRACT Ship owners and managers are facing new challenges in meeting 2030/2050 requirements which will significantly impact the sector. These impacts, along with potential solutions, will be presented with the intent to clarify the path toward EEXI and CII compliance. Context – existing and future requirements about emissions The past trend of increasing emissions regulations for the shipping sector is set to continue with new requirements being discussed, adopted and enforced at a quick pace. During the last IMO MEPC.76 meeting (June 2021), a basket of technical and operational measures was adopted which will be enforced from 1st January 2023. The European Commission published a proposal for an updated EU Emission Trading System (ETS) Directive that include emissions from the shipping sector (100% of intra-EU emissions during voyages and at berth within EU ports, 50% of emissions from inbound and outbound voyages). The IMO has agreed to review the effectiveness of new measures implemented by 2026 and will eventually strengthen those. Both the EU and the IMO have aggressive long-term objectives when it comes to reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases from ships, and the sector should prepare for more stringent requirements.

Conference Paper

Figure 1: Upcoming emissions regulatory requirements for the shipping sector.

EEXI – IMO TECHNICAL MEASURE EEXI stands for Energy Efficiency Design Index for eXisting ships and was built upon the existing EEDI requirements. EEXI is part of the technical approach taken by IMO to improve the operational energy efficiency of existing ships. It is an extension of EEDI for existing ships that were built before 2013 and will be implemented using similar guidelines. EEXI is a design index of a vessel that considers only the design and not operational factors. EEXI is an addition to the Regulation 22A of MARPOL Annex VI. This new technical measure relates to the characteristics of a vessel, of the emissions and the equipment installed onboard, and the subsequent overall energy efficiency. Every ship engaged in international trade will have to calculate its ‘attained EEXI’, which will have to be below the ‘required EEXI’. The EEXI equation is shown in the next figure and is composed by the sum of the power of the various equipment installed (numerator) divided by the capacity and the reference speed of the vessel (denominator).

Figure 2: The EEXI formulae and its various parameters.

The calculation of EEXIs, along with the impact of improvement measures such as Engine Power Limitation (EPL) or Shaft Power Limitation (ShaPoLi) on the ship’s efficiency must be described in EEXI Technical File which are subject to Class approval. If the ‘attained EEXI’ is below the ‘required EEXI’ for a given ship, the ship is compliant and an updated International

Conference Paper Energy Efficiency (IEE) certificate will be delivered during the next on-board compliance survey. In case the ship’s ‘attained EEXI’ is above the ‘required EEXI, measures have to take to improve energy efficiency. It has been estimated by few classification societies that 80% of the fleet worldwide is not compliant with EEXI ; even recent ships that are under the scope of the first phase of EEDI do not meet the EEXI requirements. Depending on the magnitude of improvements required, some straightforward cost-effective measures can be implemented (mechanical or electronic EPL, ShaPoLi). However, since the maximum speed of the ship in normal operating conditions will be impacted, it is important to evaluate the consequences of these measures in respect of chartering agreements. If the installation of EPL / ShaPoLi does not bring sufficient improvements, the installation of further equipment (Energy Saving Devices ESD). The best (combination of ESDs) depends on the type of ship, its remaining lifetime, and include a range of options for various parts of the ship from improved propellers / fins, air lubrication of the hull, heat / energy recovery systems, wind propulsion systems, or installation of photovoltaic panels to limit the use of auxiliaries. The best solution will depend on every individual ship and it is critical to evaluate their economic feasibility considering the remaining ship’s lifetime. The calculation of improvements in EEXI of these devices is a complex and timeconsuming process required advanced simulations (such as Computational Fluid Dynamics CFD modelling), the results of which will have to be described in the EEXI Technical File and subsequently approved by the Class in charge of the vessel.

Figure 3: EEXI compliance - illustrative figure.

EEXI is a new mandatory requirement applying to ships which fall under the existing survey and certification scheme as per MARPOL Annex VI regulation 19, like EEDI. l l l

I t shall apply to all ships of 400 GRT and above. It shall not apply to ships operating only in national waters only. It shall not apply to ships with non-conventional propulsion except for a cruise passenger ship with electric propulsion and LNG carriers.

Various guidance were communicated by the IMO when it comes to EEXI as described in the following sections.

Guidance on Method of calculation of the attained EEXI. Attained EEXI is the measure of Ships’ energy efficiency and is measured in gm CO2/ t.nm. EEXI uses the same formula as for attained EEDI according to resolution MEPC.308(73), amended by resolution MEPC.322(74). The ships falling under the scope of the EEDI requirement can use attained EEDI instead of EEXI If the attained EEDI value satisfies the EEXI requirement.

Conference Paper Guidance on the survey and certification of the energy efficiency existing ship index An administration or organization duly authorized by it will conduct the survey and certification of EEXI. An EEXI technical file is to be prepared by the ship containing necessary information as adopted during MEPC 76 except for EEDI compliant ships where attained EEDI is less than the required EEXI. In case attained EEXI complies with the required EEXI, a new IEE Certificate will be issued indicating attained and required EEDI.

Guidance on Shaft / Engine power limitation system to comply with the EEXI requirements and use of power reserves For non-compliant ships, further guidance has been provided on how to implement Energy efficiency Techniques including incorporating Engine Power Limitation or Shaft Power Limitation to improve the EEXI. Ships are required to prepare a Management Plan for SHaPoLi / EPL, which should be verified by the administration or a RO.

Challenges associated with EEXI The calculation of “attained EEXI” is based on various parameters which can be available from various ship documents such as the sea trial reports, the NOX Technical File, tank model test reports, or various certificates. In practice, the availability of suitable data from ship’s documents is not always straightforward, and in some cases, assumptions, calibrations or interpolations between are required. The following examples can l

Most of the power – speed curves describe din sea trial reports correspond to the design draft whilst EEXI calculation must be based on summer load draft. This can become a problem for ships for which the design and summer load draft differ.

The statistical method described in MEPC Guidelines to estimate reference speed Vref (so called Vrefapp) will always be less than the actual reference speed of the ship as it includes a performance margin which has a detrimental impact on “attained EEXI”.

For container carriers, the capacity is defined as 70% of the deadweight which makes it difficult to find the reference speed Vref at EEDI / EEXI draft. In such cases, the calibration of speed-power curve to EEXI conditions is required (via the tank model test report) since the statistical estimation available using Vrefapp is conservative.

The use of correction factors to estimated Vref in case it is not available at sea trial condition is not straightforward.

The Specific Fuel Oil Consumption (SFOC) of the main and auxiliary engines should be corrected to ISO standards if not available in the NOX Technical File or in Shop Trial Reports.

Correction factors like fchip, fj, fj,roro, fm, ficsr play an important role in bringing down the “attained EEXI” value. The operators should be cautious as to which type of ship, when, and where those correction factors are to be applied.

In summary, ships owners, operators and managers are strongly advised to act shortly by evaluating both “required EEXI” and “attained EEXI” for their so that if improvement actions are required (some of which may require long period of times and involve retrofitting / drydocking / class surveys), they can be identified and implemented on a timely manner to ensure compliance before the measure is enforced on 1st January 2023.

Conference Paper CII – IMO Operational Measure Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) is a new operational measure enforced by the IMO from 2024 onwards to achieve its objective of reducing the carbon intensity of international shipping by 40% by 2030, compared to 2008 levels. CII was introduced as part of amendments to Annex VI of the MARPOL convention during the 75th session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 75) and adopted in June 2021 during MECP 76. CII consist in a measure of a vessel’s efficiency and is expressed in grams of CO2 per deadweightnautical mile and. Due to the absence of actual transport work data under the IMO Data Collection System (DCS), it is approximated using the distance sailed during the year multiplied by its capacity. CII is calculated by dividing the actual quantity of CO2 emitted by the transporting capacity of the ship (in terms of cargo and / or passengers). CII requirements scheme apply to all cargo and cruise ships of 5 000 gross tonnage and above, which are already subject to the requirements of the IMO Data Collection System. The ship’s annual CII will be reported on a yearly basis based on which maritime administrations will determine the ship’s CII rating on a scale from A to E (A being the better performing vessels) as shown in the following figure. The required CII is based on the following equation: Required annual operational CII = 1 – Z x CII Ref 100 The reduction factors (parameter Z) that have been adopted are as follow: 5% for 2023, 7% for 2024 and 9% for 2025 (relative to 2019 CII reference line). IMO has agreed to revise the efficiency and adopt adequate requirements for the years 2026 and beyond.

Figure 4: CII ratings - illustrative figure.

The attained annual operational CII will be based on IMO’s Fuel Oil Data Collection System. An enhanced version of the Ships Energy Efficiency Plan (SEEMP) shall be developed, which includes an implementation plan for the calculation of attained CII along with a process to report verified data to maritime administrations. The performance rating of ships shall also be recorded in SEEMP. The guidelines on determination of the required annual operational Carbon Intensity Indicator and calculation and verification of the attained annual carbon Intensity indicator have been

Conference Paper finalized during MPEC 76 held in June 2021 and are under approval by the members. They should enter into force at the beginning of the year 2023. Required CII rating are to be reviewed at regular intervals and a reduction factor will be implemented to improve the CII rating of ships. Administrations, port authorities, and other stakeholders as appropriate will be encouraged to provide incentives to cleaner Ships depending on their ratings. For ships operating continuously for three years at Level “D” or for one year at level “E”, will have to submit and implement an improvement plan showing how they can improve the vessel’s efficiency to a moderate level “C” or above.

Challenges associated with CII Since CII is entirely dependent upon the way that ship has been operated during the year, it is important to monitor its energy efficiency performances on a regular basis, so that quick actions can be taken in case the CII rating of a voyage / of the beginning of a year is adversely impacted. Robust and accurate monitoring, reporting and analysis of measured data is a outmost importance. Obviously, standard best practices to improve operational efficiency will benefit to the ship’s attained CII: machinery maintenance for efficient and reliable engines, hull and propeller cleaning / anti-fouling. The use of optimal routing to achieve best conditions of trim and speed according to weather and sea currents along with any other measure reducing the use of fuel (slow steaming, use of electric shore power at berth whenever available) will also help to achieve good CII rating, although some adjustment of Charter’s Party clauses maybe required. The use of alternative fuel with reduced carbon content, some of which can be used blended with conventional fuel with no or minimal adjustment to the fuel piping and pumping system) can also be investigated in trading areas where such fuels are available. Obviously, all the improvements deployed in order to comply with EEXI requirements will be useful when it comes to defining the CII performance of a ship as the installation of Energy Saving Devices (or any retrofitting) will help in improving its energy efficiency. About Verifavia Shipping: Verifavia Shipping strives to be the maritime industry’s first choice for the provision of emissions verification and hazardous materials preparation and maintenance services. With offices in Paris, Singapore and Chandigarh, Verifavia also has trusted partners based in Panama, the US, Canada, Australia, China, Greece, Turkey, Hong Kong, Germany, etc., to provide an accurate and expert service worldwide. By combining its innovative approach and streamlined procedures with the technical expertise and industry knowledge of its team, Verifavia Shipping provides a smooth, flexible and competitive service, enabling customers to navigate compliance effectively and efficiently. Verifavia Shipping was the first company to provide EU Monitoring Reporting and Verification (MRV) services and the first independent verifier to provide International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) Data Collection System (DCS) verification for a number of flag states. For more information about Verifavia Shipping, visit http://www.verifavia-shipping.com. For up-to-date information and news, follow http://twitter.com/VerifaviaMarine.

SESSION 2

Retrofitting the Fleet

Conference Paper

Gate Rudder

ELIAS BOLETIS Wartsila Propulsion By Noriyuki Sasak, University of Strathclyde

BIOGRAPHY Dr Elias Boletis is currently Director Propellers and Transmission at Wartsila Propulsion. He has a Doctorate from the University of Brussels and M.Sc. degrees from the Technical University of Athens, Greece and the von Karman Institute of Fluid Dynamics. He is thirty-five years in the Industry at various positions, especially on product development and introduction of new technologies. In the last years, he gives emphasis on systems integration and implementation of energy saving technologies in marine applications. He is member of Imarest, ASME, SNAME and he participates in several CIMAC activities.

BACKGROUND The idea of Gate Rudder may not be new; however, it was not realised until one coastal container ship was built at the end of 2017 supported by Nippon Foundation. The ship’s name is ‘Shigenobu’, (name of a Samurai) which has a sister ship called ‘Sakura’ and was delivered one year before Shigenobu entered in service. The difference between the two vessels is only their rudder systems. By comparing the data for these vessels, the gate rudder performance can be evaluated with great certainty. For example, the speed performance, manoeuvrability, seakeeping performance, and vibration and noise, including underwater radiated noise (which was measured very recently) can be evaluated directly by comparison of these two sister ships. The differences between the two vessels show the difference in the rudder system, without any doubt. However, it is no doubt that the best procedure to compare two vessels is to conduct the joint sea trials where we can expect minimum errors to be brought by wind, waves, currents and geographical features etc... These full-scale joint measurements were conducted by the members of the Japanese consortium and Wartsila. The results will be introduced in this paper briefly. The paper will also report on the progress of the ongoing three years H2020 Innovation Action project GATERS involving 18 EU partners. 41

Conference Paper Mechanism The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) initial greenhouse gas (GHG) strategy calls for emissions to minimise as soon as possible, to fall at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008, and for at least a 40% reduction in the carbon intensity of international shipping by 2030 relative to 2008. Gate Rudder shows many exciting energy-saving features besides others. The most important fact is that Gate Rudder acts like an underwater sail similar to a sail on the deck of a yacht. The sail (wing) is the most efficient shape to generate lift which can be used to push the ship forward like a wind-assisted ship. The optimum propeller position for the gate rudder system is not in front of the sail (rudder) because the lift force will disappear if the flow is deflected by the propeller, as shown in the figures below. The submarine type rudder, which is installed in front of a propeller, is another solution to increase lift force. However, this configuration is not easy to apply to a normal surface ship. By placing the propeller between two Gate Rudder blades, we can expect the following advantages compared with a conventional propeller-rudder configuration.

i) The maximum lift force can be generated, and the rudder will provide the thrust ii) Drifting force acting on the system can be cancelled by this configuration iii) Propeller induced velocity will work efficiently and generate larger leading-edge suction (hence larger thrust) assisted by the Coanda effect

The best match with other solutions To maintain IMO requirements of EEDI and EEXI, a lot of energy-efficient ideas has been proposed. However, we may need to sacrifice the part of safety to achieve this target. The gate rudder has a strong potential to solve these problems, as explained below (1) W ind-assisted ship propulsion (WASP) – annoying drifting force The resistance produced by a conventional rudder operating at an angle relative to the vessel course is huge. It easily goes up 30% of ship resistance by only 15-degree of steering. This will sacrifice the thrust obtained from the sails on the deck. Sometimes the wind-assisted ship needs to be equipped with a large bottom keel or a huge rudder to resist this large drifting and heeling forces. “This means that the potential energy efficiencies generated by the wind-assisted propulsion should take this

Conference Paper handicap into account, adding to further maintenance tasks and design restrictions for their deck arrangement.“

TABLE Application of Gate Rudder to a large Bulk Carrier

The gate rudder can compensate for this drifting and heeling forces by the hydrodynamic lift produced by the gate rudder based on the same mechanism as the sail on the deck. The difference is the only fluid density, i.e. water is 800 times larger than air, which guarantees the very effective operation of the underwater sails.

Conference Paper Two critical paraments could be added: a) The sizing of the conventional rudder could be different for wind operations (i.e. requiring increase). This will make the use of the same rudder impossible for adding wind sails on existing vessels with a power ratio of wind to main propulsion greater than 10% (without compromising the vessel’s maneuvering capability) b) The gate rudder could compensate for the increase in size much easier safeguarding the vessel’s manoeuvring capability The table * shows the advantage of gate rudder for application of a large bulk carrier. The sail can generate a thrust of 500kN in the 10m/s side wind; however, the conventional rudder will cancel this thrust by its own drag 278kN, which is more than half of the sail thrust. By applying a gate rudder, this huge drag can be minimised up to 27%. The existing WASP may need the same engine power or larger because of additional resistance of the aforementioned reason if the operator wants to maintain the ship speed during negative wind circumstances (i.e. headwind). However, a gate rudder can solve this problem.

(1) Slow steaming – poor performance in wind and waves Slow steaming is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. However, we should bear in mind the following drawback, which is related to safety.

i) ii) iii)

Ship speed will be largely reduced by rough weather (large sea margin) Risk of significant ship motion due to wave and wind Poor engine performance due to large load variations

The gate rudder can help to increase propulsive performance and manoeuvrability, including rough weather conditions owing to the ducted propeller effect. As a typical RO/RO, PCTC and container ship has a large exposed area to the wind, the wind resistance from the sideway is not negligible due to drift force same as WASP. The remarkable fuel saving can be expected as shown in Figure * (PCTC case)

Conference Paper

Joint Sea Trial – tug of war The ship performance after delivery of the vessel is not easy to evaluate because of many uncertainties such as the effect of wind, waves and currents, and the ageing effect. If two vessels were designed based on the same hull form and the same propulsion system except for their rudder systems, these two ships could show a clear difference of performance due to these rudder systems. However, it is necessary to conduct such joint trials where the weather conditions are very close for both ships. The first well-known application of this trial was the bollard pull battle between the HMS Rattler (propeller) and Alecto (paddle) in 1844, the most famous win of Rattler in marine propeller history. It is also notable that the rudder has not been changed and remained as it was installed behind the propeller while the paddle was replaced by the newcomer (i.e. propeller).

Conference Paper (1) Speed Trial on the same track

The speed trial of two sister ships was conducted at the same track with the same rpm to obtain the three different engine loads for both ships. The gate rudder showed 18% power reduction at the same ship speed, which is slightly larger than 14% obtained from the official sea trials conducted individually. (2) Manoeuvrability It is a well-known fact that some recent container ship designs have slightly poor course keeping ability because of their wider flat sterns (buttock flow type). This stern form is frequently applied for three reasons; small resistance, larger deck area and larger TKM. However, we need to pay attention to its drawbacks, i.e. large heel motion by the following quartering wave and poor course keeping ability.

Excellent course keeping ability of gate rudder, which can be evaluated by zig-zag manoeuvre, was confirmed by the fact that 30% smaller overshoot angles were obtained from the zig-zag test by gate rudder.

Conference Paper

Regarding the turning ability, we hardly see the poor performance of this function because the turning ability is proportional to the rudder area, which is easy to design. In order to keep the turning ability of the original ship, the gate rudder total area is designed 120-150% of the conventional rudder area. It is generally recognised that the too excellent turning ability with smaller rudder area will bring very poor course keeping ability. (3) Ship motion in wind and wave Clear evidence was obtained from the joint sea trial of Sakura and Shigenobu where the showed a remarkable damping effect on the ship motions during their running period on the same track. The ship conditions of the two vessels can be assumed exactly the same because of the short distance between the two vessels (about 300m). The yawing and rolling amplitude of Shigenobu showed lower than half of Sakura, wave and wind were coming from the following quartering sea direction.

This advantage can be seen in the anchorage period too. By installing a Gate rudder, the risk of dragging anchor can be reduced considerably.

Conference Paper Impact on Engine Performance – minimised shaft torque fluctuations The two remarkable effects on the engine performance by gate rudder can be considered as below: The required mean propulsive thrust and correspondent torque values can be reduced by 10-15% (1) T he thrust and torque variation can be reduced Conventional rudder

Gate rudder

The first feature affects the power saving directly, while the second item may introduce better engine performance not only from required maintenance but also from the engine fuel consumption rate (SFC) point of view. It is well-known among the engine makers and shipyards that the engine performance at the shop is 3-5% better than in the sea. The torque fluctuations are considered as the main reason. Gate rudder can minimise this unfavourable phenomenon. In addition, modern dual fuel engines at the gas model operate at a small range of the fuel to air ratio value. Large power variations can have a negative impact on the stability of the combustion, with the engine mode changing from gas to liquid fuel. This can be avoided with the Gate Rudder.

Quieter Propulsion The underwater radiated (URN) propeller noise is a recent topic for naval architects and oceanographers. Ports around the world impose specific limit on the maximum operations URN level. This is due to the impacts on the well-being on the sea mammals. The importance of quieter propulsion is increasing day by day. The underwater radiated propeller noise of two container ships (Sakura and Shigenobu) was measured at the same place at the same ship speed and the same vessel draft. Reduction of noise level by gate rudder 1kHZ - 10.7 dB 10kHZ - 15.6 dB

Conference Paper The test was conducted by Mitsui Akishima Laboratory and attended by an NK surveyor as a witness.

GATERS - 18 partners led by Strathclyde University The project title “GATERS” stands for “GATE Rudder System as a Retrofit for the Next Generation Propulsion and Steering of Ships. The project promises the first retrofit application of a novel propulsion and manoeuvring device for ships, called “Gate Rudder System”. The successful project proposal specifically addressed the H2020 call text “to develop and demonstrate to TRL6 and higher innovative, cost-effective retrofit solution for marine shipping to provide substantial improvements regarding environmental impacts and life cycle cost”. Taking advantage of the remarkable fuel-saving and excellent manoeuvring ability of the gate rudder system, GATERS will demonstrate significantly reduced emissions from ships, particularly within coastal and port areas, challenging and even exceeding the current and future legislative requirements of the IMO and local regulations for emissions. GATERS aimed to bring together eighteen technology expert project partners and prime stakeholders, including the gate rudder system patent holder, to demonstrate and exploit the benefits of the gate rudder system by two complementary deliverables. First is the retrofit demonstration of the system for the European short sea shipping operations by installing and operating on a target coastal cargo vessel. Second is the concept exploration of the system for the oceangoing shipping operations, including fleet level. GATERS was kicked off in February 2021 and to be completed in 2024, including the first Gate Rudder retrofit application on the 7800 DWT coastal cargo vessel M/V Erge in summer 2022 while developing the best CFD, model test and Full-Scale procedure for such application.

Conference Paper World Wide Partners of Gate Rudder Developments (from A to Z) Bureau Veritas, CAJS, CAPA, CETENA, CNR, FEL, Glafcos, Gurdesan, Helenic Tanker, HSVA, Hydro Teknik, Imoto Line, Istanbul Technical University, JRTT, JSMEA, Kamome propeller, Key seven, Kuribayashi Shosen, Kyodo Shosen, Kyokuyo shipyard, Lloyd’s List Intelligence, MTI (NYK group), NAS, Newcastle University, Nippon Foundation, Class NK, NMRI, NS Evolution, Royal Caribbean Cruise, Ryutai Techno, Shell (STASCO), SINTEF, SMP, Star Bulk, Strathclyde University, Tokyo Keiki, TWI, Wartsila, Yamanaka shipyard

Conference Paper

Power into the future – LPG as an alternative Fuel

Klaus Dahmcke Rasmussen General Manager, Project Sales, MAN ES

BIOGRAPHY Mr. Klaus Dahmcke Rasmussen is head of sales retrofit projects at MAN Energy Solutions, Mr. Rasmussen has more than 20 years’ experience from the LNG and LPG industry. His team has recently closed dual fuel retrofit projects of MAN ES 2 stroke engines (both LPG and LNG as fuel) to ship owners like BW LPG and Hapag Lloyds.

PAPER Build certainty into your investments New emissions regulations and rising fuel costs have thrown the world of ocean transport into uncertainty. If you are investing in the future with new ship orders or upgrades, this can have a major impact on your strategy. The new MAN B&W ME-LGIP dual-fuel LPG marine engine de-risks your investments and gives you back control. By switching to LPG, you achieve full compliance with all upcoming SO X regulations, and get a competitive edge of 13% less CO 2 emissions with no loss of performance or efficiency. You also retain the flexibility to use conventional fuels to take advantage of optimal market prices. Compliance LPG is a zero-sulphur fuel with relatively lower carbon content, which helps you achieve full compliance with IMO 2020 SOX regulations and is an important step to reach the 2050 IMO GHG targets. LPG also gives credit towards your IMO EEDI compliance requirements. Cost LPG gives you greater financial security; it is traditionally priced similar to HFO, and thereby cheaper than MGO, yet delivers the same performance and efficiency. Using our dual-fuel engine technology, you can also take advantage of fluctuating fuel prices in the future. Importantly, the ability to use LPG cargo as a supplement fuel source provides significant cost savings for LPGC owners or charterers, including reduced time and fees for fuel bunkering. An ideal retrofit solution Our compact liquid gas injection system means the MAN B&W ME-LGIP could also be an ideal retrofit solution for your existing fleet. The engine technology can be applied to all types of ships with an ME-C engine of bore size 35 and 50-70 bore. LPG gas carries are likely retrofit candidates.

Conference Paper Large market opportunities for LPG conversion projects: There are around 250 LPG Carriers in the world today that could be readily retrofitted to LPG dual-fuel propulsion – approximately 200 vessels in the VLGC segment (84,000 CBM) and 50 vessels in the midsize segment (38,000 CBM). BW LPG has been the first mover with regard to LPG retrofits. Many more owners are expected to follow suit during drydockings in 2022 and 2023, considering the recent emergence of the LPG dual-fuel 2-stroke LGIP MAN ES main engine as the market standard for LPG carrier newbuilds. More than 100 LPG carriers propelled by MAN ES LGIP dual-fuel main engines are either in water or under construction in Asia. LPG - a strong tool in de-carbonization A typical vessel in the VLGC segment consumes between 6500 and 7500 tons of Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) per annum, emitting about 21500 to 25000 tons of CO 2 per annum. Owing to LPG’s lower carbon intensity, an equivalent LPG-propelled vessel emits 18% less CO 2. A single LPG dual-fuel newbuild or retrofitted vessel will thus advance decarbonization by atleast 3000 tons of CO2 per annum. This CO2 saving is the equivalent of taking 680 passenger cars off the road. If all 250 retrofittable LPG Carriers in water today that consume Heavy Fuel Oil are retrofitted to LPG dual-fuel, the yearly CO 2 savings would be the equivalent of taking 170.000 passenger cars off the road. The BW LPG retrofit project at a glance: BW LPG took a decision in 2018 to retrofit 15 vessels to operate on LPG – the retrofit projects are being executed at a shipyard in China and the 15th vessel would be converted by end of first quarter 2022. As of November 2021, 11 vessels have completed their retrofits and are in service operating on LPG every day.

Conference Paper

Ms Amadea Retrofit

ROB VAN SOLINGEN Sales Director – Marine and Stationary Power, Wabtec Corporation

BIOGRAPHY Rob has a degree in marine engineering and a strong background and experience in product management, marketing and commercial operations for the global marine industry. Rob is employed by Wabtec Corporation and is the Sales Director in Marine and Stationary Power products for the European markets. He joined the Marine and Stationary engine business of General Electric (GE) in 2003 in the US. After different roles while in the US, including Product Manager for the Marine business, Rob moved to Belgium in 2016 and became the Sales Director for the Marine and Stationary engine business in Europe, expanding the customer base and building a strong distributor, sales and service support network. For a brief period Rob managed the Lufkin marine gearbox business of Baker Hughes, a division of GE, in Europe. In 2019 Rob joined Wabtec Corporation, which acquired GE Transportation, in his current role. During the time in the US, Rob was intimately involved in the development, production and marine commercialization of the company’s breakthrough medium speed diesel engine emissions technology for IMO III/EPA Tier 4 without the need for SCR after-treatment and urea injection.

The information contained in this document may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged material of either Wabtec Corporation or one of its subsidiaries. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited unless authorized in writing. If you have received this document in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any system and destroy any copies.

Marine diesel engines certified to IMO III emissions without SCR & Urea after-treatment

EMPLOYEES

27K

Wabtec is a leading global provider of transportation equipment, systems, digital solutions, and value-added services for the rail, marine and mining industries. Drawing on more than 50 years of experience, we are leading the way in safety, efficiency, reliability, innovation, and productivity. Our expertise, technologies, and people – together – are accelerating the future of sustainable transportation.

COUNTRIES

Global Freight headquarters CHICAGO, IL

COMPANY

500

FORTUNE

Global Transit headquarters PARIS, France

8B REVENUE

Corporate headquarters PITTSBURGH, PA

Moving and Improving the World

L o w L if e Cyc le Co s t: E x t e nded M a int e na nc e No S CR , No U re a

Relia b ility: >150 0 E GR e ngines, >7, 2 00,00 0 h r s

Digital: Re mo t e M o nit o ring & Dia gno sis

///

S u s ta inability: F ut ure o f Lo w / No Ca rbo n fue ls

Tech no lo gy L ea der: R & D inve s t ment s - E GR

H is to ry: >50 ye a rs Die s e l E ngine OE M

P ro d u ctio n: >15 0 0 e ngine s pe r ye a r

Leading medium speed diesel engine manufacturer

57 Confidential & Proprietary

S uppo rt ed by a glo ba l s e rvic e ne t w o rk

P ro pulsio n e ngines o r ge ns ets

Unique in-cylinder emissions r e d u c t i o n t o m e e t E PA T i e r 4 & IMO III emission standards w i t h o u t D P F, S C R a n d u r e a exhaust after-treatment

Re lia ble, fue l e ffic ie nt me dium s pe e d ma rine die s el e ngines in 1 . 5 – 5 M W po w e r ra nge

Marine diesel engines

58 Confidential & Proprietary

Air quality challenge triggering stricter regulations

NOx: 1.8 gr/kWh PM: 0.04 – 0.06 gr/kWh

US EPA tier 4 • Since 1/1/2016 P > 130 kW n<130 130≤n<2000 n≥2000 600 ≤ P < 2000 2000 ≤ P < 3700 P ≥ 3700 Cat. 3: SV ≥ 30 l

IMO III

EPA T4

0.19 0.19 0.19 2.0

n/a

5.0

n/a

HC g/kWh

n/a

CO g/kWh

1.8 1.8 1.8 Per IMO III

2 - 3.4 = 3.4 = 9 n(-0.2) =2

7.7 – 14.4 = 14.4 = 44 n(-0.23) = 7.7

NOx g/kWh

0.04 0.04 0.06 n/a

n/a

PM g/kWh

Wabtec engines are certified to IMO III and EPA Tier 4 emission standards

P > 130 kW n<130 130≤n<2000 n≥2000

IMO II

Confidential & Proprietary

NOx: 2.26 gr/kWh PM: n/a

IMO tier III • Since 1/1/2016 in the North American & Caribbean ECAs • Since 1/1/2021 in Baltic Sea & North Sea ECAs

Engine category

Standard

R e l e v a n t a u t h o r i t i e s g o v e r n i n g e xh a u s t e m i s s i o n s

Current Emission standards

2020

Date

CO 3.50

since 2016 0.085

P ≥ 300

Net Power

Wabtec:

IWP/IWAv/c-4

Category

Confidential & Proprietary

1.80

NOx

g/kWh

0.048

0.19

HCa

DPF

0.015

Stage V emission standards for engines in inland waterway vessels (IWP & IWA)

Wabtec diesel engines soon to comply with EU Stage V emission standards with only a DPF added

Class notations LEV / ULEV • Available by ABS, BV • Same emission limits as EU Stage V

EU Stage V • Since 1/1/2020

EU Stage V / LEV / ULEV

EU Stage V emissions by adding only a Diesel Particulate Filter!

Beyond IMO III / EPA Tier 4:

DPF

1×10

1/kWh

EGR technology to meet EPA Tier 4 / IMO III emissions standards

L/V250 Engines

1000 1500

2000

3000 3000

4000

12V250

5000

4500

6000

16V250

7000

IMO III EPA Tier 4

Confidential & Proprietary

IMO III and EPA Tier 4 certified without exhaust gas after-treatment, No SCR, No Urea

8L250

12 Cyl 12V228 “V”

6L250

8V28

Marine Engine Portfolio IMO III – EPA Tier 4

• • • • • • •

Urea tank (stainless steel or coated) Dosing pump, SS urea transfer piping & valves Injector with mixing tube SCR catalyst, housing, brackets/foundation SCR control system & cabinet Compressed air valves & piping Interface & control wiring

SCR after treatment solution

SCR system equipment and shipyard scope

Confidential & Proprietary

• Similar footprint and interfaces as IMO II engines

Easier & lower cost to install

• EGR cooler • EGR valves

On engine EGR system

Wabtec EGR solution

Su b s t a n tia l Sp a c e , We ig h t a n d In s t a llatio n s a vin g s

Key benefits of EGR vs. SCR

40% urea solution 11

Managing urea logistics Urea* consumption (~7 % of fuel) Maintenance of dosing system, SCR Catalyst cleaning, replacement and disposal efforts • Sufficiently high exhaust temperature needed

• • • •

SCR after treatment solution

Incremental operations for SCR

Confidential & Proprietary

• EPA Tier 4 / IMO III compliant all the time, from idle to full load/speed • No additional operating cost from urea consumption, catalyst replacement and SCR system maintenance

Simpler and lower cost to operate

Wabtec EGR solution

Simp le r & low er c o s t t o o p e r a te

Key benefits of EGR vs. SCR in marine

65 Confidential & Proprietary

8L250MDC – Opened for inspection after 30,000 hrs: No soot or any deposits, CLEAN!

Clean exhaust system after 30,000 running hours

OPEX and Space Savings: New builds and Re-powers

Managed: Bernhard Schulte Cruise Services

Confidential & Proprietary

Auxiliary gensets 2x 6L250MDC - OPEX Savings in addition to space saving

Owner: Phoenix Reisen

Cruise vessel MS Amadea - Upgrade to IMO III emission standards

Space (and OPEX) savings for IMO III Repower Projects

Field experience

69 Foss tug Kapena Jack Young Powered by 2x 8L250MDC

5x Basto Fosen ferries Powered by 2x 8L250MDC

Weeks Marine cutter suction dredger Powered by 2x 16V250MDC & 3x 8L250MDC

COOEC special dredging vessel Powered by 4x 8L250MDC

2x Lindblad Expedition cruise vessels Powered by 2x 12V250MDC & 2 x 8L250MDC

Confidential & Proprietary

Oceaneering Ocean Evolution Powered by 5x 12V250MDC

Harvey Stone Powered by 2x 12V250MDC

Chilean Navy Antarctic Polar class icebreaker Powered by 2x 6L250MDC & 2 x 16V250MDC

Rosneft Icebreaking supply vessels Powered by 4x 16V250MDC

Selected EPA Tier 4 / IMO III references

Ingram Mark Duley Powered by 2x 8L250MDC

Reinauer Bert Reinauer Powered by 2x 12V250MDC

Shaver Towing Samantha S Powered by 2x 12V250MDC

70 Confidential & Proprietary

Wabtec powered gensets with ABB alternators and based on 2x8L250MDC and 2x12V250MDC engines meeting EPA Tier 4 & IMO III emission standards

Wabtec Marine Gensets for National Geographic Endurance and National Geographic Resolution

Bastø I, II

16V250

Confidential & Proprietary

8L250

Bastø IV, V, VI

EPA Tier 4 / IMO III on board Bastø Fosen Fleet

• All American propulsion and controls package • EPA Tier 4 compliant engines, no SCR or urea on board • First time govmt does not need an emissions National Security Exemption

Winning with Technology

• Multi-mission / humanitarian / maritime training • 5 Vessel Program, 20 x 16V250MDC gensets

Strategic Importance

US National Security Multi Mission Vessels

“no urea is an enormous benefit when operating at remote areas”

“simple to operate and reliable”

“achieving significant fuel savings versus older fleet”

Field experience

Confidential & Proprietary

In conclusion

L250 EPA Tier 4 IMO III

• Breakthrough technology eliminates the need for urea-based after-treatment emissions reduction system • Offering increased power (1,500 – 4,700 kW) while maintaining low life cycle cost, enhanced reliability and improved fuel efficiency

• Proven technology and cost savings. • Reliable and efficient for New or Repower projects

V250 EPA Tier 4 IMO III 22

no SCR, Urea or DPF for EPA Tier 4 and IMO III OPEX, Space and Weight Savings

///

Rob Van Solingen E: rob.vansolingen@wabtec.com T: +32 476 501 782

More info?

77 Confidential & Proprietary

Accelerating the future of transportation

Conference Paper

Twin Fin Direct electric drive propulsion system – Polarcus

JONAS NYBERG Managing Director – West, Berg Propulsion

BIOGRAPHY Jonas Nyberg studied at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, and holds a MSc in Engineering Physics. With work experience within the marine industry ranging from propulsion design to field operations, he has worked in sales and service in the Americas and Asia, specialising in optimising propulsion machinery and electrical systems for diesel and natural gas powered vessels. Currently Jonas is responsible for sales, service and market activities in the west hemisphere together with the Berg propulsion product and R&D group.

SYNOPSIS A direct electric drive propulsion system from Berg Propulsion is achieving demonstrably greater efficiency than conventional solutions for shipowners looking to move to electrification. The concept brings particular gains for medium and high power ranges. In addition to first working vessels, Berg has undertaken conceptual studies for icebreakers, offshore vessels, ferries, naval vessels and cargo ships.

1. INTRODUCTION Berg Propulsion remains convinced that vessel efficiency is optimised through the early consideration of propulsion systems provision at the vessel concept design stage. In line with industry developments and wider trends in engineering, vessel performance optimisation is recognised as a holistic endeavour rather than as a development effort focusing on a collection of subsystems. Trends in vessel propulsion are being driven by both cost and sustainability imperatives and, in both cases, efficiency gains available from the use of electric systems are proving increasingly persuasive. Electric propulsion technology enables the use of a wider range of fuel types, higher levels of integration and greater flexibility in power management. However, conventional options aimed at enabling shipping’s transition to electrification may themselves be sub-optimal, or at least insufficiently persuasive to convince owners to break with conventional propulsion. Berg Propulsion and its partner The Switch have developed an additional ‘Direct Drive’ alternative which not only offers levels of electric propulsion efficiency in advance of conventional technology, but also a robust and simplified configuration to attract existing and new user groups.

Conference Paper 2. ELIMINATING EFFICIENCY LOSSES

FIGURE 1: POWER TO PROPULSION – CONVENTIONAL ELECTRIC

In conventional diesel mechanical propulsion, the main engine pushes power through a reduction gear which directs most of it to the vessel’s propeller(s), although some is diverted from the reduction gear to the shaft alternator, the frequency controller and the power distribution system. Conventional approaches to electric propulsion see power generation being fed into the power distribution system first and on to the frequency controller, before passing to the electric motor and on to the main propeller shaft via the reduction gear. While this means that the electrical power can be delivered with greater flexibility to adjust to changing loads, energy is lost with each conversion. These losses are experienced at power distribution (1-2%), the frequency controller (3-5%), the electric motor (5-6%) and the reduction gear (2-3%), and are capture in Figure 1.

3. FIRST OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSOLIDATION Figure 1 also highlights a specific opportunity for systems consolidation involving that part of the propulsion train beyond the frequency controller (electric motor + reduction gear). Berg Propulsion in cooperation with The Switch have sought to consolidate this part of the power train in a Direct Drive system, using proven permanent magnet motor technology to achieve higher efficiency, reduce electrical losses and optimise flexibility at varying rpm, torque and pitch. In the revised configuration, the electric motor is part of the propeller shaft and drives the propeller directly with no reduction gear installed. The resulting improved efficiency of the motor brings around 2-3% better fuel efficiency. To facilitate gearless operation, the typical arrangement would involve an electric motor driving a shaft with its own bearings. However, in the case of the patent-pending Berg Propulsion design, the electric motor is integrated with the shaft in a consolidated configuration which significantly simplifies the propulsion train. In this solution, a separate bearing unit is inserted before the electric motor on the shaft (see Figure 2), in a step which also eliminates inherent alignment and integration issues.

Conference Paper Dispensing with the gear box also eliminates a component which avoids the loss of energy relating to conversion, resulting in an efficiency gain equivalent to a 1-2%.

FIGURE 2: DIRECT DRIVE PROPULSION PLANT

In addition to greater energy efficiency, removing the gearbox reduces wear in ancillary components and cuts maintenance requirements, also simplifying installation as a more robust arrangement. Systems complexity and high component numbers have been acknowledged as responsible for resistance among ship owners to consider electric propulsion. The Direct Drive solution is an effective counter to this offering a minimalistic approach to components without sacrifices. In effect, there is only an air gap between the electric motor stator and the propeller shaft, with the electric motor’s stator sitting straight on the ship’s hull foundation, the rotor bolted onto the propeller shaft and the only moving part being the propeller shaft itself.

4. SECOND OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSOLIDATION

FIGURE 3: POWER TO PROPULSION – DIRECT DRIVE

Conference Paper A second opportunity for consolidation exists between the power distribution and the frequency controller - respectively responsible for 1-2% and 3-5% of lost energy in the electric propulsion power train due to conversion. In this case, the consolidating solution involves introducing a DC hub (or ‘superdrive’) which draws on both to the main power generation source but also any sources of stored energy (such as batteries or fuel cells. DC hub outputs interface separately with main propulsion and hotel/ other electrical systems, creating and integrated source of power which can be distributed to optimised efficiency at all times. The ability to draw on stored energy achieves a significant advance for vessel responsiveness and efficiency, with peak loading available as required, fuel efficiency always catered for and zero emission battery power a possibility for some operations. The elimination of the power distribution/frequency controller interface also yields its own efficiency gain.

FIGURE 4: BERG’S FULL VARIABLE SPEED DIESEL ELECTRIC PACKAGE FOR GEARLESS PROPULSION

5. DESIGN ADVANTAGES OF DIRECT DRIVE SYSTEM Without a gear box, the shaft line can be shorter, fewer bearings are required overall and the engine room footprint is reduced. Another reason for greater efficiency is that the system achieves extremely high torque capability, allowing much larger propeller diameters than is usually the case for this kind of installation, further increasing efficiency. Taken together, aggregate performance enhancements available from dispensing with gears, the superior performance of the electric motor and the larger propeller can yield efficiency gains of 10-30% over conventional or podded propulsion systems.

6. DIRECT DRIVE WORKING EXAMPLES The Direct Drive system is fully operational, although its selection has gone somewhat unnoticed due to its inclusion in orders featuring Berg’s patented Twin Fin system. In this case, the drive system is installed within compact, hydrodynamically-shaped fins which are customdesigned to optimise flow through the propellers to minimise fuel consumption and noise. The Twin fin enclosure is however not the only option as this system is already discussed and made available in vessels where the Direct Drive motors are installed inside the hull such as single screw cargo vessels, RoPax ferries, patrol vessels and other ships where the energy transformation and operation profile will make an electrical solution beneficial over a mechanic concept.

Conference Paper

FIGURE 5: DIRECT DRIVE INSTALLATION

The Direct Drive system is a feature of a 26,000dwt SUL (self-unloader) bulk carrier newbuilding designed by Deltamarin (China) and under construction at CSSC Chengxi Shipyard. The ships, which also feature the twin fin solution, is expected to be commissioned at the end of this year for Canadian shipowner CSL. A complete electrical integration package from Berg Propulsion includes the variable speed permanent magnet alternators through the DC switch boards, the Direct Drive electric motors and power management with the AC distribution. The vessel’s propulsion system has also been fully adapted for optimised performance in relation to the vessel’s hull form. In detail, the newbuilding will be equipped with two fully-feathering controllable-pitch propellers, each directly powered by a 3MW permanent magnet electric motor which will be housed in the fins attached to the hull. The vessel’s four diesel-electric MaK gensets will have a combined total power of 9.5MW, and the solution will achieve a service speed of 12-14 knots. The inclusion of the Direct Drive solution in this specialized application should be considered as a further demonstration of the flexibility of its application. Electrical propulsion is certainly here to stay: existing and potential users of these systems are well-advised to consider a full range of electric propulsion options.

7. CONCLUSION With the industry-wide shift towards the electrification of ship power already underway, the Direct Drive system is ideal for integration of gas or dual fuel engines, other fuel alternatives, fuel cells and batteries. The solution is expected to prove especially effective when applied to offshore vessels, where its robust setup is likely to prove attractive for an owner group already persuaded of the advantages of electric propulsion. However, the system’s ability to integrate battery power in a straightforward way could make the solution attractive for ferry owners, while single screw cargo ships and bunker vessels are also likely candidates as environmental regulations drive the need to incorporate new low-carbon fuels. Indeed, any ship type requiring the high manoeuvrability or high redundancy in which electric propulsion systems excel which also seek to optimise efficiency, flexibility and sustainability should consider the benefits of Direct Drive technology without hesitation.

Conference Paper

Seawing Kite Project in trials with K-Line

VINCENT BERNATETS CEO & co-founder, Airseas

BIOGRAPHY Aeronautical engineer specialized in advanced automation at ISAE Sup’Aéro and Stanford University, Vincent started his career in Norway, Sweden and Latin America for 5 years. He then created 2 companies and later joined Airbus where he lead the development of the first onboard information system on the A380 as well as various business development missions. Former pilot of small aircraft converted in skipping sailboats, he started Airseas in 2016 to combine his passions and his willingness to protect the environment, by gathering a great team of off-road experts to develop and launch a revolutionary traction kite for ships : Seawing.

INTRODUCTION Airseas is an industrial firm which had come out of Airbus group dedicated to delivering automated power kites capable of offsetting the need for engine power by 20% by towing international commercial ships. Like the maritime industry, we operate on a truly global basis, with France, and French ingenuity at our core. Airseas will employ roughly 90 people in its flagship headquarters in Nantes by the end of 2021. Airseas was founded to act for our oceans and our planet; our commitment is to provide all ships with free and unlimited wind energy thanks to our solution, Seawing. Seawing is an integrated solution composed of a software element and a hardware element.

SOFTWARE The software element allows an automated operation and monitoring of the product from the bridge. It also generates maximum fuel savings thanks to our digital Twin solution. Our software also includes a routing solution named EcoRouting that maximises the use of our system accordingly with weather forecasts, while maintaining the planned ETD and ETA.

Conference Paper

HARDWARE The hardware element is composed of three components: – T he bridge equipment, which manages EcoRouting as well as the operation and monitoring of our system. – T he deck equipment, which allows the automated take-off and landing of the parafoil wing. It comprises of a mast, trolleys, winches, and a storage space. The wing is taken in and out of the storage with a trolley system, before inflation or deflation at the top of the mast for take-off or landing – T he flying equipment, which allows automated and optimal flight of the wing. It is composed of the parafoil wing, a flight control pod and an umbilical cable. The wing is linked to the pod which in turn is linked to the ship via the umbilical, handling traction, information transfer and providing power to the pod. While in flight, the pod will steer the wing according to our flight control laws to maximise the power of the system.

Conference Paper INTEGRATION Thanks to its simple modular design, SEAWING can be installed in a matter of days. Furthermore, due to its limited deck footprint, our system can be installed on most commercial vessel types.

PARAFOIL TECHNOLOGY: AN EFFICIENT WAY TO HARNESS THE POWER OF THE WIND Harnessing the power of wind is our motto, and 2 unique features allow over 20% fuel and GHG savings: – Seawing flies over 200m altitude to benefit from steadier and stronger winds. – S eawing flies dynamically. As for planes, lift is generated depending on the speed of wind the wing encounters. By following figure-of-8 trajectories at >100km/h, Seawing generates more lift (which equals traction) permitting it to be 10 times more powerful than a static kite or sail.

100% AUTOMATION GUARANTEED BY OUR DIGITAL TWIN TECHNOLOGY Leveraging on its aeronautical expertise, Airseas has developed strong simulation and automation tools. Thus, the kite and ship are entirely recreated in a digital model. Being equipped with various sensors (inertial unit, gps, anemometer, etc…) the physical system is in constant dialogue with the digital model, updating every 300 milliseconds to guarantee the most efficient use of the system. Our digital twin technology maximises the power developed by Seawing by accurately positioning it in its flight window, to generate maximum fuel savings. Based on inhouse

Conference Paper calculated scenarios, the wing will adjust its position automatically according to the wind direction and force, as well as with the ship speed and direction to ensure the best possible performance to reduce the engine load and thus generate maximum savings.

Visit www.airseas.com to learn more !

A safe, sustainable, available, and affordable marine fuel; 2020-compliant, reducing maritime emissions today; and providing a low carbon pathway.

www.methanol.org

SESSION 3

Current and Future Projects

Conference Paper

First LNG Battery hybrid PCTCs

JAN THORE FOSS Head of Ship Management UECC

BIOGRAPHY BSc Maritime engineer Background from Refrigerant engineering and HVAC ashore. Experience with ships in operation, technical management, and newbuilding for 25 years. Worked with newbuilding in Poland, China, South Korea, and Vietnam. Technical experience from Tankers, OBO, Vehicle Carriers and LNG FSRU. Working with Dual Fuel Hybrid PCTC’s for European Short Sea market. Member of SGMF Technical Committee.

Conference Paper

“

OUR VISION

The leading provider of sustainable short sea RoRo transportation in Europe

”

In Front

By pioneering use of new, greener, cleaner fuels such as bio-diesel, UECC decreases the environmental impact of operating our legacy tonnage

By introducing synthetic and biogas into our energy mix, we further improve the already impressive CO2 reductions afforded by LNG.

First carrier to have dual-fuel LNG PCTC’s, and to operate with cleaner fuels such as bio-diesel. We will also be first in our industry to have three LNG battery hybrid PCTC’s.

We install Ballast Water Treatment System onboard our vessels well in advance of IMO implementation requirement.

With our revolutionary LNG Battery Hybrid vessels, we can reduce NOx emission by up to 90%, and we almost entirely eliminate SOx and Particular Matter emissions.

Newbuildings will be delivered with main equipment for cold ironing, followed by running cold ironing projects with key ports.

Conference Paper

On our path to carbon neutrality we reduced CO2 emissions by 38% per cargo ton/km, and SOx by 51% per cargo ton/km from 2014 to 2019.

We take part in a variety of cross-industry platforms. We are proud members of UN Global Compact Initiative, and partnered with the GoodShipping Program to reduce CO2 emissions on shipments by 85%

14 days x 4000

“

M/V AUTO ECO & M/V AUTO ENERGY

• Completes 14-day voyages using solely LNG • Provides larger capacity, better operational flexibility, less fuel consumption and reduced emissions

The largest, most technically advanced and sustainable pure car and truck carriers ever built

• Ships designed to help our customer excel in having the most efficient and sustainable supply chains

2016

181m

Southampton Zeebrugge Bremerhaven Malmo Hanko St.Petersburg

Conference Paper

2020 – UECC in the news

UECC Fleet – Fossil Oil use 100.00%

99.75%

97.37%

96.22%

94.38%

95.00%

89.03%

90.00% 85.00% 80.00% 75.00% 70.00%

68.00%

65.00% 60.00% 55.00% 50.00%

2016

2017 2016

2018 2017

2018

2019 2019

2020

2020 2025

2025

Conference Paper

Alternative fuel use (LNG and BFO) 35,000 32,000 30,000

Metric Tonnes

25,000

20,000

15,000 10,400

10,000 6,617 5,000

4,511

3,245 337 2016

2017 2016

2018 2017

2018

2019 2019

2020

2025

CO2 Emission Reduction (LNG & BFO) 40,000 34,517

35,000

Metric tonnes

30,000

25,000

20,000

18,692

15,000

10,000 5,448

5,000

3,714

2,672 277 2016

2017 2016

2018 2017

2018

2019 2019

2020

2020 2025

2025

Conference Paper

Introducing: UECC A-Class – Pioneering LNG Battery Hybrid Solution

• • • •

Meet the Tier 3 NOx emission rules enforced by the IMO in the Baltic and North Seas from 2021. Equipped with Dual-fuel LNG engines for main propulsion and auxiliaries as well as auxiliary boiler. A battery package, Energy Storage System is installed. Vessels will take us well beyond the IMO target for a 40 percent reduction in carbon intensity by 2030.

A-Class General Data Length overall

169.10 m

Breadth, moulded

28.00 m

Design draught, moulded

7.70 m

Scantling draught, moulded

8.60 m

Deadweight at Design

7,500 t

Deadweight at Scantling

11,300 t

Car capacity

3,580 RT43

Deck area

30,600 m2

Complement

28 pers (22 crew + 6 drivers)

Speed

18 knots

Main Engine WinGD

6RT-flex50DF Tier III MCR 8640 kW

MAN CPP Propulsion

Controllable Pitch Propeller

Bow thruster

1500 kW

Quarter Ramp Clear opening

SWL 160MT B 12m x H 5,80

Side ramp Clear opening

SWL 20MT B 4,7m x H 3,6m

Conference Paper

A-Class Energy Storage System

• • •

Battery power supplied by Dedicated Power Management System and Energy Management System. Charging controlled by same system. The Battery Pack meets the DNV-GL notation: Battery (safe).

Safety: • • • • •

Water mist or sprinkler system for fire suppression. Fire detection for automatic deployment of fire suppression. Insulation protection on room of A60 type. True cell-level thermal runaway isolation, passive - not depending on any cooling. Emergency shutdown to be provided outside battery room.

A-Class Hybrid Solution – Delivering Emissions Reductions

Hybrid benefits • Emissions reduced by optimizing consumption via the DPMS and EMS. • Controllable Pitch Propeller enables shaft generator to be in operation during maneuvering, further improving CO2 reduction.

Auxiliary & Battery Efficiencies • Auxiliary engine not required for generation of electricity. • Aux engine running hours reduced by utilising battery as black-out prevention method. • Spinning reserve mode limits unnecessary parallel running by taking load peaks from battery instead of 2nd aux. • Electrical load peaks directed to battery instead of aux, enabling peak shaving. Auxiliary engine efficiencies and inclusion of battery result in approximately 20% reduction in consumption/emissions.

Conference Paper

Zero Emission Bulker Design

GRAHAM HARVEY CEO, Windship Technology Limited

BIOGRAPHY Graham Harvey, CEO, Windship Technology Limited. Graham qualified as a Naval Architect, before developing a passion for designing structures in composite materials for clients such as the RNLI and America’s cup yacht teams. Multiple roles followed managing businesses within material supply and component manufacturing environments, where implementing technology to gain a business advantage were key to their success. Graham joined Windship Technology in April 2021.

BRIEF INTRODUCTION Climate change has become one of our greatest challenges to date and it is the United Nations (UN) that has been tasked with finding a solution. The IMO have approached the reduction of GHG for shipping, since 2008, in a systematic way following a high-level roadmap. This road map is not exhaustive and is indicative of the direction of travel towards eliminating GHG for the shipping industry. These policies are now attracting serious attention with shipping executives, whom previously have had little reason to be concerned. The industry is now having to find solutions and it is now that Windship Technology’s eight years of R&D have come to the forefront.

Conference Paper What is the Solution for the Shipping Industry? There has been much speculation as to which way to turn and whether a 50% reduction in emission was even possible by 2050. The industry started optimising ships from 2008 and for the first ten years, small incremental optimisations were made, such as foul release hull paints, operational weather routing optimisation and improved propeller design, netting typically a 10-15% fuel and emission saving. Clearly this low hanging fruit was a good starting point but to achieve significant savings, much more was needed. Wind has powered shipping for millennia and hence a natural starting point when looking for a long-term emission-free solution. Wind has the required power to achieve very significant fuel savings but historically has needed large areas of soft sails, considerable manpower and has always been at the mercy of the weather. In contrast, modern shipping has to keep to a tight schedule to meet ever increasing customer demands. The issue for wind was how to transition to a new wind solution that would be acceptable and maintain those schedules. This was the starting point technically for Windship Technology and it was decided that if a minimum of 30% fuel and emission savings could not be achieved then the chances of adoption would be minimal; this objective has driven the team from day one. The key areas that have changed since the last commercial sailing ships operated 100 years ago has been in materials technology, computer control systems, weather routing and manufacturing techniques. Drawing on these key areas, a new low maintenance, robust, safe, reliable and repeatable performance-enhancing product was needed with minimal crew intervention. The first decision in this process was to eliminate soft sails, as the chances of adoption by the industry was low, they have poor longevity and are prone to damage. The second decision was to ensure the system was fully automated from the ship’s bridge with no crew intervention on deck when at sea. Solid wings were the only credible choice. Having observed the development of composite wind turbine blades over the last 30 years, it was a good place to start. Working with the Wolfson Unit at the University of Southampton, the Windship technical team tested multiple iterations of potential solid wing combinations using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). It was established very early on, (i) that whilst high lift coefficients can and need to be achieved with wings, it is the surface area that is needed to develop the required ship thrust and (ii) that a trade-off between the efficiency performance of a single wing and the effect of wing interactions with multiple installations, was critical. The decision for Windship was to opt for a triple wing configuration which to date, has the highest power density of any current wind solution globally. To put this in perspective, in order to achieve the same thrust as the 36m Windship triple wing, a single wing would need to be just under 100m tall, creating problematic heeling forces for the ship, storage and docking issues and the need to change to an expensive carbon fibre laminate construction. The reduction in performance of the triple wing due to the proximity of the wings is of the order of 10% and this has been the focus of the CFD optimisation by Cape Horn Engineering with Dr Rodrigo Azcueta. The issue of interaction between multiple rigs on a ship is harder to put an exact figure on, but as soon as the rig installations start to stagger either side of the ship’s centerline the performance drops dramatically and the cost of additional installations spirals both from the CAPEX and OPEX perspectives. These losses could range from 15-50% depending on the type of rig.

Conference Paper

CFD output from Cape Horn Engineering using Siemen STAR CCM+ software

In order to determine effectively the fuel and emission savings, the CFD aerodynamic performance matrix was only the starting point and the whole picture needed to be studied for a candidate ship. The approach taken by Windship has been for Cape Horn Engineering to produce the CFD aero data and the Wolfson Unit to take the candidate hull form, integrate the aero data in to their in-house Velocity Prediction Program (VPP) and output a set of performance polar data for a weather router to run different oceanic trading routes. The Wolfson Unit VPP includes ship side force, exposed topside and superstructure windage in ballast and loaded conditions with leeway. The output data for each candidate design takes into account all true wind directions 0-180 degrees and true wind speeds 0-35 knots and the required effective thrust, Pe. This data is run for the candidate ship, with and without rigs, allowing the weather router to have full VPP data with windage assumptions for both configurations. This allows an optimum route to be established for both configurations with a given departure and arrival date.

Graeme Winn’s (Independent Weather routing consultant) software has been developed over decades looking at optimising sailing routes around the world for racing and cruising sailors. The weather routing carried out to date has involved setting a departure date and running the non-wind configured candidate ship down the route at several average speeds from 10-16 knots. The wind configured ship is then routed with the same departure and arrival date for each of the average ship speeds. The software routes the wind-configured ship at varying speeds and sails a longer route to find the optimum wind but takes exactly the same amount of time as the non-wind configured ship. The fuel consumption for each ship is calculated and a direct comparison can then be made.

Conference Paper The distance sailed in the same time between the two configurations can be as different as 10%. It should also be noted that the non-wind configured ship in comparison to a great circle is often 3-5% greater in distance for the best fuel savings due to weather conditions.

Windship Technologies 36m rig in the raised and lowered configuration

This is not the whole story, as there is one major element missing if one is to measure true fuel savings and emission reduction. The fixed propeller and drive train of conventional ships, without rigs, is optimised for certain continuous speeds. This is not the case when large amounts of driving force is applied to the ship from the rigs and a 1-3 degree leeway angle is experienced. A typical efficiency from the engine to the propeller output is approximately 65%. This efficiency drops progressively as the thrust contribution from the rigs increases for a given ship speed. The option is to leave the shaft revolutions set for a particular speed and allow the ship speed to increase with the wind input or to reduce revolutions and maintain the original ship speed. Both options have issues, first if the revolutions are maintained and the ship accelerates, the propeller becomes under pitched and becomes progressively inefficient. Second, if revolutions are reduced, the load comes off the propeller disc increasing propeller inefficiency and in addition reducing engine power decreases Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC). This issue is true for all wind assisted systems and one that has been masked for wind solutions developing less than 10% of the required thrust. This becomes progressively more of an issue as the wind systems become more powerful. For Windship Technology, the propeller and engine revolution reductions were a major issue, as many of the candidate ships were running at the desired ship speed of 11 knots with 100% wind power in True Wind Speeds (TWS) of 25 knots. Annually on established trade routes, in all seasons, savings of 35-40% were being simulated and this naturally led to the next stage of Windship Technology’s development.

Drive Train Development/Innovation The development of the Windship Technology drive train was initiated by large driving forces being generated from the Windship rigs making the propeller and conventional two-stroke diesel engine inefficient. The two issues to overcome were; how to change the propeller pitch as wind power increased and decreased, and secondly how to maintain SFC on the large twostroke diesel engines with highly variable revolution requirements.The first issue was easy to solve for a new build ship, by fitting a Controllable Pitch Propeller (CPP), but economically impractical for retro-fits. The second issue is much more challenging as not only are the revolutions reducing, the torque requirement is still high and the potential for engine stalling a serious concern.

Conference Paper Multiple Diesel Electric Generators Running one large two-stroke engine at less than 50% MCR is an inefficient solution with large wind assistance contributions. A simple approach to solving the variable load requirement is to adopt multiple diesel generators in typically 2MW units. For a typical Kamsarmax 82,000DWT bulk carrier, the engine installation would normally be a single 10.5 MW two-stroke diesel. Based on the large wind input, 10MW has been used for this example and therefore 5 x 2MW generators would be required. The main advantage of multiple generators is the ability to turn them on and off as the load requirement for the wind assist system changes. Additionally, the four-stroke diesel also helps smooth the transition between starting or stopping engines in an automated fashion by having a 40% operational window with optimum SFC. The smooth and quick transition is an excellent feature of the four-stroke cycle and opens the door for generator options too. Conventional generators like to run at a continuous rpm and are typically 40-60% by mass, of the main engine. For the variable load distribution utilising wind power, a typical generator running at 1000/1200/1500 rpm does not give the granularity required and led to a search for a new technical solution. This search culminated in a new military technology that is still under NDA and currently cannot be disclosed, but Windship Technology has exclusive use of within the shipping industry. This new generator is a fraction of the mass of a conventional generator, can be flooded with water with only a 10% efficiency loss due to viscous effects, and when running across the range of loads required, runs in excess of 99% efficiency. It is also capable of being a conventional shaft drive motor and due to its modular construction can be easily scaled to produce the full 10MW requirement on the main shaft line.

Modular Diesel Electric Solution The combination of a new patented and lightweight generator and owner’s uncertainty about future fuels and emissions legislation has led to the next stage of development for Windship Technology. Due to the reduced mass of the generator, the combined mass of the Wartsila 9L20 with the new generator on a 20’ generator flat rack base, weighs 14.25 tons. This allows the unit to be transported and lifted on and off standard container trailers and shipped cost effectively. Based on the new arrangement in the engine room, without a cathedral style twostroke, the new modular 20’ flat rack power modules can be located on the main working deck level and slid into position in the engine room through the side of the superstructure. This system allows the engines to be simply removed and changed for major overhauls. Additionally, should there be a major development in new fuel legislation, the engines can be changed or upgraded for new fuels ensuring the ship avoids scrapping. This feature has proved to be highly attractive to owners.

Single 2MW power module and generator on 20’ Flat rack

100

Conference Paper Heat recovery and carbon capture With modular diesel electric engines pinned down and the decision made to focus on fourstroke diesel engines and fuel types, exhaust gas composition and calorific fuel calculations could be studied within a much narrower scope. The first stage was identifying the efficiency of the four-stroke engine and set out the issue. In simple terms, a four-stroke engine is typically 40% efficient and hence if 2MW is generated, 5MW of fuel energy needs to be input to the system. The question then is where has the other 3MW of energy gone? On a Wartsila 9L20’s heat balance chart here is the first part of the answer at 100% MCR: Jacket water at 100% load Charge air cooling at 100% load Lubricating oil at 100% load Radiation at 100% load Total =

450 kW 702 kW 234 kW 71 kW

1457KW (1.457MW)

This by definition means that the remaining balance of the 3MW of energy must by going through the exhaust system. i.e. 3MW-1.457MW = 1.454MW of lost energy. Heat recovery with a steam cycle and steam turbine are commonplace in the shipping industry and at best operate at 12-15% efficiency. This therefore means the maximum achievable generation would be 200-220 KW with no use of the 1.457MW lost above in cooling and charge air energy. Much time was spent looking at the other uses of the cooling and charge air energy and how we could extract this energy for the steam cycle. The conclusion was the charge air could be used but a bigger and more fundamental piece of research revealed a large source of energy with very high temperatures, ideal for a high-quality steam cycle.

Calix RECAST carbon capture system The Windship team, in parallel to the main drive-train study, also focussed on exhaust emission composition and felt there must be another approach to locking in CO2. It required a return to the Periodic Table and simply running through the likely reactions with CO2 that could produce ideally, an alkaline product and lock in the CO2 with absolute certainty that it would not be released. It was discovered that this work had already be completed by Calix in Australia. The creator of the technology and patent author Brian Sweeney was based in London. Months of work then followed and culminated in a new long-term agreement between Windship Technology and Calix. The answer is lime, Calcium Oxide (CaO) which is manufactured in the lime industry by calcining limestone or chalk at 900degC releasing CO2. This CO2 must be captured and sequestered to give zero carbon emissions over the whole cycle. Calix had developed the technology to capture the CO2 at industry leading cost. The technology has been demonstrated in the EU funded Leilac project, (www.project-leilac.eu). In addition, the patented Calix Direct Separation calciner makes lime of very high reactivity. This is a reversible reaction, where 183kJ/mole of energy is required at some 900 degC to Calcine the chalk to produce the CaO and CO2.

101

Conference Paper Conversely, and very importantly, when the CaO is introduced to the exhaust system on a ship, at over 500 degC it combines rapidly with the CO2 to produce CaCO3 and release 183 kJ/mol of energy to the exhaust system in the Carbonator. This energy plus the exhaust gas, which is already at 320degC when entering the Carbonator, increases the temperature to 540 degC. This hot exhaust gas runs through a series of heat exchanger circuits producing steam. The steam then runs a three-stage steam turbine which in turn runs one of the new electrical generators, operating at over 99% efficiency. The result of this process is that for each 2MW Diesel electric power module, an additional 1MW of heat recovery power is captured and turned into electrical power to the main power distribution BUS. For the full RECAST cycle developed by Calix to be completed, the CaCO3 from the exhaust is collected and stored onboard the ship and returned to port to be re-calined to make new CaO. The sorbent can do 6 or 7 cycles without performance reduction. In order to achieve 100% Carbon capture in the exhaust system, for each ton of fuel burnt 4 tons of CaO is required. If the CaO produced by Calix in their new Calcining plants produces CaO at a price of $135US/ton and the CaCO3 returning from the ship generates a credit of $7US/ton. the net cost to the ship is $123US/ton. In order for the net zero CO2 emission to be valid, the CO2 is collected directly from the Calciner and the CO2 disposal is included in the Calix CaO bunker price of $135US/ton.

SOx, NOx, VOC and Particulate Matter Elimination When CaO is introduced to the exhaust in the Carbonator, it reacts with the low level of SOx first, before the CO2, ensuring that 100% of the SOx is eliminated. This has a significant financial benefit as an SCR is no longer required in the exhaust system and neither is its sorbent. The Calix CaO sorbent can also include a small quantity of Iron Oxide, Fe2O3, which catalyses the reduction of the NOx in an oxygen rich exhaust to N2. Due to the high temperatures in the Carbonator at 540degC, the VOC combust to add to the heat energy and the PM breaks down and cracks. The cracking adds more heat energy to the exhaust gases but also CO2 and by-products, which are then, in turn, collected by the CaO sorbent.

Final Exhaust Gas Composition The products that are produced from the exhaust stream are as follows: N2 Vented to atmosphere O2 Vented to atmosphere CaCO3 Collected and stored in tanks CaSO4 Collected and stored in tanks Argon (less than 0.5%) Vented to atmosphere H2O Vented to atmosphere The exhaust is clean and exits the ship at approximately 100degC as a clear gas.

102

Conference Paper

Windship modular Diesel Electric drive train with waste heat recovery and Calix RECAST carbon capture

Solar and Future Technologies In the Windship holistic ship solution, Solar power is very much part of the mix and new lightweight solar panels are in development, to which Windship has exclusive rights for the shipping industry. More information on this new technology will become available in 2023. Due to the Windship modular diesel electric system being adopted for main propulsion, the ship has a main DC Bus, which allows solar power and a whole range of future technologies to be efficiently integrated into the ships power grid.

New Windship Holistic Ship Design What does this actually all add up to? The easiest way to demonstrate this is with a worked example using multiple existing transoceanic trading routes for an 82,000 DWT Kamsarmax bulker with the new drive train and 3 x 36m Windship rigs installed. Based on a detailed study, and compared with 20 new Japanese, Chinese and South Korean 2020-21 Kamsarmaxes, the propulsive fuel consumption is as follows at 11 knots ship speed: Windship zero emission new build Full load 8 tons/day MGO Ballast 6.25 tons/day MGO New build, best in class 2021 launch Full load 20 tons/day VLSFO Ballast 16 tons/day VLSFO The Windship zero emission new build achieves a 60% reduction in fuel consumption at 11 knots ship speed with the elimination of CO2, NOx, SOx, VOCs and PM from the exhaust.

Typical Windship Technology new build Kamsarmax breakdown of power supplied Wind Power using 3 x 36m Windship rigs

35-40%

Solar Power based on 6,000 sq.m

0-15%*

Windship modular diesel electric power

40-43%

Calix RECAST carbon capture system (Calcium oxide) with Windship heat recovery

20-22%

* Solar and future technologies optional

103

Conference Paper The Economics of the Windship Heat Recovery and Calix RECAST system as a Future Fuel Fuel Calorific Value Cost of Motive Power

CO2 kg/MWh

VLSFO (baseline)

42 MJ/kg

74 $/MWh

600

Windship/ Calix RECAST 11.1 MJ/kg MGO/CaO with Heat recovery and Wind (excl. Solar power)

76 $/MWh

LNG

86 $/MWh

400

Windship/ Calix RECAST 11.1 MJ/kg MGO/CaO with Heat recovery (excl. Wind & Solar power)

126 $/MWh

Methanol

19.1 MJ/kg

181 $/MWh

600

Renewable Methanol

Higher cost

Hydrogen 120 MJ/kg Ammonia 22.5 MJ/Kg

252 $/MWh

265 $/MWh

48.6 MJ/kg

Fuel Costs based on IMO Fourth GHG Report projection for 2030 ($/T) VLSFO= 385, MGO= 485, LNG= 583, Methanol= 400, Hydrogen= 3360, Ammonia= 660

CONCLUSION The new Windship Holistic Zero Emission Ship solution is a collection of technologies, both new and mature, blended and engineered, to solve the GHG CO2 requirements for all future IMO legislation. The initial intention was to solve only the CO2 issue with a 30% reduction in emission and make the 2050, 50% legislation target achievable, but as a result of persistent research and a drive to find better solutions, a complete zero emission solution was developed. Due to the required fuel consumption of the ship being reduced by 35-40% with wind power, the Calix RECAST carbon capture system has become economically attractive for shipping. A natural symbiotic relationship formed between Windship Technology and Calix and hence a strong commercial relationship now exists. The Windship modular diesel electric drive train and its heat recovery system with Calix RECAST is patented and ready for commercialisation. Based on the Kamsarmax study, the following was concluded:

l CAPEX

of new build $5-10m increase in cost including 3 x 36m Windship rigs, Windship drive train and RECAST. This is similar in cost to dual fuel LNG

l OPEX

of new build, will be the same as an existing 2021 best-in-class ship running on VLSFO, excluding any future Carbon taxes credits which are likely to be considerable

Windship Technologies is now focussed on two clear routes for commercialisation.

104

Conference Paper Retro-fit of Windship rigs. This is only viable for a limited amount of power contribution up to 10-15%. This additional carbon free power may allow existing ships under EEXI to get a life extension of 5-10 years Windship New Build

100% Zero emission shipping available from 2025

Independent validation has been at the heart of this whole design and research process. The Windship rigs have been evaluated by DNV, Lloyds Register, Wolfson Unit and Cape Horn Engineering. In recent weeks DNV completed an ‘Approval in Principle’ for the Windship rigs and a full Windship Drive Train and RECAST carbon capture system analysis will be completed by DNV in October 2021. The testing, pilot and demonstration programme for zero emissions power generation is underway. The stage is set for a Zero Emission Shipping industry. The Future is Here!!

105

Conference Paper

Intelligent control by exhaust recycling (iCER) – Reducing Methane

DOMINIK SCHNEITER Vice President, Research and Development WinGD Co-Authors: Dominik Schneiter, German Weisser, Roger Mäder, George Lymberopoulos, Fridolin Unfug, Lars Hansen, Matthias Stark, Beat von Rotz, Bartosz Rozmysłowicz, Amodio Palma BIOGRAPHY Dominik has a Masters of International Management and Affairs and a BEng in Mechatronics. He has over 26 years of international experience in developing, validating, building, commission and troubleshooting maritime engine applications. Dominik joined New Sulzer Diesel (NSD) in 1992 and has continued with the company through its evolution to Wärtsilä-NSD, Wärtsilä Switzerland and finally now Winterthur Gas & Diesel (WinGD). Dominik presently oversees the largest team at WinGD, the Research and Development Team. The activities of the department are focused on the development of leading technologies for application on a new generation of low-speed engines. In addressing the future challenges of tightening emission regulations and requirements for alternative fuels, Dominik guides WinGD’s R&D pursuit of achieving the best possible economic and environmental performance for its customers.

ABSTRACT WinGD’s X-DF concept has found wide acceptance in the market. Looking forward, the shipping industry faces significant change which must be considered, including new fuels and more stringent local and international regulations. This paper describes how the next-generation technology of the X-DF 2.0 addresses the most imminent challenges and is an ideal platform for potential future fuel candidates.

INTRODUCTION Low-pressure gas technology for low-speed two-stroke engines has come a long way since the start of development in 2011 by Winterthur Gas & Diesel Ltd. (WinGD). The low-pressure gas technology was selected by WinGD because it had proven to provide the highest benefits, especially regarding emissions, capital investment and maintenance costs. The first low-pressure low-speed two-stroke dual-fuel engine (an RT-flex50DF) was successfully type approved in 2015 and the first vessel entered service in 2016. The technology has been gradually introduced across the X engine portfolio under the engine type designation X-DF.

106

Conference Paper The acceptance of the technology in the market is indicated by the increase in market share, as seen in Figure 1. X-DF has become the best-selling dual-fuel low-speed engine in the maritime market since July 2017. There are over 315 X-DF engines for various vessel types on order and approximately 60 engines already in operation. WinGD X-DF engines have become the standard choice for LNG carriers.

Figure 1: Dual-fuel market and WinGD X-DF market share (Source: Clarksons Research and WinGD internal data)

The emission characteristics of X-DF engines shown in Figure 2, are low in terms of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM) compared to other technologies as a result of the lean-burn Otto cycle combustion process. The equal combustion temperature distribution in the cycle and avoidance of high peak temperatures keep the NOx emissions extremely low. SOx emissions are significantly reduced due to natural gas being practically sulphur-free, and consequently the remaining source of sulphur oxide emissions is directly linked to the sulphur content of the required diesel pilot fuel. The low amount of pilot fuel needed for low-pressure dual-fuel engines keeps the SOx emissions low. The lean combustion process of the Otto cycle significantly reduces PM emissions. The small amount of remaining PM emissions is mainly related to very small amounts of unburned solids and metals from the cylinder lubricating oil. The carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of X-DF engines are reduced compared to conventional engines because of the higher hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of natural gas in comparison to liquid fuels.

Figure 2: X-DF emission characteristics

107

Conference Paper The low-pressure dual-fuel technology applied to X-DF engines has demonstrated to be a proven solution for high efficiency and for meeting Tier III NOx emission standards without the need of exhaust after-treatment systems. The extensive field experience collected has indicated that the technology offer opportunities for further optimisation. The compression ratio on X-DF engines running on the Otto cycle is lower compared to engines running on the Diesel cycle to enable stable combustion and avoid early ignition in gas mode. An increase in the engine geometric compression ratio would lead to an increase of thermal efficiency both in gas and diesel mode operation. Another area of optimisation is the reduction of emissions of unburned hydrocarbons, mainly methane. In the Otto cycle combustion process on a low-pressure dual-fuel engine, a lean fuel-gas/air premixture is burned. It is possible to have localised areas of fuel-gas/air mixtures which are too lean and as a result some fuel-gas may not have completely burned. The introduction of an exhaust recycling system activated in gas mode has a positive influence on the thermodynamic parameters of the low-pressure dual-fuel engine and offers the possibility to increase the thermal efficiency both in gas and diesel mode operation. Moreover, it has a positive influence on the unburned hydrocarbon emissions. This paper describes the intelligent Control by Exhaust Recycling (iCER) system developed by WinGD as part of X-DF2.0 technology to ensure continuous improvement of X-DF technology through reductions to both fuel consumption and methane slip in gas mode.

TECHNICAL DETAILS Dual-fuel technologies There are two basic dual-fuel technologies available for modern low-speed engines as seen in Figure 3 . High-pressure dual-fuel low-speed engines operate on the Diesel cycle whereas low-pressure dual-fuel engines operate on the Otto cycle. In the Diesel cycle combustion process, the fuel-gas is injected at very high pressure via the cylinder cover and burned in a gas-jet flame ignited by pilot fuel. WinGD dual-fuel engines use low-pressure technology and operate on the Otto cycle. Fuel-gas is injected at low pressure via gas admission valves at the cylinder liner mid stroke. The lean fuel-gas/air premixture is then ignited by pilot fuel.

Figure 3: Otto cycle (left graphic) and Diesel cycle (right graphic) comparison

While Diesel cycle combustion is locally rich (within the injection spray radius), in the lowpressure dual-fuel engine the homogeneous fuel-gas/air mixture - not too rich and not too lean – is evenly distributed within the whole combustion chamber. The optimal operating window of

108

Conference Paper existing X-DF engines is shown in Figure 4. The area to the left of the rich limit indicates an overrich fuel-gas concentration that could lead to higher combustion speeds and to auto-ignition (knocking). The shaded area to the right indicates an increasing air/fuel-gas ratio which leads to an over-lean fuel gas concentration and consequently increases combustion instability as the mixture might not ignite. WinGD’s X-DF technology ensures there is no immediate gas trip when crossing the reach limit or in case of an over-lean mixture, because the firing pressures, knocking and misfiring are constantly monitored, and the air/fuel-gas mixture controlled.

Figure 4: X-DF operating window – Air/fuel ratio versus brake mean effective pressure (bmep)

The application of the iCER system reduces the mixture reactivity by substituting part of the oxygen with cooled exhaust gas. The iCER system consists of a low-pressure exhaust recycling path including an efficient exhaust gas cooler (EGC) with neglectable contamination of cooling water due to clean fuel-gas and combustion. The extended operating window of X-DF engines with iCER is shown in Figure 5. The gas reactivity depends on the exhaust recycling rate and the air/fuel-gas ratio. By applying exhaust recycling, the premixed gas reactivity is reduced and, consequently, the ignition delay increases while the combustion speed slows down. An increased resistance to auto-ignition and the reduced combustion speed give the possibility to control the combustion phasing even at high loads and reduce the firing pressure. Hence an increase of the geometric compression ratio becomes possible which increases the thermal efficiency both in gas and diesel mode operation.

Figure 5: X-DF operating window with iCER

Thermodynamic aspects The gas mixture composition changes as the rate of exhaust gas recycling increases. The influence is seen in Figure 6. As the percentage of recirculated gas increases, the amount of oxygen (O2) replaced by CO2 increases proportionately. The amount of nitrogen (N2) in the mixture is also slightly increased. Since CO2 has a higher heat capacity than O2, the peak temperatures in the cylinder are reduced. Additionally, the lower O2 content in the scavenge

109

Conference Paper air results in a reduction of the premixed gas reactivity which leads to an increase of the ignition delay and to a slower combustion speed. Consequently, increasing the exhaust gas recycling rate leads to smoother combustion.

Figure 6: Influence of exhaust recycling on gas mixture composition (at 75% engine load)

Figure 7: Change of gas composition by applying 55% exhaust gas recycling

The recirculation of exhaust gas into the engine increases the friction and results in a loss of efficiency. The known drawback on efficiency when applying exhaust recirculation to a gas engine is very low when running on a low-speed two-stroke engine because of the very small share of fuel-gas compared to the total mass. Specifically, the share of natural gas with a low isentropic exponent compared to N2 and O2 which have high isentropic exponent is small. The difference between a low-speed two-stroke engine and other applications is shown in Figure 8. On a passenger car engine, the isentropic exponent reduces by 0.01 when adding 30% exhaust recycling. On a low-speed two-stroke engine it reduces only by 0.0015 when adding 30% exhaust recycling. It can be concluded that there is minimal efficiency drawback of the gas composition when applying exhaust recycling on a low-speed two-stroke engine.

110

Conference Paper

Figure 8: Isentropic exponent versus exhaust recycling rate

The small efficiency loss can be more than compensated for by an increase in the geometric compression ratio when applying exhaust gas recycling. For dual-fuel engines operating on the Otto cycle at lower compression ratios compared to similar engines operating on the Diesel cycle, a small increase in the compression ratio results in large efficiency gains. This is seen in Figure 9 which shows that increasing the compression ratio in the lower range of the horizontal axis, leads to high efficiency gains for dual-fuel engines.

Figure 9: Efficiency versus compression ratio

As the exhaust recycling rate increases, the air/fuel-gas ratio (Lamda) decreases, as seen in Figure 10. Very high recycling rates are possible on low-speed two-stroke dual-fuel engines without lacking in oxygen for the combustion process. This is made possible by the turbocharger efficiency which enables a larger mass of air to be pushed through the engine and therefore regulate the amount of oxygen.

111

Conference Paper

Figure 10: In-cylinder Lamda versus Exhaust recycling rate (%)

Specific methane slip emissions are inversely proportional to the exhaust gas recycling rate. When applying recycling, the methane (CH4) in the exhaust gas is divided into a recirculation path and a funnel path. Increasing the rate of recycling gives methane in the recirculation path a second chance to burn in the combustion chamber. Typically, a 50% exhaust recycling rate enables 50% of methane to burn again during the combustion. Consequently, the emissions of unburned hydrocarbons are reduced. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The iCER is designed to cool and recirculate part of the exhaust gas through a low-pressure path during operation in gas mode. Compared to a high-pressure path, the main benefit is the ability to use the full turbocharger capacity. It is possible to recirculate exhaust gas up to a maximum rate of 50% mass flow. This is handled through a system adjacent to the engine that circulates part of the exhaust gas after the turbine through an exhaust gas cooler (EGC) to the compressor inlet. The exhaust gas and the fresh air are mixed before entering the compressor wheel of the turbocharger.

Figure 11: System overview

Abbreviations in Figure 11: BPV Back pressure Valve CEC Cascade Exhaust gas Cooler SOV Shut Off Valve SAC Scavenge Air Cooler EG Exhaust Gas WMC Water Mist Catcher PHE Plate Heat Exchanger

112

Conference Paper Arrangement The iCER system is placed close to the engine as a stand-alone arrangement. An exhaust gas cooler and demister are installed as part of the system. The cooler tower contains two sections: the quench section and the absorber section. Hot exhaust gas enters at the top of the quench section which cools with water using spray nozzles at the top of the section. The exhaust gas then flows to the bottom of the absorber section which handles the main cooling. The absorber section contains filler material functioning as an enlarged cooling surface with water introduced from the top. The demister finally removes any water in the exhaust gas.

Figure 12: Arrangement of cooler, circulation water and drain

The cooling process reduces the temperature of the exhaust gas to below its dew point of ~40 °C. Below the dew point water starts to condense out of the exhaust gas which leads to excess water in the system. This is beneficial to avoid an increase of acidity in the recirculated water. The water used for cooling the exhaust gas is recirculated fresh water, stored in a circulation tank. The recirculated fresh water used in the exhaust cooler is cooled by sea water via a plate heat exchanger. The excess water generated by cooling the exhaust gas below its dew point is discharged to a drain tank and monitored continually by an oil content meter. Waste heat recovery To increase the total steam production, an optional economiser can be placed on the top of the jet tube (quench section) of the exhaust cooler. By applying a small economiser, the energy of the recirculated exhaust gas can be used. The economiser can be connected directly to the steam line. The outlet temperature can be lowered to below 160-170°C because the exhaust gas is essentially sulphur free (iCER is active only in gas mode).

Figure 13: Arrangement of micro economiser (Source: Alfa Laval)

113

Conference Paper PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT The application of iCER technology to WinGD’s X-DF engines brings several improvements in relation to gas combustion stability, fuel efficiency and emissions. Gas combustion stability With iCER technology, gas combustion can be fully controlled by adjusting the exhaust gas recycling rate and the pilot injection timing to optimise the fuel-gas consumption over the engine load range. Figure 14 shows the effect of increasing the rate of recycled exhaust gas (indicated by the arrow) while maintaining a constant pilot injection timing. The combustion speed decreases as seen from the shape of the curves and the peak cylinder pressure decreases. The recycling rate that results in the optimal combustion behaviour and improved fuel consumption is selected.

Figure 14: Effect on gas combustion by increasing recycling rate (at constant pilot injection timing)

The effect of adjusting the pilot injection timing while keeping a constant exhaust recirculation rate is seen in Figure 15. A delay in the pilot injection timing by a few degrees (indicated by the arrow) results in a slower combustion speed and reduced cylinder pressure. Therefore, the combustion can be controlled by means of the diesel pilot injection for optimal efficiency.

Figure 15: Effect on gas combustion by delaying pilot injection timing (at constant recycling rate)

114

Conference Paper Improved knocking control Exhaust gas recycling enables better control of knocking. Figure 16 indicates that an increase of the recycling rate helps to reduce the amplitude and the fluctuation of knocking. The slower combustion speed made possible by applying iCER ensures that gas pockets in the combustion chamber are not igniting uncontrollably. The temperature in the cylinder after compression is lower and, consequently, the activation energy required to ignite any gas pockets is higher resulting in a less ignitable fuel-gas/air mixture.

Figure 16: Effect on knocking by increasing exhaust recycling rate

Fuel consumption and emissions As explained, the application of exhaust gas recycling and the improved combustion stability allow an increase of the geometric compression ratio (CR). Fuel consumption is decreased proportionately to the increase of CR, as seen in Figure 17. At high loads the thermal efficiency gain is lower compared to part loads because the maximum cylinder pressure is limited by the strength of the engine structure. Moreover, as the CR is increased the risk of knocking increases therefore the CR that represents the best compromise between efficiency (fuel consumption) and reduced knocking is selected.

Figure 17: Fuel consumption improvement with increase of compression ratio

115

Conference Paper The iCER system has a direct benefit on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of X-DF engines. The CO2 equivalent emission are reduced with increasing compression ratio values. For X-DF engines with iCER the GHG emission footprint is reduced by 8% based on the selected compression ratio.

Figure 18: GHG emissions versus compression ratio (CR)

The emission characteristics of X-DF engines with iCER are seen in Figure 19. The NOx emissions are reduced by approximately 35% as a result of the lower peak temperatures in the combustion chamber. In summary, the application of iCER technology to X-DF engines delivers enhanced combustion control through the use of inert gas. The main benefits of the technology are a reduction of energy consumption in gas mode by 3%, a reduction of fuel consumption in diesel mode operation by up to 5% and the reduction of methane slip of up to 50%. The iCER technology is available for WinGD’s entire X-DF portfolio.

Figure 19: X-DF2.0 emission characteristics

116

Conference Paper THE CHALLENGE AHEAD The IMO adopted its Initial Strategy on the reduction of GHG emissions in 2018 and confirmed the first short-term measures at MEPC 75 and 76. The key elements of the strategy to date include: 1. carbon intensity of the ship to decline through implementation of further phases of the energy efficiency design index (EEDI) for new ships, the energy efficiency design index for existing ships (EEXI) and a Carbon Intensity Index measuring operational efficiency of all vessels; 2. carbon intensity of international shipping to decline: to reduce CO2 emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008; and 3. GHG emissions from international shipping to peak and decline: to peak GHG emissions from international shipping as soon as possible and to reduce the total annual GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 whilst pursuing efforts towards phasing them out as called for in the Vision as a point on a pathway of CO2 emissions reduction consistent with the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Beyond conventional fuels Achieving targets 2 and 3 will only be possible by a coordinated effort of all stakeholders and will be associated with unprecedented step changes for the industry. We need to make use of all options for further improving the efficiency of marine transportation systems. This starts from the optimisation of propulsion engines and all other equipment onboard as well as overall vessel and hull design in particular. It includes the advanced integration of the energy systems on board and the utilisation of the potential of hybridisation on individual ships. Finally, smart shipping concepts need to be adopted on a wide scale, consisting in the optimisation of the whole logistics chain through enhanced routing, fleet and cargo management. The more and more widespread use of LNG must be seen as a very important step in the right direction already; however, even combining this step with all of the above, we will fall short of the 2050 targets, even on an individual vessel basis, and hence fail altogether to turn the ambition for international shipping as a whole into reality. In view of typical fleet turnover times, the targeted reduction of GHG emissions from international shipping can only be achieved by means of massive decarbonization; i.e., the early and massive adoption of what we call “X-Fuels”. X-Fuels research These X-Fuels include all variants of net carbon-neutral fuels, which can be either sustainably produced biofuels of second or higher generation, or synthetic fuels produced in a climateneutral manner using excess renewable energy as well as appropriate feedstock. The X-Fuels designation is also chosen as illustration for the fact that there will be no silver bullet, i.e., no single fuel will do the job. Instead, all sustainable sources will have to be tapped into and we will see a considerably wider variety of different gaseous as well as liquid fuels. On the other hand, we have invested in the extension of our testing infrastructure for enabling the investigation of fundamental processes associated with fuel admission and combustion and have successfully analyzed the impact of a large range of different fuel qualities, both from the traditional fuels spectrum and alternative fuels.

117

Conference Paper On the basis of all the experience accumulated in these past years, WinGD has introduced a dedicated fuel validation process, which is set in a flexible, modular way to account for different possible issues and challenges arising from using alternative fuels. The ultimate target of any fuel validation is the approval of the fuel for application on WinGD engines, in the form of a No Objection Letter (NOL) issued to the supplier of the fuel. Such approval would go hand in hand with the designation of the fuel as X-Fuel, provided it satisfies the requirements mentioned above in terms of climate impact. This validation should normally include an in-service confirmation as a minimum. Today’s X-fuels There are two examples of fuels, for which there is no such need for extensive testing, due to their specific nature: Both bio- and synthetic methane require no adjustments at all – or even allow further optimisation in view of their higher purity compared to natural gas. Therefore, they must be considered highly viable X-Fuels and may be used already today on existing X-DF engines in the field without any modification.

CONCLUSION The iCER technology has a significant impact on the environmental characteristics of WinGD’s low-pressure X-DF engine, enhancing the greenhouse gas emissions impact of LNG-fuelled two-stroke engines. This is achieved by reducing the proportion of unburned methane dramatically as well as by improving fuel consumption in both gas and diesel mode. By advancing the performance of low-pressure dual-fuel engines, X-DF2.0 helps shipowners prepare effectively for shipping’s energy transition. Improved fuel efficiency will be a key factor in reducing emissions until net carbon-neutral fuels are widely available. And it will remain critical for ship owners and operators if they are to deploy more expensive X-Fuels cost effectively. Today’s X-DF engines can already burn two of these X-Fuels - carbon-neutral synthetic or bioderived LNG – without modification. By continuing to develop combustion control and engine efficiency, X-DF2.0 offers the optimal platform for ship owners and operators to prepare for a future of tighter environmental regulations and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

118

Our gas solutions Low- and high-pressure nitrogen boosters for any gas engine BOG compressors

For more than 135 years your reliable partner − also for gas boosters. Sauer Compressors is well known as a reliable partner for commercial shipping with their most modern and economic starting- and working-air compressors. As the perfect addition for state-of-the-art propulsion systems we also offer lowand high-pressure nitrogen boosters for any gas engine in the market as well as specific BOG compressors.

3-stage air-cooled starting-air compressors

WP3325 B3-5 Nitrogen booster

Depen dable u p t o 500 bar – any where, any t ime, anygas.

www.s aue r compre s s o rs .com

SESSION 4

Today’s Alternative Fuels

Conference Paper

The energy transition in shipping

CHARLOTTE RØJGAARD Global Head Bureau Veritas, VeriFuel

BIOGRAPHY Charlotte Røjgaard is the Global Head of Bureau Veritas’ marine fuel services, VeriFuel. Charlotte has a Master of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from the Technical University of Denmark and began her career at MAN Energy Solutions. Following a successful 15 years with MAN, she moved to Singapore to head up the technical team at DNVPS for five years. Charlotte joined Bureau Veritas in 2015 as Global Technical Manager for VeriFuel. In this time, she has been instrumental in strengthening the company’s marine fuels expertise and successfully launching the VeriFuel brand. Charlotte represents Bureau Veritas’ VeriFuel at conferences and sits on numerous key industry committees, including ISO 8217/TC 28/SC 4/WG 6 and CIMAC WG7 Fuels for which she is currently the secretary.

ABSTRACT Although shipping is the most efficient way to transport goods, the maritime industry accounts for around 3% of the global CO2 emissions and, like everyone else, must also do its part to protect the climate. Driven by IMO legislations as well as an increasing consumer demand, the maritime industry is exploring the options of becoming more efficient and transit to carbon neutral as well as carbon free fuels. We thought the transition of IMO2020 was a huge task for the marine industry. The complexity of the sustainability and decarbonization targets will however significantly exceed IMO2020. There are no silver-bullets and all fuel options and efficiency optimizations are being considered. Irrespective of which option is chosen, it requires well-to-wake approaches involving not just those stakeholders from within the shipping industry but also those outside of the sector such as production sites and supply chains. To succeed, cooperation and transparency combined with scientific approaches will be required. Charlotte will talk about the short- and long-term solutions and go through some of the experiences already gained by the industry.

121

Conference Paper

Marine engine fuel systems to approach Net Zero GHG

Hartmut Schneider Senior Manager Advanced Development Woodward L’Orange GmbH

BIOGRAPHY Hartmut Schneider graduated in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Stuttgart. His first position in 1996 was as a design engineer for gearboxes for trains at J.M. Voith GmbH, followed by an employment in 2000 as an engineering manager for sports car seats at RECARO. He joined Woodward L’Orange as a project manager for the first Common Rail injection system for Highspeed Diesel engines almost 20 years ago, leading the design team for injection and Common Rail pumps for 5 years afterwards. In his current position as a Senior Manager of the Advanced Development at Woodward L’Orange, he is not only involved in all projects for new Diesel injection equipment, but also in all Power to X activities. Reducing greenhouse gases (GHG) is the top requirement to future marine propulsion systems. Internal combustion engines will remain the prime propulsion power system in combination with P2X fuels. Hydrogen, methanol and ammonia offer the most attractive pathways to netzero GHG, depending on the application and the region, we will see one of the fuel options to prevail. In this presentation, Woodward L´Orange presents their technical concepts of P2X fuelling technology and analyses the impact to the fuel supply system and the engine.

INTRODUCTION For future marine propulsion systems, the reduction of GHG becomes the key requirement. Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) with their excellent excellent efficiency, total cost of ownership, flexibility and low emission output will remain the standard in most of the marine applications, however, the fuel has to change to reduce, later eliminate GHG emissions. The IMO issued the target to reduce total shippings´ GHG emission by 50% in 2050 vs. the reference year 2008. GHG taxation may impose economic pressure to burn ´green´ fuels rather than fossil fuels.

122

Conference Paper

1) Pathways for international shipping‘s CO2 emissions

Selection of P2X fuel for marine applications There are several pathways to reduce GHG against Diesel ICE reference state. Assuming the same thermal efficiency as with Diesel, fossil methane enables a 25% CO2 reduction against Diesel. However, methane slip has to be avoided to reduce GHG by 25%, too. Green P2X fuels (sustainable electrical power converted to fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia, methanol or methane) offer a net-zero GHG route.

-25%

-50%

2) ICE GHG emission with fossil and with P2X fuels (at ´green´ production). Diesel referenc is 600g/kWh at 42% efficiency

We are showing the most important options to generate P2X fuels in a sustainable, ´green´ manner in image 3. A wide-spread industrial use in the sectors that are hard to electrify -marine is one of them- requires significant investments in the next yeards: it is not only the distribution channels and terminal implementations, it is the whole energy generation and fuel processing industry that has to be established in regions with favorable energy production conditions. While Germany is reluctant to other than ´green´ routes, we expect blue, turquois, even yellow routes to generate hydrogen will bridge the time between soon P2X fuel demand and green supply availability.

123

Conference Paper N2 Capture N2

ENERGY CARRIER: Hydrogen Ammonia

Carbon free

Methane, Propane, … Methanol, Ethanol, …

DME, OME

Carbon-based

Diesel-like HC CO2 Altern. CO2-sources Power, Biomass, breweries ...

CO2 Capture

3) Sustainable ´green´ Fuel Production Routes

In marine applications, several parameters have to be taken into account to determine the most favorable fuel for the respective application. Total-cost-of-ownership (TCO) plays a major role in all industrial marine applications, this is fuel cost, cost of the vessel propulsion system incl. fuel storage and the impact on the vessel design and freight capacity. A 2030 production cost prognosis for the most favorable fuels for marine applications is shown in image 4. Taxation of GHG emission is not included in the prognosis, it is expected to be a major cost factor.

4) Production cost prognosis 2030 (based on ´green´ production)

*) Hank (2020) Sustainable Energy Fuels[Fraunhofer ISE]

Tank systems on-board of the vessel are an important factor to select the respective P2X fuel. We consider the space need and the storage temperature most relevant criteria. Taking the evolution of fuel cost and of GHG reduction requirements into account, we expect retrofits of engine technology and of the tank system retrofits over the lifetime of a vessel.

124

Conference Paper

10kWh=

Diesel/HFO at ambient cond.

7,6l

4,2l

1,7l

1,0l

LNG at -162°C

Liquefied H2 at -253°C

2,0l

1,9l

Methanol at ambient cond.

Hydrogen at 700bar

Easiest to produce

Ammonia at -33°C or 10bar

Easiest to tansport

5) Fuel Storage & Condition Aspects

The use case and the duty cycle of the application needs to be assessed to decide on the optimum P2X fuel, too. The bandwidth of marine applications is large, it ranges from short distance operation with transient, intermittend load (tugs, local ferries) to ocean-going vessels. Not to forget: the availability and the cost level of the respective P2X fuel will play a roll. Redundant Diesel fuelling is going to play a role in all applications with global operation. Hydrogen Regional shipping

Long Range Marine Trains

utilization

Efficiency of fuel production / reconversion

high

short Requirements for PtX fuel

Methanol

Power plants with imported PtX fuels

Short Term energy storage / peaker plant

low

Ammonia

Seasonal energy storage Range

long

Ease of transport & storage 6) Application map of P2X-Fuels

Fuel processing and energy conversion After assessing the different fuel options with their implications on cost, storage and characteristics in relation to the use case, we are now focusing on the energy conversion as such. While batteries have their place in all applications with a low range and local operation, the fuel cell may become an attractive option overall. In marine applications, these are the main characteristics of low temperature fuel cells (PEM: polymer electrolyte membrane) in relation to ICE´s: Fuel cells  High efficiencies in all power ranges  High investment cost  Lifetime  Fuel purity & flexibility 125

Conference Paper Internal combustion engines  Higher efficiencies at full load and for larger engines  Low investment cost  Flex fuel capability  Vessel&engine conversion fossil fuel to P2X feasible

7) Prime Mover Technology: Efficiency Characteristics Fuel Cell vs. ICE

We do not include the solide oxide fuel cell in the assessment here, however, we consider them a longterm attractive option in long-range vessels. The combustion process with its requirements to the fuel admission is in the focus here: The combustion of P2X fuels in engines is ignited by a spark plug or by a Diesel pilot injection into the combustion chamber. The P2X fuel, it is in either gas or liquid state, can be dosed into the intake port of the engine (at about 10bar) or injected into the cylinder at pressures up to 500bar. Homogeneous combustion systems deliver a lower NOx emission output due to the lower combustion temperature, but they are limited in efficiency by unwanted autoignition (knock) and by lower volumetric efficiency of the engine. High pressure injection of the P2X enables a Diesel-like combustion without these penalties, but needs exhaust aftertreatment via an SCR system in most cases.

8) Combustion Processes in Combustion Engines

We are showing the aspects of the the fuelling and the combustion system in image 9 for the hydrogen P2X example. There is not a single perfect solution and also here, we recognize the induvial route´s suitability for the different marine engine use case.

126

Conference Paper

9) Combustion Processes in Combustion Engines

High pressure injection -so a Diesel like combustion (diffusion controlled)- delivers best efficiency and power density once the fuel is available at an injection pressure of 400…600bar. But only for green methane, for ammonia and for methanol this is an economic opportunity: Compression energy need negatively impacts the overall system efficiency. The opportunity of liquid hydrogen is discussed for several mobile applications, however, the requirement to store hydrogen at near-Zero K temperature is a challenge, too. Compressor Power per Cyl. Output Isentropic compression (single-stage)

Compressor power rel. to engine power

7% 6% 5% 4%

100à600bar Tank filling 20%

3% 2%

0à2200bar

0à600bar

Isothermal compression

0à600bar 0à600bar

0à600bar

1% 0%

Diesel

LNG

LH2

Compr.H2

Methanol

Ammonia

10) Effort/power to pressurize fossil and P2X fuels for high pressure fuel systems

We would now like to dig deeper into the high pressure technology: the injection pressure needs to be higher then the peak cylinder pressure, on-top, the respective fuel needs to be spread in the combustion chamber at favorable conditions to mix with the combustion air. In combination with LNG (either fossil or ´green´), such injection technology is in the marine market today. Ignited by a pilot Diesel fuel jet, the HPDI technology offers excellent efficiency, power density, robustness plus the redundant Diesel mode. The Diesel-like combustion principle burns the fuel with near-zero fuel slip. Therefore, it offers an opportunity to fully deliver the GHG benefit methane stochiometry has in relation to Diesel. Bottomline, a perfect opportunity to reduce marine ICE GHG emission in combination with the widely availability of LNG. The principle of such injection technology is shown in image 11.

127

Conference Paper

Diesel-pilot PtX-fuel

11) High pressure Dual Fuel Injector:

The competing technologies of medium pressure injection (into the compression cycle of the engine) and of low pressure gas admission are shown in image 12. Medium Pressure Direct Injection (MPDI) have these pro´s and con´s: + Balance between complexity and flexibility of combustion process + Best compromise for gaseous fuels (compressor power vs. short injection durations) + Good fuel flexibility – Separate ignition source necessary  ➔ additional space in cylinder head required Port Fuel Injection (PFI) is either a gas admission valve (gaseous fuel) or a low pressure liquid fuel injector with these pro´s and con´s: + Direct electric actuation + Robust system + Virtual Sensor (in situ feedback of valve position) ─ – Cold start behaviour – Back fire (esp. for Hydrogen)

128

Conference Paper

12) Medium Pressure Direct Injection (MPDI) and Port Fuel Injection (PFI)

Woodward has the dosing technology (SOGAV) or the injection equipment (Common Rail injectors) in the portfolio already today for spark ignited gas engines, for Dual Fuel engines or for Diesel engines. But there are modifications necessary to cope with different fuel parameters such as lubricity, ignition limits, volumetric energy density and chemical attack. Combustion control imposes new requirements, too. In the current phase of advanced engineering work and first customer applications, we are adapting well proven technology to the respective fuel and combustion system requirements. Fuel supply systems will need significant modifications, too, in fact we will see modified fuel pumps, pressure regulators and flow control valves compared to our current portfolio. Combining the dominating application requirements in the marine highspeed and the marine medium speed market, our portfolio of gas admission and injector products will offer competitive solutions to progress into sustainable ICE operation. We are developing selected routes of fuel injection technology for the lowspeed market, too.

13) Net-Zero ICE P2X Overview

How do we expect the market to evolve? IMO mandates these GHG targets for new vessels: EEDI phase2 (Jan 2020…Dec. 2024: GHG -20% vs. 2008) EEDI phase 3 (2025+: -30% vs. 2008) • EEDI calculation method defined/in place • Submission of EEDI level to classification societies • Alternative fuel carbon intensity defined • EEXI (existing ships) legislation defined

129

Conference Paper However, after the MECP76 conference (June 2021), it is still a regulation w/o teeth: • •

Consensus on market based measures Deep split on CO2-tax (100$/t proposed)

And there are requirements to existing vessels define/implemented, too. While the enforcement of rules and consequences remains unclear, we recognize frontrunners taking action now. In the marine sector, the IMO target drives change already: Maersk, the largest commercial marine fleet operator, announced to purchase every new vessel with methanole-capability 2023 onwards. Japan with its future high dependency on imported green fuels launched a significant funding program to develop hydrogen marine engines. And we expect the GHG reduction targets of regions and nations supported by significant public pressure and GHG taxation to drive transitional change. This is not only relevant for new vessel builds, but also for existing vessels. We are showing the most relevant options to retrofit existing engines and fuel systems onboard of the vessel to a final green solution.

14) Transition options to retrofit existing engines and fuel supply systems towards green technology

Conclusions These are our conclusions in relation to future green marine industry: • Significant changes in energy sector will enable a hydrogen economy • P2X fuels based on green hydrogen (in an intermittent phase: blue or turquois) offer attractive decarbonization options for the marine sector • Choice of the right P2X-fuel depends on characteristics of application (especially range) • Choice of conversion technology (FC/ICE) depends on utilization profile and power demand of application • For ICE´s, the combustion and fuel system direction has to balance efficiency, power density, system cost and fuel storage in the respective application • Comprehensive Woodward portfolio of gas admission and fuelling solutions progressed into customer application phase • Fuel bridging solutions allow future proof investments via transition/retrofit towards green P2X fuel solution

130

Conference Paper

FRANK HARTEVELD General Manager Sales & Strategic Development, Fuel Gas Supply Systems, Wärtsilä

131

The Gas Experts since 1980 THE GAS EXPERTS

Innovations for Greener Shipping

* Image provided by Crowley Maritime Corporation

Clean Fuel for Future TGE Marine Gas Engineering provides innovative fuel gas systems worldwide since 2013. Solutions are tailored for the needs of different segments from merchant to passenger vessels. As a leading contractor for the design and construction of fuel gas systems in the Marine and Offshore industry, TGE Marine is your best partner for LNG-, alternative and future fuels.  LNG fuel gas storage tanks: IMO Type C vacuum & foam insulated • Fuel gas systems for 2- and 4-stroke engines • LNG, Ethane & LPG as fuel • Control, monitoring and alarm system with advanced PID control • Global project management and service teams

www.tge-marine.com

Fuel Gas System

Newbuilds Retrofitting

SESSION 5.1

LNG’s Evolution

Conference Paper

Future-proof shipping is available now

ALEXANDRE TOCATLIAN Head of Business Development EMEA, Commercial Division GTT

BIOGRAPHY Alexandre Tocatlian graduated in 2011 at Ecole Centrale de Lyon, with a specialization in Mechanical Engineering at Imperial College London. He joined GTT in January 2014 as a Technical Project Manager on LNGCs and FSRUs projects. In September 2016, he joined the LNG Fuel Division, as a Product Line Manager for passenger ships market, then from July 2019 he managed the Product Lines team, delivering solutions for all types of LNG-fuelled ships and LNG bunker vessels. Since July 2021, Alexandre heads the Business Development team covering all GTT products and services for Europe, Russia, Middle-East, Africa and India.

ABSTRACT IMO regulations effective from 1rst January 2020 impose ships to use new technologies or new fuels in order to reduce SOx emissions. Further IMO regulations will also focus on GHG emissions. Unlike the existing and immediately applicable solutions, such as scrubbers and compliant fuels, use of LNG as fuel will comply with these new requirements. Among the main challenges with LNG is the volumic energetic density. In order to keep an equivalent autonomy, LNG fuel tanks will occupy twice more space onboard than HFO. Consequently, using LNG as Fuel requires some vessel arrangement modifications. Particularly on tankers, bulkers and container vessels whose architectures have been optimized for cargo transportation, the challenge is to locate fuel tanks in a way that the impact on vessel general dimensions and performance are minimized while the targeted cargo capacity is kept and commercial or operational constraints respected. In order to comply with unclear but expected further IMO regulations on GHG emissions, GTT offer multiple pathways for decarbonization, through fuel storage flexibility with its first-of-akind ammonia ready membrane tanks. Indeed, this future-proof storage solution uses Mark III technology, which could accommodate LNG, Bio-LNG, e-LNG as well as e-NH3. A first series of large dual fuel container vessels using 12k cbm LNG membrane tanks was ordered in 2021 with specific features in order to get the Ammonia Ready notation of DNV Classification society. The construction of this promising project will start in 2022, offering new perspectives to ship-owners. Besides, ships will benefit from the latest GTT digital solutions including Ascenz and Marorka. One plateform for voyage, trim and machinery monitoring and optimisation, specific LNG modules and emissions reporting. With significant cut in CO2 emissions and fuel bills as result.

134

Conference Paper

LNG as a transition fuel

FRANK HARTEVELD General Manager Sales & Development, Fuel Gas Supply Systems, Wärtsilä Marine Power SEA-LNG member of the board, representing Wärtsilä

BIOGRAPHY With more than 30 years business leading and sales experience in the marine, shipbuilding and oil & gas industry, about 15 years ago, in the very early phase of introducing LNG as a marine fuel, Frank Harteveld started his explorations on greenifying the shipping sector. A strong awareness of the need for creating “cleaner horizons” and thereby contributing to a more sustainable society, made Frank to strongly advocate the further introduction of renewable fuels for shipping – all to be based on realistic, but ambitious pathways. Considering the United Nations Sustainable Targets, it’s evident the industry can only achieve these targets through collaboration, innovation and address these challenges by an integrated solution approach. As an important part of many global logistic chains, the shipping sector is a key driver in the energy transition process, while on technological side often very much differing from onshore industry activities. The need for messaging stakeholders and policy makers these important differences, is a specific task to ensure the understanding of shipping business challenges and develop compliant sustainable maritime logistic chains. Wärtsilä Marine Power is one of the core business streams of the Wärtsilä Corporation, having its headquarters located in Helsinki - Finland, focusing on marine propulsion systems. The company mission is to power a sustainable future, by Wärtsilä’s fuel strategy, with highest attention on minimizing the environmental impact, both onshore and marine industry. As a leading supplier of innovative products and integrated solutions, connected by smart technologies, these solutions do meet the highest sustainable profile and customer needs. In addition to his current position in Wärtsilä, Frank is representing the company as a member of the board in the SEA-LNG coalition. Frank graduated as Bsc in 1987 from The Hague Technical High School, having an Electrical Energy background and has been in Wärtsilä Corporation since 2012.

135

Conference Paper PAPER 1. Introduction For over the last two decades we are facing in the shipping industry a transformation process where it is not only anymore about “technology on board”, but focus has changed completely to “everything around the vessel”. In the 20th century we made clear to people outside of shipping business that a ship is a “world in itself” and cannot be simply compared with onshore solutions. Overseas transportation of goods is nowadays part of a complex logistic chain, expecting also to minimize harming nature, human wellbeing or impacting climate change. There are no arguments why shipping should not contribute to the creation of “cleaner horizons”, but we must realize that the operational environment of shipping remains a different world, with often need for other technological solutions. When exploring the trajectory of future renewable fuels to be used on board of ships, meeting the energy storage and consumption demands of their shipping schedules, there is no doubt ship owners are forced to make compromises to implement these new fuels. The compactness of a ship carrying goods or people from A to B, preferably in the most efficient way with lowest energy consumption, cannot simply be compared with any onshore spacious environment. Practice learns that any potential future fuel, replacing usual fossil fuels, will have its consequences on deadweight tonnage, cargo volume or passenger capacity. Below fuel property differences of the potential renewable fuels do give an indication of the volumetric energy density for the various options. This does not include the storage methods of these fuels, where dependent on the fuel, the gross bunker volume can be multiple times to fit the energy per cubic meter mentioned in this table. Indicative gross bunker volumes are presented in the image below this table.

136

Conference Paper

Aside of difficult decisions that needs to be taken by ship owners about future proof investments, financial and operational challenges, there is one easy conclusion that can be made: “If there is no willingness to compromise, then ship owners need to carefully think-over their competitive position and remaining lifetime of their assets, and the existence of their company”. Whether it is fair to put this all on the shoulders of ship owners, is not an easy question to answer. But obvious is that someone needs to pay the bill to make change happen.

2. Cleaner, but more complex Entering this new time age of decarbonising our global shipping fleet is raising also the question on if the traditional way we are building vessels still can be continued. The very strict environmental requirements asking for close interaction between equipment on board to optimize vessel’s energy performance. Compliance is defined around complex regulatory requirements, where a product-oriented delivery approach might fit today, but with a high risk that tomorrow there is need for more data exchange between various equipment on board to meet these requirements. In addition to on board challenges, which should be more approached as integration solutions to optimize overall performance and safeguard asset values, connectivity in the logistic chains these vessels are operating, is becoming of extreme importance. As the selection of ship owners’ new fuel to feed their fleet is already an extreme difficult decision to take, they might be confronted with a starting period where these new fuels are limited available, and blends are to be fed to the on-board propulsion and power generation systems. New engine technology is under development to deal with these fuel mixes, but with the introduction of drop-in fuels, new questions do raise about performance and emission compliance. In order keep control over these critical operational parameters, it is evident there is need for a full understanding of the fuel properties of the blend being fed to the engines. Monitoring of the fuel quality becomes a “must” as a feed forward input for the complex combustion control algorithms of the engines.

137

Conference Paper MAKE CHANGE HAPPEN REQUIRES A DIFFERENT APPROACH Lifecycle Agreement Smart solutions & AI Cloud-based tools Expert insights & performance optimization

Integrated Solution Delivery Wärtsilä responsibility and commitment

Product Delivery Wärtsilä equipment is delivered according to the agreed schedule, quality and budget. 8

PUBLIC

28.9.2021

Wärtsilä optimized interfacing and integration Unburdening increased complexity of ship systems De-risking and supporting the success

Wärtsilä World of Future Fuels and Blends

With the increased complexity at introduction of the future fuels and blends, another important aspect is related to safety matters, where some of these fuels are toxic, requiring thereby more complex storage conditioning and processing. The safety concept is to be based on the overall system solution to avoid any “fall between two chairs”, causing severe or fatal situations on board the vessel.

3. Control to perform In today’s world every gram of fuel saved will lead to lower emissions. This demands advanced computing algorithms and fast feed forward data exchange to control the combustion engines powering the vessel. The fuel system is built around a storage and conditioning system, where the other main function is related to fuel preparation and distribution. Design characteristics of the storage system are for an important part determining the complexity of the fuel gas supply system. Understanding the properties of the fuel remains key to optimize the overall energy performance. This is not only limited to the combustion engine itself, but also to the fuel system, where various fuels are stored under boiling condition with strict limitations to avoid any venting to atmosphere, which can also be considered as “wasting energy”. To avoid these situations, the fuel system is closely communicating with consumers to understand loading conditions and take an important role in the energy optimization of the integrated solution. Automation and smart solutions do play an important to optimize vessel performance and keep control over vessels’ emissions.

4. Financing the future shipping The decarbonisation dilemma for the existing fleet is even coming with more challenges than for new build, where of cause a major part of the decision process is all related to the expected remaining lifetime of these vessel. In the base there are two options, as shown in below slide:

138

Conference Paper

Both options do imply a set of risks to be carefully evaluated, considering that the environmental pressure is moving faster to the accelerate awareness of the need “to act right now”. Banking industry and shipfinancing instutues are guided by the various IMO enforced environmental indexes on top of their own portfolio of sustainable targets, where these goals are preferably also to be taken over by their customer base. Any competitive disadvantages for a ship owner who decides “not to act”, will indirectly have a negative image effect on the lender. Another important aspect is that “doing nothing” is leading to direct wealth destruction with a potential risk for lack of new build capacity and its economical consequences. Fuel conversions of young vessels therefore needs to be encouraged, realizing the big difference in carbon footprint for a new build versus retrofitting a vessel.

5. Future fuels Decarbonisation and the fight against climate change are entering a brand-new chapter. As the world moves towards power systems based on 100% renewable energy sources, fresh solutions are needed to strike a proper balance in the global energy production. Technologies for replacing fossils exist already today. With a carbon neutral society finally on the horizon, Power-to-X is one of the most exciting game-changers in the energy industry today. Basically, Power-to-X is a process which allows the creation of carbon neutral and renewable synthetic fuels by capturing CO₂ from the air and combining it with hydrogen. Hydrogen can be used ‘as is’ in many applications – but that’s not all hydrogen can do to shake up the energy and shipping markets. Politicians, NGO, environmentalists like to talk about the “hydrogen economy”, but this doesn not mean we are ending-up with “one fuel fits all”. For the shipping business ocean steamers, “the trucks of the sea”, hydrogen as a fuel will come with an extraordinary complexity to carry the goods around the globe. The technical complexity is leading to very high CAPEX cost, while OPEX costs will basically drive-up shipment cost to an ultra-extraordinary level, all related to the conditioning of the fuel on board the vessel. With the additional energy required to keep hydrogen at cryogenic conditions, a lot of additional expensive renewable fuel shall be needed. Power-to-X can be used to produce fuels such as synthetic methane, methanol, ammonia,

139

Conference Paper kerosene, gasoline and diesel. Besides of the availability of these Power-to-X fuels, there are other important questions around infrastructure and pricing of these fuels. In an early phase of commercial availability of these fuels, another question is “which industry is paying the highest price for a scarce fuel – to meet their sustainable targets?” Various OEM’s are running extensive programs to explore the future fuels for shipping. So far “the silver bullet” has not be found yet. It will take time and that raises the question on “what to do now?”.

6. Starting the energy transition right now (CONFERENCE PAPER) Even if the molecules (grey, blue, green - either fossil, being produced from fossil fuels or renewables) are there to fuel the propulsion and power systems on board vessels, especially for methanol, ammonia and hydrogen we are only in “stage 1 – the pioneering phase” of developing the technology platforms for the various areas of the fuel chain. The base for gaseous fuel combustion is set since the introduction of the dual-fuel (DF) engines more than 20 years ago, creating a technology platform with a high degree of fuel flexibility. In the first decade of the 21st century the awareness of climate change got more and more attention, where at the same time also local emissions restrictions were moving ship owners’ focus and challenges. Driven by lowering the vessels overall emission profile, LNG was seen as an alternative fuel, contributing both to lower local and global emissions. Unfortunately, the global economic downturn has not been in favour of boosting-up to “cleaner horizons” for the global shipping fleet and this also influenced the growth of LNG fueled vessels. When the tide was turning in the last 5-6 years, in combination with changes of the onshore gas distribution policies of many countries, LNG suddenly became an attractive fuel, powering vessels by mature internal combustion engine (ICE) technology. There are still challenges at OEM side to overcome, mainly related to i.e. methane slip, but for over the last years manufacturers have achieved enormous reductions, bringing the emission levels down to levels, giving all confidence to next steps negligible values. Considering the hydrocarbon decarbonisation route, the next step is “biomethane”, produced from a large variety of waste sources and being the base for creating a circular economy. Further steps in creating circularity are linked to Power-to-X generated synthetic methane in combination with carbon capturing. Most elegant when observing greenifying the hydrocarbon route is that it comes with improved fuel quality, as the liquefaction process requires preferably pure methane. This given, “the hydrocarbon route will bring you easily up to 2050, without any adaptions to be made on your on-board propulsion and power generation plant”.

140

Conference Paper

LNG as fuel on NOrdic 1,400 TEU Container Vessels

DIETER HILMES Senior Sales Manager TGE Marine Gas Engineering

BIOGRAPHY Dieter Hilmes is a Senior Sales Manager at TGE Marine Gas Engineering GmbH, a long established market leader for the design and construction of cargo handling systems for ships and offshore units carrying liquefied cryogenic gases (LNG, LPG, and petrochemical gases) as well as LNG/LPG/Ethane fuel gas systems for merchant vessels. And a pioneer in the dynamic field of LNG bunkering and LNG-to-power solutions. During his time working in the combustion engine business, he gained fundamental experience as Sales Engineer for gas- and dual-fuel engines and fuel gas preparation systems. He joined the Business Development & Sales Department of TGE Marine as Engineering in 2019. His main focus is the FSRU business and the LNG fuel gas systems, dealing in close cooperation with ship owners, engine makers and shipyards. Dieter Hilmes, an educated mechanist, holds a diploma as certified engineer of Fachschule Maschinentechnik Osnabrück (Germany) and a certificate as Master Professional of Technical Management from the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce (CCI).

ABSTRACT Already in 2016 the German ship owner Nordic Hamburg, together with Finish operator Containerships, placed an order at Guangzhou Wenchong Shipyard Co. Ltd. for four LNG powered 1,400 TEU Container vessels. Three years later two further vessels have been contracted and are in the meantime in service. TGE Marine Gas Engineering GmbH have been selected as supplier for the Fuel-Gas System and the LNG storage tanks. Nordic was one of the first owners who decided to use LNG as fuel for their new builds. The Hamburg based owner was aware that to tackle new emission limits given by IMO starting with 2020, ship owners and operators need to find the best solution in order to be compliant with new regulations. LNG is the technically and commercially best way to tackle emissions. Consequently a dual-fuel engine with gas mode and additional gas equipment was installed on the vessel. The WinGD 2-stroke main engine 7RT-FLEX-50DF, with an MCR of 10,800 kW at 124 rpm was selected for this newbuilding project. WinGD also provided the gas valve unit and other hardware associated with the engine. One Wärtsilä auxiliary genset 6L20DF was installed providing a secondary option to handle the Boil-off-Gas (BOG) stream from the storage tanks. This ensures a reliable and safe operation without BOG release under all operational circumstances. 141

Conference Paper

As it is always one of the main questions to identify the best place for installation of the LNG storage tanks, this was discussed between owner, designer and TGE Marine in an early project phase. The main challenge is to use the ship hull to the best possible extend for cargo and not for the fuel. The density of LNG is about half of the density of fuel oil at comparable heating value. Therefore it is crucial to minimize footprint of tanks and LNG equipment. The most widely used IMO Type C tanks for LNG fuel gas application are always design in some kind of variation of a cylindrical form, either as single cylinder, bilobe or trilobe in various orientations. With the effective ratio of net fuel storage volume is always challenging for space optimization. By use of conical and bilobe and tribole tank shapes the ship shape can actually be utilized quite efficient, but it remains an individual optimization for certain ship type, which do not have sufficient space above deck. For the Nordic vessel a design with 3 vertical installed fuel gas tanks with a total capacity of 690 m³ has been chosen. The fuel gas preparation room was directly placed on top of those tanks. This arrangement gives the highest volume efficiency and the amount of containers lost is reduced to a minimum. The benefit of using type C tanks is their elevated design pressure, above atmospheric, as opposed to prismatic or membrane tanks. If the gas pressure increases there are up to a certain limit no actions required, which is defined as the pressure built-up capacity. This will cause a great flexibility in relation to the BOG handling and on the other side time savings at bunkering operations. When bunkering a type C tank, the LNG pump from the bunker vessel pushes LNG into vessels storage tanks and if that is done fast the pressure increase is quite fast due to the heat ingress from the bunkering hoses, pumps, etc. If the vessel is equipped with prismatic or membrane tanks the maximum design pressure is around 700 mbar, which is slightly above atmospheric pressure. In this case the bunkering flow rate needs to be significantly reduced.

142

Conference Paper

This project was from a permission point of view also very challenging. The vessels were all classed by ABS. At the time when the decision was taken to use LNG as fuel on non-gas carriers there were no IMO regulations in place. The first vessels of this series was built under IMO resolution MSC.285(86) an “Interim Guideline on Safety for Natural Gas Fuelled Engine Installations in Ships”. The interim guidelines require a more thorough risk assessment for the whole design than IGF code (which was established later on) limits the risk assessment requirements to items that are not specifically described with its requirements. The involved parties solved these issues finally with great success. The engine installed was one of the first dual-fuel WinGD engines, which is a 2 stroke engine based on the Otto cycle. The engine is working with a variable fuel-gas supply pressure for different engines loads. The TGE Marine fuel-gas system is designed to follow the pressure demand of the engine. This has been achieved with extensive dynamic simulation in the engineering phase and proven during operation. The beauty of this system is that due to lower supply pressure at engine part load conditions the energy demand is decreasing. This will end up in lower energy consumption and savings for the operator and optimum engine operation. The last vessels of this series was delivered under pandemic conditions in 2020. Despite this special situation the vessels where successful delivered to the full satisfaction due to a great commitment of all parties. Since delivery of those vessels they have been involved in quite a few “industry firsts” such as first bunkering of a container vessel in Rotterdam. Last but not least it is worth to mention that the fuel-gas system is designed to use CO2 neutral gas (SNG) as fuel. The installed technology is capable of doing this and the ships can set a path to carbon neutrality.

143

Conference Paper

The progress of the LNG fuel systems over the years and further development and prosects

RENÉ SEJER LAURSEN Director, Fuels & Technology ABS

BIOGRAPHY Mr. René Sejer Laursen Holds an M.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering from the Technical University of Denmark in 1989. Until 1992 he was employed at Risoe National Laboratory where he worked with super critical oxidation technology. Until 1994 he worked with waste incineration boilers at Aalborg Industries and until 1998 he worked with drilling equipment for the Greenland Ice Core Investigations Project and research equipment at the Niels Bohr Institute of Copenhagen. He joined MAN B&W Diesel in 1998, and in early 2004 he started in the ME-GI project group as Product Manager. In 2010 he was promoted to Promotion Manager, looking after the market for gas fueled merchant ships and LNG carriers, including the market for engines using new fuels such like ethane, methanol, LPG and ammonia. Have succeeded introducing LNG in 2012, methanol in 2013, ethane in 2014 and LPG in 2018 to the marine market. In 2020 Rene was working on the Mar-e fuel project, investigating e-fuels alternatives for the marine. The Mar-e-fuel project is initiated by Torben Anker Sorensen and is a cooperation between APMM, DFDS, OMT, Denmark Technical University and MAN. In the mid-2020 René joined ABS in Copenhagen, working in the Global Sustainability Group as Director with responsibility for fuels and new technology. The task for the sustainability group within ABS is to support and assist shipowner in their selection of the right technology mix for their fleet, so the shipowner is well prepared to meet coming emission regulations and staying competitive.

ABSTRACT There is more than 50 years of experience in using LNG or Natural Gas as fuel on ships, primarily because LNG carriers have been burning boiloff cargo as fuel. Although the first LNG cargo transportation started as early as in the late 1950’s with M/V Methane Pioneer being the first LNG Carrier, the first LNG fueled LNG carrier was built in 1964 and since then the vast majority of the LNG carriers have been using propulsion boilers and engines to utilise the Boil-off Gas (BOG) generated in their cargo tanks as a means for controlling their pressure and temperature, as required by the IGC Code. For many years the standard propulsion system selected for the

144

Conference Paper LNG carriers has been the Steam Turbine propulsion since the steam generating boilers had been the sole option available for many years in order to burn the excess BOG from the cargo tanks. Currently more than 230 ships are sailing with Steam Turbine propulsion consisting more than 30% of the existing fleet. This number includes a small number of ships using the alternatives of Reheat Steam and Ultra Steam turbine that were developed at some point over the years. The dual fuel engine technology introduced to the marine market in 2005 mainly through the medium speed DF generator engines and the Dual Fuel Diesel Electric (DFDE) propulsion system applied on LNG carriers. These electrical installations are of the type known as “Integrated Full Electric Propulsion” (IFEP), which incorporates a power management system designed to control the load sharing between the generators assuring that all gensets are running near their optimum efficiency. The generator capacity is sufficient to carry all the loads for vessel essential services, normal services, minimum comfortable conditions of habitability and the propulsion loads providing the required minimum speed for the vessel with sufficient redundancy. The higher efficiency of this propulsion system compared to the previous Steam Turbines and the potential inability of these systems to handle excess boiloff pushed the developments of new Cargo Containment Systems (CCS) reducing the BOR in the cargo tanks and also led the introduction of the Gas Combustion Unit onboard ships for the safe consumption of the excess Boil-Off Gas in cases where the propulsion or electric loads on the ship are low. During the years of the LNG carriers design development a concept with the use of Gas turbines and electric propulsion onboard LNG carriers was also proposed but never found any actual application. A hybrid propulsion system with Steam Turbine and DFDE system has also been developed over the last years (STaGE), which has found application on small number of LNG carriers. In the middle of the past decade (around 2014/15) the first 2 stroke DF propulsion engine was introduced in the shipping industry and this has been the key to unlock the use of LNG as fuel on large cargo ships other than the LNG carriers. The use of LNG as fuel had already started being adopted in the early 2000’s, but it had mainly found application on small scale ships operating in specific areas and mainly using 4stroke medium speed engines of limited capacities. The higher efficiency of the 2stroke DF engines, which depending on the engine technology can reach the same levels as a slow speed Diesel engine, made LNG fuel more attractive to large cargo ship types like containerships and tankers, and when looking into the current LNG fueled ships orderbook (all ship types) it is important to note that the LNG carriers account for only the 28% of the new ships that are currently on order or under construction that will use LNG as fuel. The LNG shipping industry and its use of Gas as fuel onboard LNG carriers have a tremendous safety record as no important incidents related to the cargo or its use as fuel have ever been reported on this industry over the more than 50 years of operation. There is already long experience with most of the LNG dual fuel and gas fuel technologies. In addition, the risks associated with the use of LNG/NG onboard ships and with Ship to Ship bunkering operations are now better understood, but there are still some key differences and design/operational challenges that need to be considered when assessing the use of LNG as fuel on ships other than LNG carriers. The integration of the LNG fuel system on other ship types brings extra design challenges relative to the location of the LNG fuel tanks and the fuel gas handling equipment, the routing of the piping, the dedicated bunkering station and the vent and safety system arrangements. On the operational side the crew awareness, training and certification are considered as the most critical. This paper is making a chronological flash back on the use of the LNG and Natural Gas as fuel on the shipping industry, highlighting the good practices and lessons learned from the long time experience and describes the technology progress on the Dual Fuel engines and the fuel gas supply systems over the years. It also gives the latest developments on this equipment and the challenges that the use of LNG as fuel currently faces with respect to compliance with IMO CO2 and GHG emission goals and what are the prospects of this technology for use with other alternative fuels in the future like Biogas, Synthetic Gas or even Ammonia. 145

www.cargoconnections.net

ONE OF THE ONLY

EXCLUSIVE

FREIGHT FORWARDER NETWORKS

IN THE WORLD ESTABLISHED IN 2000 ISO 9001 & ISO 14001 CERTIFIED

Cargo Connections provides independent forwarders access to a global network of agents who can handle their shipments, whilst working professionally under a strict Code of Conduct. The ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certified organisation offers a Restricted Representation policy, which means membership will only be offered to a limited number of agents per country.

NEED SPECIALIST PARTNERS TO HANDLE ALL YOUR FREIGHT FORWARDING NEEDS? Then join the international network with 100+ of the world’s top independent freight forwarders, located in 100+ countries, to increase your business. UNIVERSAL FREIGHT ORGANISATION

www.ufofreight.com

Linking Together Independent Freight Forwarders Over 1200 freight forwarders from more than 140 countries use Freightbook as a low cost platform to promote their company services on a global scale. For instant inclusion in our database, simply register online for £50 per year.

Beneﬁts of Registration 1. Instant inclusion in our online database 2. Your own profile page including display of your company logo 3. Quote Request leads to your email (approved by our staff to avoid spam)

WORKING TOGETHER IN OVER 100+ COUNTRIES

4. Dedicated online news/public relations service

WE HAD BEEN LOOKING FOR A NETWORK WITH A DIFFERENT ATTITUDE AND APPROACH. AFTER SEVERAL TALKS WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF PCN, WE REALIZED THAT THE ORGANIZATION PERFECTLY MATCHED OUR VISION OF WHAT A NETWORK NEEDS TO OFFER IT’S MEMBERS; A DEDICATED, SMALL TEAM OF PROFESSIONALS THAT SIMPLY HELPS TO BRING TOGETHER THE BEST EXPERTS IN SHIPPING PROJECT CARGO.

5. Your contact details will be listed in the FB Index, sent monthly to all advertisers 6. Direct hyperlink to your website (improving your own search engine results) 7. Manage your own company profile page with automatic updates 8. Ability to post ratings and reviews for fellow advertisers

CENTRAL OCEANS ASIA LTD SINGAPORE

9. Your company will also be found on our Smartphone Service m.freightbook.net

www.freightbook.net

www.projectcargonetwork.com

4in1_Advert_Update110619.indd 1

12/06/2019 12:00

SESSION 5.2

Methanol

Talusia Universal

The single cylinder oil solution for all 2020 compliant fuels. Find out more at totallubmarine.com/tu

Talusia Universal is approved by MAN Energy Solutions and WIN GD.

04459 TotalEnergies Talusia 186x278.indd 1

08/10/2021 15:55

Conference Paper

Decarbonnizing shipping and the role of green methanol

BERIT HINNEMANN Head of Decarbonisation Business Development, A.P. Møller - Mærsk A/S

BIOGRAPHY Berit Hinnemann currently works as the Head of Decarbonisation Business Development for Maersk, where she and her team develop the supply of the green fuels for Maersk’s decarbonization plans, especially the supply of green methanol for the announced container vessels going into operation from 2023 onwards. Berit Hinnemann graduated with an M.Sc. in Physics from the University Duisburg-Essen in 2000 and with a Ph.D. in Physics (catalysis) from the Technical Denmark in 2004 with a focus on ammonia synthesis and hydrotreating catalysis. After postdoctoral positions in academic research at the Technical University of Denmark and at Princeton University, she joined Haldor Topsoe in 2006. After some years in research and development, she worked as Business Development Manager for several of Haldor Topsoe’s technologies. This was followed by several years as Technology Scouting Manager, developing and running Haldor Topsoe’s technology scouting program. From 2017-2020, Berit worked as Head of Global Intelligence in Haldor Topsoe’s Corporate Strategy department, driving the corporate market forecasting, competitor benchmarking as well as technology evaluations and due diligence. In April 2020, Berit joined Maersk as Senior Innovation Project Manager within Maersk’s Future Fuels program. When Maersk established a dedicated Decarbonisation team in March 2021, Berit took up her current position as Head of Decarbonisation Business Development, developing green fuel supply and driving engagement with green fuels project developers and suppliers. The upscaling of green fuels production is one of the key challenges for Maersk’s decarbonization plans and Berit and her colleagues are working intensively on driving these developments.

ABSTRACT Maersk’s ambition is to lead the way in decarbonizing global logistics. Recently the 6th assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made the state of urgency crystal clear, we are in a climate emergency and must act in this decade to deliver on the Paris Agreement goals. So we are embracing the challenge because it is the only right thing to do, working on solving the practical, technical and safety challenges inherent in the carbon neutral fuels we need in the future.

149

Conference Paper

Back in 2018, we announced our ambition to have a carbon-neutral fleet in 2050, at the time this was considered a moonshot. Today we see it as a much more achievable target to reach, fast tracked by advances in technology and increasing customer demand– more than half of our top 200 customers have set or are in the process of setting ambitious science-based or zero carbon targets. We continue to explore several carbon neutral fuel pathways, with methanol (e-methanol and bio-methanol), alcohol-lignin blends and ammonia as the primary fuel candidates for the future, along with the use of biofuels. There is no single silver bullet solution and we expect multiple fuel solutions to exist alongside each other in the future. In February 2021, we announced our first carbon-neutral liner vessel, to be launched in 2023 – seven years ahead of our initial 2030 ambition. We also announced that all future Maersk owned new buildings will have dual fuel technology installed, enabling either carbon neutral operations or operation on standard very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO). This carbon-neutral liner vessel will trade in Northern Europe and fly the Danish flag. The capacity is 2100 TEU and the vessel will consume around 10,000 tons of green methanol per year. We recently announced a partnership with REintegrate and European Energy, who will produce the green methanol for this vessel. This green methanol will be e-methanol produced from green hydrogen and biogenic carbon dioxide at a production facility in Denmark. In August 2021, we communicated our next step in scaling our decarbonization efforts, with the announcement of eight ocean-going vessels to operate on green methanol. These vessels will be a key step for Maersk in scaling and advancing the decarbonization agenda. They prove we can leapfrog directly to climate neutral fuels and deliver the solutions our customers are looking for. The eight ocean-going vessels will have a capacity of 16,000 TEU and will consume 35,000-45,000 tons methanol/year per vessel. Our intention is to run these vessels on carbon-neutral green methanol as soon as possible and from the start of operation. Securing a competitive global supply chain of carbon neutral fuels is the main challenge at this point. Green methanol is not widely produced at scale today, and it will be a challenge to scale up green methanol production within this timeline. We see collaboration as the key element in reaching a carbon neutral fuel value chain - stakeholders across the fuel supply value chain must cooperate to meet the demand. We look forward to developing existing and new collaborations.

150

Conference Paper

Methanol: A Future Proof Marine Fuel

GREGORY A. DOLAN Chief Executive Officer, Methanol Institute,

BIOGRAPHY Greg Dolan has held a variety of senior management positions with the Methanol Institute over the past 25 years, serving as CEO for the past decade. Mr. Dolan manages MI’s offices in Washington, Singapore, Brussels, Beijing, and Delhi, while directing international governmental relations, media relations, public education, and outreach efforts. He has presented papers on methanol-related topics at more than 100 international conferences, authored magazine articles, and written book chapters on the methanol industry. Mr. Dolan came to MI after spending a decade in a variety of public information positions in New York State, with the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Energy Research and Development Authority, and the Department of Transportation. Mr. Dolan holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Boston University, and did extensive post graduate work in Political Communication at the State University of New York-Albany.

ABSTRACT As shipping looks to address IMO’s GHG emission reduction ambition, methanol is emerging as a leading alternative fuel. Methanol fueled ships are on the water today, available in ports globally, and easily bunkered.

ABOUT THE METHANOL INSTITUTE The Methanol Institute (MI) serves as the global trade association for one of the world’s most vibrant and innovative industries. Founded in 1989, MI represents methanol producers, distributors, and technology providers in every corner of the globe – from our headquarters in Singapore and regional offices in Washington, D.C., Brussels, and Beijing. More information is available at www.methanol.org.

PAPER Methanol is enjoying increasingly strong recognition from shipowners, classification societies and OEMs as a fuel that can reduce pollution and carbon emissions from ships and provide a pathway towards sustainability. The recent announcement by Maersk ordering eight 16,000 TEU dual-fuel container ships to operate on net carbon neutral Methanol was a game-changer for the shipping industry, signaling that ship owners looking to be first-movers can act now.

151

Conference Paper The rising interest reflects the readiness of the fuel, with regulations in place, vessel designs established and engines available. It also demonstrates the desire of owners to make a start on lowering emissions; many accept the need to make a start on this process now rather than wait for longer term options to become available. Today, there are a dozen methanol dual-fuel chemical tankers on the world’s oceans, having accumulated more than 100,000 hours of operation on methanol. One of the world’s largest ropax ferries has operated on methanol for more than six years. Methanol has fueled a pilot boat in Sweden and a bulker barge in China. Methanol also has been used as a hydrogen carrier fuel for vessel propulsion and auxiliary power. In addition to the Maersk container vessels, another dozen tankers are on order, as well as tug boats, pilots offshore support vessels, river pushers, multipurpose vessels, research vessels, and even super yachts. Methanol offers immediate benefits to ‘local pollution’ reduction for the industry and society; no emissions of sulphur, minimal PM, no black carbon. NOx emissions can be dramatically reduced by blending with water, saving substantial investment and further reducing health risks. Methanol has some 4-8 critical years of head start of experience-building and applicability as an alternative fuel compared with ammonia and hydrogen, enabling vessel operators to move forward with emissions reduction in a phased way at low cost to Opex and Capex. Bunkering infrastructure will increase rapidly once more non-chemical carrier tonnage is in use because the same facilities can be easily converted. At present, truck to ship bunkering is simple and safe – the logistics of procuring, storing and transporting Methanol for bunkering is cheaper and easier than any alternative fuel. The first barge to ship bunkering was completed in May at the Port of Rotterdam. Methanol has recently become available on the Powerzeek alternative fuels trading platform, with producers committing over 17.5 million metric tonnes of fuel and buyers registering interest in securing supplies. S&P Global Platts now provides Nethanol marine fuel pricing assessments for Rotterdam, and will soon add Singapore and US Gulf. Because Methanol has a broad consumer base as a building block for hundreds of products that touch our daily lives, it is produced, marketed and transported at a stable and highly pure standard globally. One of the world’s most widely shipped chemical commodities traded to a purity of 99.85%, methanol not only removes quality issues, but it also ensures that pricing is less volatile than many other fuels. While the conventional Methanol available to shipping is produced from natural gas (grey), its renewable pathway points to Methanol produced by re-using existing CO2 (blue), electrolysis or biomass (green). Methanol is a low carbon and potentially a net carbon neutral fuel. Production from Flue Gas (blue) will reuse existing carbon dioxide, while conversion from renewable electricity and CO2 (e-methanol) and processing of biomass and biogas (bio-methanol) is already producing certified and available green Methanol. Conventional Methanol offers ‘in-service’ GHG emissions reductions of +/-10% compared to fuel oil, supporting the drive towards IMO’s 2030 carbon reduction targets. As more carbon capture, e-methanol and bio-methanol becomes available, we will see more “net GHG neutral” Methanol coming to market. In its 2040 scenario for shipping, class society DNV forecasts that, instead of a transition via LNG, the fleet will shift directly to carbon-neutral methanol or ammonia, with bio-MGO and e-MGO as drop-in fuels for existing ships.

152

Conference Paper Methanol supports the energy transition by enabling plant operators to direct existing capacity towards re-use of waste products in renewables while encouraging a new wave of investment in renewable Methanol capacity with close involvement of end users. The maritime industry needs better information on which alternative fuels provide practical, adoptable choices that comply with prevailing regulation and present manageable investment, operational and financial risks. Shipping doesn’t have the luxury of waiting for as yet unavailable fuel technologies to reach regulatory approval and mature availability when in Methanol it has the opportunity to use the cleanest fuel available now in existing vessels as well as newbuilds. Using an alternative fuel is permitted for compliance with regulations such as the EEXI and CII, making conversion of existing ships to dual-fuel Methanol/fuel oil far more attractive than for other alternative fuels. The alternatives being discussed – LNG, Ammonia and Hydrogen have similar challenges to Methanol – they are all currently produced from fossil sources and require large scale investment to achieve blue or green production. Methanol is regulated for use by the IMO and has been accepted by class societies, flag and port states as well as by vessel operators and charterers as a safe, compliant and efficient marine fuel. Methanol is a viable choice for vessel operators looking to lower risk on their investments in alternative fuels, reduce their carbon and pollution emissions and begin the transition to net carbon neutrality. This presentation will highlight key aspects of methanol’s role as a marine fuel, including: l l l l l l l

Methanol is plentiful, available globally and could be 100% renewable; Methanol is compliant with increasingly stringent emissions reduction regulations; Current bunkering infrastructure needs only minor modifications to handle methanol; Infrastructure costs are relatively modest compared to potential alternative solutions; Methanol prices are competitive with posted assessments; Conversion costs are expected to drop dramatically as experience mounts; Current engines have performed well and upcoming technologies will further improve on this performance; The shipping and chemical industries have a long history and ample experience in handling methanol safely; and Methanol is biodegradable and the effects of a spill on the environment are low.

153

Conference Paper

Technologies and new energy solutions for ships operating on methanol as fuel

LARS SKYTTE JØRGENSEN Head of Technology Development Energy Systems, Vice President Marine Division, Alfa Laval

BIOGRAPHY Lars Skytte Jørgensen has more than 30 years of experience in the marine industry. The last 10 years at Alfa Laval and previously at MAN Diesel & Turbo. At Alfa Laval, the focus is to speed up progress of decarbonize shipping through innovation and new technologies. Lars head the Alfa Laval Test & Training Centre, which is built like a ship’s engine room on land. Here new fuels are tested and development of new technologies like fuel cell solutions and new energy systems are taking place to meet requirements of new fuels.

154

Conference Paper

Methanol as fuel: Classification and statutory requirements for the shipping Industry OLIVIER CARTIER Vice President, Technical Bureau Veritas Marine & Offshore (Classification Society)

BIOGRAPHY Olivier Cartier is Vice-President Technical within Bureau Veritas Marine & Offshore, responsible for the Technical organization encompassing design review activities, research and developments of rules, guidelines and associated computerized tools. Olivier started his carrier in 2003 as a naval architect in charge of approving designs of gas carriers, oil tankers and offshore units within Bureau Veritas. Since then, Olivier has been involved in various management roles covering the plan approval of various types of ships. In 2017, he became Director of the Design Assessment for Bureau Veritas Marine & Offshore. Olivier hold an engineering degree from Ecole Centrale in France.

An inside look at methanol as fuel Bureau Veritas explores the benefits and challenges of methanol as fuel, including safety, cost, sustainability and the development of green and blue methanol. Methanol, also known as methyl alcohol, is one of the most widely produced chemicals on earth, with nearly 100 million tons currently being made per year worldwide, nearly all produced from natural gas or coal. It offers a firm foundation for its use as an alternative marine fuel for the shipping world, thanks to the ability to store it onboard in liquid form at ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure. Additionally, methanol handling and power conversion technologies are mature, and there is a strong level of infrastructure already existing in ports. Furthermore, methanol’s comparatively low pollutant emissions make it a good fuel choice for owners looking to meet environmental targets. However, methanol presents a handful of challenges for ship owners and managers, notably in terms of availability, the cost of sustainably produced methanol, and onboard safety assurance. Overcoming these challenges will require ongoing collaboration between the marine and chemical industries, with an emphasis on advancing production of carbon-neutral methanol (bio-methanol or e-methanol) when considering well-to-wake greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

155

Conference Paper Putting sustainability and safety first Sustainability is the first concern when using methanol as fuel. Methanol does hold a sustainability advantage over heavy fuel oil (HFO) and low sulfur fuel, containing no sulfur and producing limited nitrous oxides (NOx) and minimal particulate matter when burnt. However, its tank-to-wake GHG emissions remain high, typically reported as averaging only a 7% decrease in CO2 emissions as compared to HFO – markedly less than the theoretical 22% reduction possible with liquefied natural gas (LNG). This makes decarbonizing methanol production a must for the long-term sustainability and viability of methanol as marine fuel. The second concern is safety. While methanol may be stored as a liquid at ambient temperatures and under normal pressure, it is a toxic and inflammable substance. Particular attention must be paid to the high toxicity of its vapours. For shipowners looking to use methanol as fuel, this first means that specific arrangements for ventilation systems must be arranged onboard to ensure safe working conditions for crew. Second, methanol tanks must be maintained with inert atmosphere at all times during normal operations, avoiding the risk of dangerous chemical reactions. Finally, personnel must be trained to properly handle methanol, undergoing safety management training to minimize risk.

Different ways of producing methanol Not all methanol is produced using the same materials or via the same processes. This leads to variations in the sustainability of methanol as fuel when considering well-to-wake GHG emissions. ● ● ● ●

B rown methanol is produced from coal and may not significantly reduce well-to-wake carbon dioxide emissions. G rey methanol is produced from natural gas and may not significantly reduce well-to-wake carbon dioxide emissions. Blue methanol is produced using blue hydrogen in combination with carbon capture technology, vastly reducing well-to-tank carbon dioxide emissions. G reen methanol may be bio-methanol produced from biomass or e-methanol produced from green hydrogen, captured CO2 and renewable electricity. Both ways may be considered as enabling neutral well-to-wake carbon dioxide emissions.

Managing the costs of methanol as fuel As with all alternative fuels, there is the question of how much shipowners will need to spend to use blue or green methanol as fuel and regularly refuel. There are certain CAPEX costs associated with ships’ fuel storage, handling and power conversion systems. However, the key question is OPEX costs with methanol pricing. To achieve effective CO2 emissions reduction, shipowners will need access to blue or green methanol, which is significantly more expensive than brown/grey methanol or HFO, and is currently in limited availability. Additionally, because methanol has a lower energy density than HFO – about 15 MJ/L, as compared to 35 MJ/L – more volume will have to be stored onboard for the same amount of stored energy. This makes minimizing the costs of green methanol non-negotiable if marine stakeholders plan to make methanol-powered ships a viable long-term solution for decarbonization. Relying on mature infrastructure and technology Methanol does nonetheless benefit from two crucial advantages when compared to other alternative fuels.

156

Conference Paper First, it has long been transported as marine cargo and it is already used as fuel by some tankers, meaning that onboard technology for methanol-powered ships already exists. From onboard storage tanks, to handling and transfer systems, to power conversion systems, the marine technology that enables the use of methanol as fuel is available and proven in an operational environment. Second, shipowners may benefit from well-developed infrastructure at ports, with methanol reportedly available in over 100 major ports today. This is a significant mark in methanol’s favour, particularly when compared to alternative fuels that require extensive infrastructure expansion and the development of new technology.

Regulatory perspective Most of all marine alternative fuels under consideration to decarbonize the waterborne sector are low flashpoint liquids or gases. The safety of merchant ships engaged in international trade is regulated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Convention on the Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS). As per SOLAS Convention, the low flashpoint liquid fuels are defined as those with a flashpoint below 60°C. Methanol is a liquid fuel with flashpoint generally reported at 11-12°C, classifying it as a low flashpoint fuel. Considering methanol flammability and toxicity, additional safety measures for storage and handling on-board ships are necessary. The use of low flashpoint fuels on-board ships having to comply with the SOLAS Convention has been regulated by the introduction of the International Code of Safety for ships using gases or other low flashpoint fuels, known as the IGF Code. It is worth noting the preamble of the IGF Code which quotes “The basic philosophy of this Code is to provide mandatory provisions for the arrangement, installation, control and monitoring of machinery, equipment and systems using low-flashpoint fuel to minimize the risk to the ship, its crew and the environment, having regard to the nature of the fuels involved.” The IGF Code Part A defines the goal of the Code, functional requirements and general requirements which apply to the use of all low flashpoint fuels or gases while the Part A-1 details specific requirements for ships using natural gas as fuel. Recently the IMO has approved and published interim guidelines for the safety of ships using methyl/ethyl alcohol as fuel (IMO MSC.1/Circ.1621) while keeping them under review to benefit from the operational experience gained with their application. Our Classification Rules for methanol fuelled ships (NR 670) include the requirements from those interim guidelines for classification purpose. Compliance pathway for a given ship will have to go through risk based studies to ensure that risks arising from the use of methanol as fuel affecting persons on board, the environment, the structural strength or the integrity of the ship are eliminated or mitigated, by satisfying the prescriptive requirements given by those rules and the additional measures that may be necessary.

Providing classification support for methanol as fuel As a classification society dedicated to advancing the energy transition, Bureau Veritas is helping support shipowners in a move toward using methanol as fuel. Our NR 670 classification rules cover methyl- and ethyl-alcohol-fuelled ships, providing requirements for methanol-powered vessels. Our rules, integrating requirements from IMO’s on methyl/ethyl alcohol as fuel, help ensure that methanol-powered ships are safe and compliant. Vessels that are constructed or converted in accordance with these rules may be granted our METHANOL FUEL notation.

157

The essential and authoritative source of information for marine fuels professionals. Bunkerspot provides a comprehensive, accurate – and always independent – view of the multi-faceted global marine fuels industry. Bunkerspot magazine focuses on the technical, operational, commercial, environmental and legal aspects of bunkering, and also keeps its readers up to speed on innovations and trends in vessel and fuel efficiency technologies. The Bunkerspot website includes a subscription-based real-time news and pricing service, as well as information channels, industry announcements and updates on conferences, exhibitions and other key events.

Bunkerspot Price Index If you need accurate, up-to-date bunker price indications in an easy to use and highly cost-effective format, BPi ticks all the boxes. Delivered via the Bunkerspot website or through the BPi app, the Bunkerspot Price Index offers spot bunker prices in over 350 global ports, updated daily and with easy to see tracked price changes.

www.bunkerspot.com/bpi

Bunkerspot industry roundtables Bunkerspot regularly partners with key industry stakeholders to host roundtable discussions where shipping, marine fuels and legal experts offer insights on the main issues and developments impacting the bunker sector.

Subscribe to Bunkerspot

www.bunkerspot.com/subscribe

To discuss how your organisation can benefit from the market intelligence and solutions provided by Bunkerspot, Bunkerspot contact: Lesley Bankes-Hughes, Director of Publishing. Tel: +44 1295 814455. Email: lesley@petrospot.com

SESSION 6.1

Ammonia

Moderator

Faïg Abbasov Shipping Programme Director, Transport Environment

BIOGRAPHY Faïg Abbasov is the Director of the Shipping Programme at Transport & Environment, Brusselsbased sustainable transport group advocating for sustainable transport policies in the EU and globally. Faïg holds a PhD in European energy policy and is trained in ship energy efficiency. After a brief career in the natural gas industry, Faïg joined T&E in 2016. Currently he leads a team that advocates, among others, the inclusion of shipping in the EU carbon markets, deployment of zero-carbon marine fuels, notably green hydrogen, ammonia and batteries and implementation of global GHG reduction measures via the International Maritime Organisation”.

160

Conference Paper

Ammonia propulsion technology for deep-sea shipping PETER H. KIRKEBY Principal promotion manager, Man ES

BIOGRAPHY Principal specialist and promotion manager for dual fuel 2-stroke engines at MAN Energy Solutions Copenhagen. Peter holds a Marine engineering degree and has specialised in maturing and integration of engine- and surrounding –technologies for deep sea ship propulsion. In a combination of hands-on and theoretical roles. 10 years at MAN in various positions and locations worldwide. INTRODUCTION With basis in the well-known merchant ship propulsion configuration of a 2-stroke diesel engine directly coupled to the propeller, we will briefly introduce the concept of an ammonia fueled 2-stroke engine. MAN-ES’ development of this engine means an adoption of Ammonia as a fuel can happen within the limits of ship designs as we know it today. For that to happen an increased focus on the auxiliary systems is required as well.

1 Ammonia engine for merchant ships One of the future fuel candidates receiving a growing global interest and likely to play a significant role in the decarbonisation of shipping is ammonia (NH3). The aim with this paper is to introduce the concept of ammonia as a potential low-carbon fuel for 2-stroke marine engines and to give an update on the development of one of the concepts needed for ammonia fueled propulsion. Thanks to the carbon- and sulphur-free molecular composition of NH3, burning it in an engine creates near-zero CO2 and SOx emissions. From a well-to-wake perspective, ammonia can become a carbon-neutral fuel when produced from renewable energy sources like electricity produced from hydropower, wind or solar energy. Furthermore, emission of air pollutants related to carbon (black carbon or soot, unburned hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) will be practically eliminated. While the world fleet of deep sea merchant ships are virtually all propelled by a low speed 2-stroke engine with a directly coupled propeller. The engine technology has up to now only

161

Conference Paper been applied to hydrocarbon based fuels (Fuel oil, Methanol, Methane, Ethane and LPG). Since Ammonia is not a hydrocarbon and the expectation is that it will not behave like one in a combustion engine. We know that flame propagation will be slower and ignition might be more difficult as well. However the 2-stroke low speed engine concept is an obvious candidate for such a fuel. The fundamental reasons for the large tolerance to poorly ignitable and burning fuels are the low speed of the engine, allowing sufficient time for the combustion to take place, and the large dimensions, leading to large volume-to-surface ratios, which is beneficial for a complete combustion and low heat loss. Additionally the 2-stroke engine is extremely well established in ship design, ship building and operation. Meaning the overall changes to the ship are kept at a reasonable level, and the way to commercial ship projects is shorter than revising the entire driveline and technology applied to the ships.

2 Auxiliary systems, fuel supply While combustion and emissions are in the very core of MAN Energy Solutions competences as a maritime technology provider, there are other challenges to be dealt with outside of the combustion. Namely the safe handling and supply (to the engine) of ammonia fuel. Unless safe, practical and simple solutions are engineered, it will be a significant hurdle for the applicability of ammonia as a fuel for shipping.

Figure 1, Principles of the ammonia supply system showing main components.

Fuel supply concept, Figure 1: The ammonia fuel supply to the engine comes from the storage tanks via the fuel supply system. To maintain the required fuel conditions at the engine, a small portion of the ammonia fuel continuously recirculates to the FSS via the recirculation system. When the engine is not in dual-fuel mode, the double block-and-bleed arrangements of the FVT depressurise and completely isolate the ammonia fuel systems inside the engine room from the ammonia fuel supply and return systems. Before every start, the systems are pressurised with nitrogen to verify the tightness of the system. When dual-fuel operation stops, the nitrogen pressure pushes back the ammonia fuel from the engine to the recirculation system. When the purging sequence is complete, the FVT will once again ensure the isolation of engine room systems from the supply and return systems.

162

Conference Paper Throughout the entire operation, the double-walled ventilation system from existing MAN ES dual-fuel engines detects any ammonia fuel leakage and directs it away from the engine room to a separate ammonia catch system. Recirculation system: The recirculated ammonia fuel will heat up on the engine during operation. To avoid two-phase conditions, a certain amount of the ammonia fuel is recirculated to a dedicated recirculation line. The same recirculation line recovers the ammonia fuel from the engine whenever dual-fuel operation is stopped. The recirculated fuel may contain traces of sealing oil from the injection valves. The recirculation line eliminates the risk of contaminating fuel storage tanks with oil. The recirculation line also separates and bleeds off nitrogen from the recovered ammonia fuel. Fuel supply system: The FSS contains the equipment necessary to ensure that ammonia fuel is delivered to the engine at the required temperature, pressure and quality. In most cases, the FSS has a high-pressure pump, a heater, filters, valves and control systems to maintain the ammonia fuel pressure and temperature at varying engine consumptions. Fuel valve train: The fuel valve train (FVT) is the interface between the engine and the auxiliary systems. The purpose of the FVT is to ensure a safe isolation of the engine during shutdown and maintenance, and to provide a nitrogen-purging functionality. This functionality ensures a safe environment on the engine after shutdown. Nitrogen system: Nitrogen must be available for purging the engine after dual-fuel operation, for gas freeing prior to maintenance and for tightness testing after maintenance. The capacity of the nitrogen system must be large enough to deliver a certain flow at a pressure higher than the service tank pressure. Double-walled ventilation system: To maintain a safe engine room, it is vital to detect any leakages from the ammonia fuel system and direct these to a safe location. This has led to the double-walled design of ammonia fuel systems and piping inside the engine room. A constant flow of ventilation air is kept in the outer pipe in accordance with IMO requirements. The system is already part of other MAN B&W dual-fuel engine designs and is well proven. Ammonia catch system: The ammonia systems must be designed with an ammonia capture system to prevent release of ammonia to the surroundings. 2.1 Ammonia catch system This chapter will take a look at one of several areas where a solution for handling ammonia onboard is needed for implementation of an Ammonia fueled 2-stroke engine in a merchant ship. Specifically the handling of Ammonia as it is vented from the engine system when the engine is not running Ammonia as fuel IE. for Oil fuel operation (Dual Fuel engine) or stop for maintenance/ shut down. This is marked as “Ammonia Catch System” in Figure 1 and takes care of ammonia venting from the engine only, a separate knock out drum (and recovery tank) should be in place for the fuel gas supply system. The catch system (Figure 2) interfaces to the engine, the fuel recirculation system, nitrogen supply and is connected to the ships vent(mast). The system introduces a water seal that is used to separate catch ammonia vapour while allowing nitrogen to pass through to the vent. In some operating scenarios, the engine knock out drum may contain rather large amounts of liquid ammonia. Therefore it is fitted with a recovery tank that allows the ammonia to be returned to the fuel recirculation system.

163

Conference Paper

Figure 2, engine catch system overview, ready state.

Figure 3 shows the system handling an engine stop, where the engine piping needs to be cleared from liquid Ammonia, this happens with nitrogen supplied through the fuel valve train through the engine (ref. Figure 1). Ammonia vapours are being handled by the water seal and caught as a water/ammonia solution. The liquid ammonia is being drained to the recovery tank from the knock out drum.

Figure 3, catch system, engine stop, liquid freeing.

164

Conference Paper

Figure 4, catch system engine stop, purging.

Figure 4 using nitrogen the engine (and knock out drum) is purged and free of ammonia vapour. The ammonia vapour is caught in the water seal and the nitrogen is vented.

Figure 5, ammonia recovery to reciculation system.

Figure 5 the liquid ammonia previously recovered (ref. Figure 3) is pushed to the recirculation system by closing the connections to the recovery tank and pressurizing the tank with nitrogen. The recirculation system is equipped with a nitrogen separator, allowing for the tank to be fully purged with nitrogen and all the fuel to be recovered.

165

Conference Paper

Figure 6, water seal reconditioning

Once the concentration of Ammonia in the water seal is too high it can be reconditioned by draining the water seal and replenish with fresh water. As illustrated in Figure 6.

2.2 Recap The catch system concept allows for freeing the engine from Ammonia without venting ammonia to the atmosphere and can collect liquid ammonia to re-use as fuel in the recirculation system. While the toxic and volatile ammonia vapour can be confined in the water. Hereby the catch system solves one of the critical questions about safety and environment often asked when discussing ammonia applied as fuel on deep sea merchant ships. It is clear that the water seal will need to be monitored for ammonia content and reconditioned as necessary, while the ammonia solution will need to be drained and handled or contained on-board. This solution does introduce consumption of freshwater as well as the need for handling the ammonia-water solution from the water seal. However these are both very manageable issues compared to that which the system solves.

166

Conference Paper

Economic assessment of current fuel choices and transition to decarbonisation

NAEEM JAVAID Global Operations Manager- FOBAS Lloyd’s Register EMEA

BIOGRAPHY I joined Lloyds Register consultancy services in 2007 as marine fuel consultant. Currently Naeem Javaid is the Global Operations Manager for the marine fuel consultancy services at Lloyd’s Register (LR) Marine & Offshore. My present role is focussed on FOBAS Operations globally, key account management, consultancy on environmental regulations, fuel management, techno – economic assessment of energy choices for ships, project management and consultancy on future marine fuels are key aspects of my present role. I also represent Lloyd’s Register on different Industry forums such as IMO meetings, ISO Working groups and other industry forums. I am a graduate marine engineer and have substantial experience of serving onboard ships.

ABSTRACT This presentation will compare the viable future fuels of shipping from technical, operational, commercial and environmental aspects. The presentation will look into the current readiness level of different fuels and what needs to be done to make these fuels available for international shipping. The presentation will also touch on any regulatory hurdles that needs to be removed for accelerated uptake of alternative fuels.

167

Conference Paper

Ammonia as Marine Fuel, A Lifecycle Analysis

RENÉ SEJER LAURSEN Director – Fuels & Technology ABS

ABSTRACT There are many maritime fuel options being considered to help the shipping industry meet its decarbonization goals. Among them, ammonia is identified as a zero-carbon fuel that can enter the global market relatively quickly and help meet the GHG reduction target for 2050 set by the IMO. Ammonia offers ship owners and operators a zero-carbon tank-to-wake emissions profile, regardless of the source of the fuel. In this presentation I will review ammonia as a marine fuel option in both the near-term and long-term and give insight into the lifecycle carbon footprint of this fuel option.

168

Conference Paper

Yara Clean Ammonia

CHRISTIAN W. BERG Director, Bunkering Market Development in Yara Clean Ammonia

BIOGRAPHY Mr Berg have over 20 years of international leader experience from the oil and gas and offshore wind industry. His background includes hands on experience from vessels, marine consultancy, offshore chartering, and top management. Mr Berg recently joined the new division Yara Clean Ammonia with focus to develop the bunkering market and logistics. He is a Master Mariner and also holds an MBA in Shipping and Logistics from Copenhagen Business School (The Blue MBA).

ABSTRACT Yara was established in 1905 and have produced Green Ammonia based on electrolytic H2 production since 1927. By using renewable energy Green Ammonia is GHG Emission free measuring from Well to Wake. In 2021 Yara International formed a new business unit; Yara Clean Ammonia (YCA). All trade and shipping of Ammonia have been moved to the new unit and it’s focus is to produce Green and Blue Ammonia for use in Shipping, Power, Agriculture and Steel industry. As the Shipping sector aims to decarbonize on will need zero carbon fuels and ammonia is increasingly recognized as the best zero emissions fuel. Ammonia has attractive storage and transport properties and is very price competitive vs other alternative fuels. YCA is involved in numerous Green Ammonia projects collaborating with Shipowners, engine manufacturers, Class societies, ports, NGO’s and others in order to facility for ammonia fuel. YCA is in a unique position with a global end-to-end value chain as producer, trader and shipper of Ammonia. For newcomers there are significant barriers of entry in terms of both production and shipping. As per today YCA produces 8,5 MT on 17 locations and have a 20% market share on the ammonia trade. There is a favorable link between the current production plants and major bunker hubs on a global perspective.

169

Conference Paper Three green ammonia pilots laying the foundation for full scale plants. l l l

Pilbara (Solar Energy) – 3.500 Tons (2023) Sluiskil (Offshore Wind) – 70.000 Tons (2025) Porsgrunn (Hydro Energy) – 20.000 Tons (2023)

The Hegra project was launched in August 2021 with Statkraft and Aker Horizons as partners for a full electrification of 500.000 Tons ammonia unit with only limited infrastructure investments. Commercial startup is scheduled for 2026, the green ammonia production will cut 800.000 Tons of CO2 emissions. The future will be different and one will see end users demanding, and willing to pay for, consumables and food with a zero emissions footprint.

170

A smarter perspective on a low carbon future Let’s talk.

With future-fuel flexibility

Meet us at Marintec at stand N2E3D

wingd.com

SESSION 6.2

Hydrogen and Fuel Cells

Social icon

Circle Only use blue and/or white. For more details check out our Brand Guidelines.

to free digital editions of our suite of publications for the passenger shipping industry

www.cruiseandferry.net/magazines/subscriptions

Conference Paper

Development of MW-scale marine fuel cell systems

SAMI KANERVA Global Product Manager, Fuel Cells ABB Marine & Ports Helsinki, Finland

MAXIMILIAN SCHWAGER Solutions Engineer, Project Lead Ballard Power Systems Europe Hobro, Denmark

BIOGRAPHIES Dr. Sami Kanerva is Global Product Manager, Fuel Cells at ABB Marine & Ports. He received D.Sc. (Tech.) degree in Electrical Engineering from Helsinki University of Technology in 2005 and has intensively worked on various technology concepts with renewable energy and marine segments. Dr. Kanerva has conducted development of marine fuel cell solutions in ABB since 2017. Dr. Maximilian Schwager is a Solutions Engineer and Project Lead at Ballard Power Systems Europe. His focus is on large scale fuel cell system development, application and business growth. Dr. Schwager worked in PEM fuel cell research at international institutes as well as in industry before joining the applied development department at Ballard.

INTRODUCTION International Maritime Organization’s goal of halving greenhouse gas emissions from ships by 2050 will require a comprehensive and proactive response from the maritime community. Due to long lifetime of vessels and slow renewal rate of the fleet, it is anticipated that new technology must be implemented to newbuild projects in large extent already from year 2025 onwards. The basic principle in decarbonization is to reduce the carbon content in the fuel. Considering well-to-tank emissions, biofuels and electrofuels with carbon capture have great reduction potential in carbon intensity even close to full neutrality. Nevertheless, meeting the global targets requires introducing carbon-free fuels in large scale, such as renewable hydrogen or ammonia. The generation of carbon-neutral or carbon-free electrofuels is based on renewable, largescale hydrogen production. Although green hydrogen production is still taking its first steps, there are multiple ambitious investment projects globally targeting large-scale renewable hydrogen manufacturing. Especially ports are likely to take a role as hubs for green hydrogen.

174

Conference Paper Principle and illustration of all-hydrogen vessel is presented in Figure 1, although the evolution of ships from current state-of-the-art technology towards emission free solutions is likely to proceed with steps. The first actual hydrogen technology based projects will focus on small vessels or hybrid power plants for larger vessels.

Figure 1. Illustration of a hydrogen ship

Development of Pem Fuel Cells While availability of green hydrogen improves, also fuel cells become an increasingly interesting alternative for onboard power production in a wide range of marine vessels. The most mature fuel cell technology for marine applications, with the highest technology readiness level, is the proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell. It is also the dominant fuel cell type in automotive and heavy transport secorts, which enables a straightforward scale-up of production for the increasing marine demand. As the leading industrial companies in their business areas, ABB and Ballard Power Systems have initiated a joint development initiative towards a high-power marine fuel cell unit. The memorandum of understanding was signed in 2018, and the development has been conducted in collaboration with classification societies to secure the compliance with regulations.

Marine Fuel Cell Cabinets Marine-specific fuel cell modules are available or under development by several vendors already. The development process is a natural continuation from heavy-duty PEM fuel cell modules towards larger power ratings and marine-specific requirements. The marine fuel cell modules typically utilize well-proven components from the applications for e.g. buses, trucks or trains, while solving the challenges that are specifically relevant for marine environment. Communication with classification societies and authorities is conducted in parallel, as the codes and standards are also developing continuously. Figure 2 presents an example of a marine fuel cell cabinet, and their submodules inside the cabinets are presented in Figures 3 and 4. The submodules include the fuel cell stacks and subsystems for hydrogen, process air, cooling and ventilation. The fuel cell modules also include general controls and internal safety systems.

175

Conference Paper The fuel cell cabinets are gas proof and individually ventilated to secure that possible hydrogen leaks will not mix with the surrounding space to avoid the buildup of a flammable atmosphere in the machinery space. There are standardized interfaces for the fuel supply, process air supply, liquid cooling systems and ventilation. The subsystems inside the fuel cell cabinets are composed of modules, which are designed to be replaced with certain intervals. The subsystem modules are serial-produced and optimized for cost-efficient maintenance structure. Replacement of the modules is performed according to the guidelines and preventive maintenance schedule determined by the vendor.

Figure 2. Example of a fuel cell cabinet for marine applications

Figure 3. Stack module inside the fuel cell cabinet

Figure 4. Auxiliary subsystem modules inside the fuel cell cabinet

176

Conference Paper Scaling up to Megawatt Range As illustrated in Figure 5, fuel cell cabinets can be arranged in lineups to form systems for higher power ratings. While typical output power of a single cabinet is 200 kW, it is possible to build fuel cell systems in MW range by connecting multiple cabinets in terms of piping and cabling. Cabinet-based fuel cell systems are flexible with the layout and compact by their footprint. It allows to split the installation between several rooms when redundancy is required or space is limited. Cabinets also simplify retrofit installations in existing vessels. In case of multi-MW fuel cell systems, the installation can be pre-engineered for containers or standardized skids. Piping and cabling of multiple cabinets requires substantial projectspecific engineering, but standardized solutions may simplify the process. Arranging fuel cell cabinets in containers or skids with optimized assembly structures allow to compose MW-scale units with simple interfacing to external systems.

Figure 5. Lineup arrangement of fuel cell cabinets

Concept of High-Power Fuel Cell Unit With larger vessels, the total installed power of fuel cell systems may be tens of megawatts and the required unit size must be increased. Upscaling cabinet-based solutions gets more complex with increasing power ratings, and the module-based maintenance structure is not any more ideal. Accordingly, development activities are ongoing for marine fuel cell units in range of megawatts, although defining the ideal unit size for emerging market is yet uncertain. The key principle in MW-scale fuel cell unit is the hydrogen-proof enclosure with dedicated ventilation, securing the safe atmosphere around the unit. In such unit, the fuel cell stacks are arranged in multiple strings and placed together inside a common enclosure. Any other hydrogen-carrying components are also located inside the same enclosure with the fuel cell stacks. In order to isolate the hydrogen-proof enclosure from the ambient surrounding, it must have dedicated channels for process air and ventilation. The ventilation air into the enclosure is taken directly from the exterior of the vessel and not mixed with the surrounding ambient air. The same principle is applied for the process air, cathode exhaust and anode purge accordingly. The risk of leaking flammable gas mixtures is eliminated by following a double-barrier principle. Any mechanical failure in primary components will cause hydrogen leaking into ventilated

177

Conference Paper space only, and the hydrogen sensors in this space alarm at very low concentration of hydrogen already. The safety shut-off valves are then closed automatically. The use of double barriers along the fuel cell unit enables the system to be install it in non-hazardous areas.

Industrial-Scale Balance of Plant In comparison to cabinet-based fuel cell installations, the balance of plant in MW-scale fuel cell units have a different structure. As there are multiple parallel fuel cell strings inside the gas-proof enclosure, they are supplied by a common balance (BoP) of plant instead of multiple smaller subsystems. The unit has a single interface to external systems with internal manifolds to split the stream of fuel, air and coolant equally for each stack. The structure of the balance of plant in high-power unit is different from the cabinet-based installations. The subsystems in BoP are not designed to match single stacks but complete arrays of parallel fuel cell strings. The large-scale balance of plant is composed of industrial components with high performance and long durability instead of modular cost-optimized components. High-power fuel cell units are naturally less modular than cabinet-based installations. However, the units may be pre-assembled into frames or skids already at the factory, which allows for testing complete units prior to installation onboard and reducing the time for on-site commissioning. The concept for maintenance and service is also different between high-power units and cabinet-based solutions. Most components in the high-power units are designed for long lifetime expectancy and are not planned to be replaced regularly. The fuel cell stacks will still degrade after certain period, and the system must be designed to allow stack replacement onboard the ship without docking. Preventive maintenance is performed according to the planned maintenance schedule, which is optimized for total lifecycle cost.

Optimizing Total Cost of Ownership With respect to first cost and footprint, the optimal fuel cell concept is most probably composed on the fuel cell cabinets. The subsystem modules inside the cabinets are typically optimized for low-cost serial production, and compact packaging of modules allows for high power density. The industrial-scale components in high-power fuel cell units require additional space for maintenance, because they must be accessible without need to dismantle structures around them. However, development of MW-scale units will probably narrow the gap in longer term. Regardless of unit size and type, preventive maintenance of the fuel cells is relatively simple. Most maintenance actions can be performed by the ship’s crew with basic training, as only the fuel cell stacks and hydrogen components require certified personnel typically. Accounting for the cost and replacement of spare parts, long lifetime of industrial-scale components favors high-power units in terms of total lifecycle cost. However, cabinet-based solutions may still appear as the optimal solution in many cases especially within short-to-mid term perspective. Across the complete life cycle, cost of fuel is nearly always the dominant component in total cost of ownership. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the system efficiency with respect to system cost, while improving fuel cell efficiency forces to increase the size and cost of the system. With respect to availability, multiple parallel units provide redundancy but also increased failure rate. Each project has its own requirements that determine the optimal technical solution for each case, and it is not possible to determine universal rules to optimize the system.

178

Conference Paper Summary Environmental regulations and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are driving the marine industry to introduce hydrogen and fuel cells as an alternative power source in ships. Technical solutions for fuel cell installations are ready for implementation and available for immediate application. Marine-specific fuel cell cabinets provide a compact solution that is simple to maintain. By installing the cabinets in lineup arrangement, the fuel cell system can be scaled from small to large power ratings. The fuel cell cabinets are optimized for cost, footprint and simple maintenance through serial-produced components and replaceable modules. Long-term development of marine fuel cell systems is focusing on high-power units that enable building complete hydrogen power plants for large vessels. Involving industrial-scale components with high durability and lifetime expectation, high-power fuel cell units are optimized for availability and high performance but still enabling to maintain and service the units without need for dry-docking. Total cost of ownership is optimized through balancing between cost, efficiency and availability. There are no universal rules for the optimization, but the ideal solution needs to be assessed individually for each project.

179

Conference Paper

Hydrogen (H2) in Shipping – Fuel Supply, Engine Concepts, FGSS/ Tanks and Ferry Use Case

ALEXANDER FEINDT Senior Energy and Maritime Manager, Man ES

BIOGRAPHY Alexander has a working background of ten years in Shell in various business units, amongst other things he was responsible for setting up the Marine LNG business in the D-A-CH countries and chairing the German Maritime LNG advocacy platform. Since 2019 he is the Global Business Development Manager at MAN Energy Solutions for the Medium/High Speed Marine (4-stroke) business. He manages external partnerships, maritime stakeholders and looks for trends, developments and requirements in the space of alternative marine fuels/propulsion as well as unmanned shipping and helps shaping those into products/ services for the future. He also represents MAN ES at various industry bodies such as Getting to Zero coalition and SeaEurope / Waterborne.

PAPER This hydrogen paper aims to give some guidance and partly contribute to the ongoing discussion around alternative marine fuels and reducing the (carbon) emission footprint of shipping, in short how to reach the various regulatory targets and regimes with the help of new shipping fuels and technologies. Regulations, guidelines and notifications for hydrogen as a shipping fuel – be it in IMO, IGF code or within class societies - are still work in progress and the actual use of H2 in vessels is somewhat in its infancy for widespread adoption. This is especially true for deep-sea, longdistance shipping. At the same time the European Parliament, for example, has announced that renewable hydrogen is “key to Europe’s energy transition” and “fossil-based hydrogen should be phased out as soon as possible” – this also includes the shipping sector. So, where is the disconnect and what is the state of play of hydrogen in shipping?

180

Conference Paper 1. Hydrogen Fuel Supply (Chain) The overall market is presently estimated at roughly 112 million tons or roughly 320 million tons of oil equivalent. Refineries (for reformation of gasoline constituents) and ammonia are the largest end use cases for H2, representing 37% and 28% of 2020 demand, the remainder for a variety of purposes including a small amount used as a fuel. Global H2 demand grew by 28% over the last decade and 2020/2021 has seen an exponential growth of investment announcement in the GW-scale. Despite the strong growth rate, new applications such as mobility still comprise a minor portion of present global H2 demand (less than 0.1% of total demand), of which aerospace is the largest part. About 90% of hydrogen is produced on-site today with limited pipelines dedicated to hydrogen transportation. Globally there are about 4,500 km of those pipelines, of which 2,600 km are located in the US (e.g. refinery hubs in the Texas’ gulf coast). One of the possible solutions to increase infrastructure is retrofitting existing natural gas pipeline or mix hydrogen with natural gas for pipeline transportation. Less than 1% of H2 is currently produced using renewable methods such as using renewable electricity; natural gas is currently the primary source of grey H2 production with ca. 73% of annual production with the remainder being brown H2 from coal bed methane. Grey H2 is the lowest cost option outside of China, averaging at USD 1.27/kg in 2020. In a mature industry with little room for CAPEX reduction costs are largely determined by the feedstock price - grey and brown H2 costs are closely tied to fossil fuel prices, each are expected to rise. Blue H2 (grey H2 + CCS) is still in a relatively nascent stage, mainly due to constraints of Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) technology. Green H2, due to their small size, results in only 0.6% of global production (63% of all green hydrogen is produced in Europe) and is still far away from commercial applications. It is expected to be more widely adopted as rapidly declining renewable energy costs, supportive policy, regulatory frameworks and increasing interest are expected to drive investments. As of Q2 2020, an additional 15 GW of green H2 projects were announced. Without major CCS cost reductions, blue H2 will hold a premium averaging ~50% (i.e. 1.96 USD/ kg in 2020) over grey in the medium term. The cost of green H2 is presently high, largely due to the relative higher renewable energy cost and lower utilization hours. According to DNV green H2 costs (currently at 6.08 USD/kg, i.e. 2-5 times the cost of grey H2 and 3-6 times of MGO in 2020) will be at around four to eight times the price of VLSFO. Green H2 is expected to reach widespread competitiveness with grey by 2030-2040 due to cost rise of grey H2 and simultaneous renewable energy costs reduction. Currently there are no H2 bunkering vessels or terminals for seagoing vessels, and only one LH2 carrier (sailing from Australia to Japan with brown H2) – all marine H2 supply currently takes place with custom-made supply chain setups via truck/trailer. The question of a bunker infrastructure development (and incentives for H2 suppliers) depends on price sensitivity in shipping and higher-margin outlets in other customer segments such as Road and Power. As hydrogen can be produced from water using electrolysis, theoretically there are no principal limitations to production capacity that could restrict the amount of available H2 to the shipping industry. This is also underpinned by the fact that not only existing bunker suppliers and energy companies are actively ramping up production, but also large utility/power companies and industrial gas producers that are somewhat new to the maritime world. Certain Ports also work on H2 infrastructure themselves, e.g. Rotterdam plans to supply the steel industry in the German Ruhr area, Hamburg to build large electrolysers to serve several industry and transport customers in port and city or Singapore to develop LH2 infrastructure.

181

Conference Paper 2. Hydrogen as a Marine Fuel H2 is the simplest and basic renewable fuel generated by electrolysis, it comes in many colors and forms as a transport fuel – such as metal hydrides, LOHC (liquid organic hydrogen carriers), compressed H2 (CH2), liquefied H2 (LH2) or ammonia (NH3) as a vector. Currently we believe and see in the market that LH2 will be the frontrunner for hydrogen being used in coastal/sea shipping due to the large energy requirements. H2 has a high specific energy value (LHV), LH2 has around 120 MJ/kg while fuel oil has around 40 MJ/kg (compared to 50 MJ/kg for CH4). But because fuel oil is so much denser than hydrogen, 1,123 liters of fuel oil are in one ton, while one ton of liquefied hydrogen has 14,125 liters in it, thus requiring larger tank spaces. Current focus of hydrogen use is in short sea and short distance applications (as well as inland waterways) which are in Emission Control Areas or in use for auxiliary engines and/or hotel load. This is mainly due to differences of routes, availability of hydrogen fuel and local regulation/ requirements and funding. Therefore, at present the fuel is more prominently discussed in fourstroke (medium/high speed) short-sea applications than two-stroke deep-sea applications. It is also where most of the projects and government funding takes place.

3. H2 Combustion – Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) Several companies and consortia develop H2 marine combustion engines. However, MAN has 30 years of experience with the combustion of hydrogen, early H2 research on Otto engines started in the early 1990s, the first H2 use on Diesel engines for busses was in the late 1990s. Further development has been somewhat hampered by an adverse policy framework, but this is changing right now. General observations are that H2 is less knock resistant than LNG or CNG, i.e. main challenges are the low methane number as well as the low ignition energy and additionally the high flame speed (= high pressure increase). With regard to exhaust after treatment, NOx emissions are at or below the level of existing Dual Fuel engines, and may be reduced even further to lowest levels with the MAN SCR solution ensuring future emission compliance. For marine use, two engine concepts are currently being investigated in our R&D facilities. Stage I marine application is a Dual Fuel (DF) low-pressure engine that operates on a limited H2 energy share and de-rated power. It ensures flexibility while minimizing the risk of H2 fuel supply or system problems, Diesel or LNG act as fallback solution that could also be financially attractive. It can be adopted for conventional DF engines and will be Tier III compliant without SOX and CO2 emissions in the H2 phase. Depending on market demand this could be available in 2023. The Stage II marine application is a Dual Fuel H2 engine with in-cylinder fuel admission developed with efficiency and full power in H2 mode in mind. It will be fully flexible and only needs some pilot fuel, which could be sourced from a green, synthetic (Fischer-Tropsch) Diesel. Depending on market demand this could be available in 2026, when H2 supply should be more readily available. We’ve compared ICE technologies to gas turbines and PEM/SOFC fuel cells on a range of parameters and we do believe hydrogen ICE are an attractive option compared with fuel cells due to cost, power density, fuel flexibility and reliability advantages. ICE lifetime over 30 years based on historic experience (with regular maintenance) far exceeds those of a fuel cell stack. We do acknowledge a role for fuel cell applications in the smaller power range, but not as a main propulsion solution in coastal/sea vessels.

182

Conference Paper 4. LH2 Storage and Fuel Gas Supply System (FGSS) Cryogenic storage of liquefied hydrogen is very difficult due to the low H2 boiling point of roughly -253 deg C (at 1 bar) and there are not many companies and manufacturers around that have the competence to do so. However, MAN Cryo is one of them. With a 60 years experience of cryogenic applications such as vacuum insulated tanks, coil-wound vaporizers and piping systems (mainly LNG) in 2020 they developed a LH2 fuel gas supply system and vacuum insulated multilayer storage tank for marine applications. It is fully equipped with a tank connection space (TCS), bunker station and re-gasification and the unit was delivered in May 2021. The design is according to IGF code and a class approval are in place, with other classes this in work in progress. The LH2 FGSS is in the range between 50-300 m3, the tank weight for a 175 m3 gross volume tank and TCS would be approximately 70 tons empty weight. Currently the maximum filling level is 69% according to IGF, based on 9 bar design pressure, and MAN does not recommend to empty the tank lower than 5%, in order to keep some liquid in the tank to keep the tank cooled. This gives a usable volume of 64%. MAN is discussing with class societies on how to improve the allowed filling level beyond the current 69%. Safety precautionary measures are of utmost importance to MAN, e.g. a double hull tank (outer hull considered as secondary barrier), double piping, H2 detection and automatic controls are in place. The 15 days holding time are in line with the IGF code. There is no thermal impact depending on different supply methods such as truck-to-ship, ship-to-ship, or terminal-to-ship bunkering.

H2 safety Introducing a new fuel or energy carrier into shipping, transport or society nowadays poses different challenges and has to overcome higher hurdles than the switch from coal-fired steam engines to hydrocarbon-based propulsion back in the days. Matters of safety and sustainability are far more relevant. So how does hydrogen compare when it comes to safety aspects? It is worth starting with what it does not do as a substance. It does not detonate in open air, not decompose, not self-ignite, not cause cancer (non-carcinogenic). Furthermore, it is non-oxidizing, non-toxic, non-corrosive, non-radioactive, non-contagious and is not harmful to water. Hydrogen is 14 times lighter than air and vanishes rapidly upwards, it has a high diffusion coefficient (four times that of methane) and dilutes rapidly in air. It has significantly narrower detonation limits in air than explosion limits – when ignited early, it burns before detonation limits are reached. H2 burns with an invisible flame with very little heat radiated from the flame. Hydrogen is colorless and odorless; it is technically not possible to add odorant. However, H2 is a very small molecule that is prone to leakage in closed space. It can reach flammable concentration or can become an asphyxiate, so proper ventilation and detection sensors are needed. If stored in liquid state H2 can cause cryogenic burns or lung damage in cases of leakage. All of this can be managed and MAN Cryo has a long experience with different gas fuels like LNG and recently LH2 with high safety levels.

183

Conference Paper

Key aspects of Hydrogen Vessel Design

MILINKO GODJEVAC Senior Integration Advisor, Future Proof Shipping

BIOGRAPHY Milinko Godjevac works as Senior Integration Advisor at Future Proof Shipping and is currently focused on the design of the zero-emission propulsion system for inland vessel Maas. After graduating Naval Architecture at Belgrade University, he obtained his doctorate title from Delft University of Technology. He is a marine system integration specialist with over 15 years of experience in academia and industry, always enthusiastic about engineering the nextgeneration ship propulsion systems and innovation.

ABSTRACT We, Future Proof Shipping (FPS), chose to retrofit our inland vessel, the Maas, to full zeroemission technology by replacing the existing internal combustion engines with hydrogen fuel cell technology. This paper focuses on key aspects and lessons learned during the retrofit design. While there are numerous design aspects to consider, the proper sizing of fuel cells and safe integration of hydrogen storage is crucial for this project. The sizing of the fuel cells

184

Conference Paper and hydrogen storage affects not only the technical aspects of the project but also financial aspects. Once the power requirements are determined, it is necessary to integrate these zeroemission power generating components in the existing ship while the rules for design of ships with fuel cells and hydrogen storage are limited. In our design we used rules for low flash point fuels as the starting point and adjusted them for compressed hydrogen to reach the necessary safety equivalence. In this paper, we use the integration of on-board hydrogen storage as the showcase for safe and innovative integration.

Introduction Converting an existing vessel to zero-emission technology is exciting and novel, but also complex, with numerous technical and economic challenges intersecting. The sizing of main components for zero-emission technology needs to be carried out carefully so that unnecessary costs are avoided, and the vessel can continue to operate safely. Thus, our retrofit of the Maas started with operational measurements todetermine the power requirements for the future power configuration based on zero-emission technology. Next, the measurements were used to size the fuel cells, battery packs and hydrogen fuel tanks. This paper gives an overview of the vessel specifications, measurement setup and sailing route. We also present the results of our measurements, followed by our choices regarding the installed power for fuel cells and the amount of hydrogen required on the route. After the hydrogen storage is selected and properly sized, we focus on the integration of hydrogen storage on-board of Maas and safety aspects in relation to the existing rules and regulations. Finally, we point out the main conclusions and topics for future work. Future Proof Shipping (FPS) envisions a zero-emissions shipping world, and the Maas is the first vessel to set sail on this ambitious course. The Maas is a typical inland container vessel suitable for sailing on the Rhine and has the following specifications:

Length: 109,8 m One main diesel engine: 1468 kW One bow thruster diesel engine: 367 kW One main propeller with two rudders One bow thruster with steering slides that allow thrust in 4 quadrants Two diesel generators for hotel and auxiliary power: 48 kW and 32 kW

The process of sizing the future fuel cell system and hydrogen storage is described in the following section.

Power profile measurements and sizing of the fuel cells and hydrogen storage The vessel will be converted to zero-emission technology by replacing all current diesel engines and diesel generators with fuel cells and batteries. The sizing of the fuel cells and batteries is crucial for the success of the project because overestimating power requirements will introduce additional costs while underestimating them could cause safety issues in the operation of the future vessel. We performed a measurement campaign where we recorded the power of main onboard consumers in real operational conditions. The main consumers were: main propeller, bow thruster, hotel load and auxiliary consumers. The propulsion power of the main shaft was obtained by recording the torque and rotational velocity. Regarding the hotel load and auxiliary power, the measurements included delivered electrical power to the electrical grids from the two generator sets.

185

Conference Paper

Figure 2: The representative route for the Maas between Rotterdam port and terminals in Belgium.

In the future, the ship will sail on the route between Netherlands and Belgium shown in Figure 2. The route is approximately 200 km long and there are four locks along the way. The measured power profile of the main propeller is shown in Figure and it is by far the most dominant consumer, for the details of the hotel load and bow thruster load please refer to a previous publication available on our website here - https://futureproofshipping. com/2021/09/14/operational-profilemeasurements-of-an-inland-container-vessel-andsizing-of-fuel-cells-and-hydrogen-storage/. The ship was fully loaded, and the current was in the opposing direction, thus the result can be considered ‘worst-case conditions’ on this route. According to the logbook, the ship sailed off from Belgium loaded with 152 containers and arrived in the Netherlands with the current against its course. During the voyage, the following features of the power profile were recorded:

Average total power: 436 kW Maximum total power: 1230,7 kW Average power main propeller: 485 kW Maximum power main propeller: 1222,5 kW Total duration of power peaks above 750 kW: 163 sec (0,2 % of total voyage) Average hotel power: 8,5 kW Maximum hotel power: 28,6 kW Average power at design speed: 650 kW

186

Conference Paper

Figure 3: Recorded power of the main propeller shaft on the representative journey.

The short power peak above 750 kW was caused by the operator and not related to functional requirements. Besides the measurements on the specified route, we also recorded measurements on different routes within the Netherlands and Belgium. For the sake of clarity, those results are not shown here but the recorded profiles highly correspond with the profile on the representative route. It can be concluded that the propulsion power rarely exceeds 650 kW when sailing in the Netherlands or Belgium inland waterways. Somewhat different results are expected on the route to Germany where the currents are stronger . Based on the measurements, we proposed to size the main electric motor at 800 kW and the fuel cell system at 825 kW (3 x 275 kWe). The rated power of fuel cells is considered as net delivered power to the system. In addition, two battery systems will be installed to power the vessel when the fuel cells are not in operation. To estimate the required amount of hydrogen, it is necessary to integrate the power on the route and determine the required energy. Also, specific hydrogen consumption of the fuel cells is required and energy efficiencies of the components from fuel cells to the propeller need to be considered too. The mass of hydrogen required was calculated according to the following equation:

Where:

mH2_route is the mass of hydrogen required for one way journey [g] E route is the energy required for one way journey based on the measurements [kWh] s hc is the specific hydrogen consumption of the fuel cells [g/kWh] motor is the efficiency of the main propulsion motor fd is the efficiency of the frequency drive grid is the electrical efficiency of the grid D C is the efficiency of the DC-DC drive of the fuel cells

187

Conference Paper The measured power profile corresponds to 9852 kWh and assumed specific hydrogen consumption is 60 g/kWh. The efficiencies of electrical components are assumed to be 99% for the grid, 95% for the frequency and DC-DC drive and 98% for the permanent magnet electric motor. The resulting amount of hydrogen for a one-way journey is 674 kg. The total amount of hydrogen was validated with a detailed calculation that is based on the exact values of hydrogen consumption at the beginning and end of lifetime of fuel cells and it was concluded that the abovementioned value is highly representative.

Figure 2: Locations of the fuel cells system, battery systems, hydrogen storage and hydrogen vent line.

As indicated in Figure 2, The power system of the ship will be supplemented by two battery systems that provide around 500 kWh of electrical energy. The hydrogen will be placed in two swappable containers where each container can store around 500 kg of usable hydrogen under 300 bar. The safety aspects of the hydrogen storage and emergency venting are discussed in the next section.

Hydrogen storage on board integration As shown in the Figure 3, the hydrogen is stored in under pressure in type II horizontal pressure vessels. The pressure vessels are placed in swappable 40ft containers that are open on all sides to ensure natural ventilation around the vessels and therefore avoid hydrogen accumulation. The type II pressure vessels are made of steel and wrapped with composite fiber.

188

Conference Paper

Figure 3: The Maas will be retrofitted with PEM fuel cells and hydrogen fuel storage; the figure shows the centreline cross section view at the hydrogen storage containers and fuel cell system below the containers.

The existing technical requirements for inland vessels define additional provisions applicable to crafts operating on fuels with low flash point and prescribe that each (LNG) tank is to be fitted with at least two pressure relief valves to prevent overpressure conditions. The dedicated HAZID study concluded that the biggest risk for overpressure conditions for the vessels was fire on the deck and placing pressure relief valves that would be close to the fire could add more fuel to the fire. After a detailed investigation, it was concluded that the hydrogen pressure vessels contain a lot of steel (mass) and it takes 90 minutes to reach high pressure conditions, due to heating, in case of fire on the deck. To ensure safety of the system, additional fire fighting monitors can be used to cool down the tanks and extinguish the fire. The analysis showed that a relatively small amount of water (12,5 l/min) would provide sufficient cooling. If the ship’s fire fighting system would fail, the ultimate measure is to empty the hydrogen storage tanks through the venting line by remote activation from the bridge. Thus, it was decided to completely omit the pressure relief valves and provide additional safety measures that will ensure safe storage and controlled release of hydrogen if necessary.

Discussion and Conclusions Thanks to the measurements of the power profile, we were able to size the future fuel cell system optimally. The fuel cells will be typically loaded at between 70 and 75% and assumed specific hydrogen consumption of 60 g/kWh gives a representative (average) value of consumptions at the beginning and end of lifetime of fuel cells. Due to the long route, the Maas will operate on high energy demand, therefore, it is clear that hydrogen remains our preferred choice. An all-battery alternative would require approximately two to four times more space because of its lower energy density. Another point of concern is the (current) unavailability of charging facilities in the ports that the vessel will stop at. For this vessel, a 1 MW charging installation would be required, and it would take 10 hours to charge the batteries. With the diesel configuration having a rated power of 1200 kW, and the power demand being around 650 kW, it is clear that the existing ship is highly overrated for the investigated route. However, different routes towards Germany might require higher power as the river current is

189

Conference Paper stronger. In the future, we will measure performance on the routes to Germany and further east from the Netherlands, to design zero-emission ships that can successfully sail on those routes as well. The safety philosophy for the pressure vessels was based on the type and their position on the ship. Other types of pressure vessels with different arrangement in the container, might require different approach. For example, type IV pressure vessels that are positioned vertically could be protected with only one pressure relief valve, which is still a deviation from the rules and maybe additional measurements and/or new rules would be required. In any case, the questions related to the safe on-board integration of the hydrogen storage would remain (i.e., where to place it, how far from accommodation it might be, how to protect it from fire, etc.).

About Future Proof Shipping Future Proof Shipping (FPS) (www.futureproofshipping.com), offers zero-emissions shipping services to enable players across the value chain make the transition to zero-emissions. As a zero-emissions vessel owner, FPS aims to build and operate a fleet of 10 zero-emission inland and short-sea vessels over the next five years which they will offer for charter to logistics service providers and cargo owners. FPS also facilitates other shipowners and stakeholders in the maritime sector who are ready to make the shift to zero-emissions, through technical, financial, and commercial support as well as project development and management.

start@futureproofshipping.com | futureproofshipping.com Future Proof Shipping B.V., Blaak 34, 3011 TA Rotterdam, The Netherlands KVK 70035059

190

Conference Paper

Progress and priorities in ship design for fuel cell technology

JAN RÄSÄNEN Chief Technology Officer Foreship

BIOGRAPHY Jan-Erik Räsänen is currently Head of New Technologies at Foreship Ltd. He is responsible for the global technology team which consists of experts in 7 office locations. A well-known ship energy expert, Mr Räsänen specializes in managing/reducing energy consumption on board ships and thereby minimizing emissions from vessel power plants. Based in Helsinki, Mr Räsänen’s role includes supporting shipowners with the implementation of energy-saving solutions already developed by Foreship, such as with ALS (air lubrication system). Drawing on a career in energy efficiency and retrofits, he has a wealth of knowledge with the application of alternative fuels including energy-efficient hybrid, battery and fuel-cell technologies in shipping, an expertise for which he is widely known in the maritime sector. Mr Räsänen also possesses considerable experience in risk management services, which he is currently applying in support of efforts to restart the cruise industry. His expertise in risk management has been instrumental in Foreship’s development of Project Hygiea, an initiative designed to limit the presence, spread and potential impact of Covid-19 on passenger ships. During a 20-year period with ABB that included extensive managerial experience in both newbuilding and retrofits, Mr Räsänen ultimately became Head of New Technologies for the group’s Marine service business. He played a leading role in advancing energy management and decision support through software and the adoption of battery technologies on working vessels. In 2013, Mr Räsänen compiled and edited the widely cited book ‘Energy Efficiency – The other alternative fuel’.

SYNOPSIS Fuel Cells have emerged as a realistic complementary technology to help ships meet future GHG emissions regulations. But fast-tracking their development to supplement or even replace combustion engines demands decisiveness on scaling-up options and on low carbon fuel content choices. With the marine fuel cell becoming a reality, Jan-Erik Räsänen, CTO and Veikko Ahola, Project Engineer, Foreship offer an independent assessment of available technologies, and the possibilities for and impact on ship design.

191

Conference Paper Introduction - Sustainable Maritime Industry The concept of sustainability has multiple interpretations but, in the 21st Century, its usage generally refers to humans coexisting with global ecosystems over time, taking into account economic, social, and environmental impacts. In 2015, the countries of the United Nations (UN) adopted the Agenda of Sustainable Development to act as a common blueprint in pursuit of ‘peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future’. The agenda centres around 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) and 169 targets that call for action in global co-operation. The goals and targets are interlinked and need total solutions. The SDGs are shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. The sustainable development goals (UN, 2020a)

Maritime transport is an important enabling factor for many of the SDGs and while there is no specific ‘sustainable maritime transportation’ goal, its impact affects multiple SDGs. IMO’s broader commitment to halve shipping’s GHG emissions by 2050 looks beyond the reach of even the most energy-efficient combustion engine, whether or not supplemented by carbon capture. Assuming that there are also limits to carbon offsetting, meeting such a target will rely on supplementary or even replacement ship propulsion technologies.

1. Technological trends Several combinations could contribute to decarbonisation in the shipping industry and help it to reach zero-emission operations. Permutations could include improvements in operational practices, energy efficiency or ship design, the use of more environmentally friendly fuels or introducing new technologies. In the last case, one option meriting specific attention is the replacement of internal combustion engines with fuel cells as the prime energy producers. With multiple projects involving battery power underway, the potential and limitations of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are already clear. BESS is beneficial on short sea routes, or for its use in meeting ‘peak’ power needs. There are multiple promising projects within the European Union targeting the reduction of GHG emissions along inland waterways

192

Conference Paper which use swappable containerised batteries. One is Current Direct, a three-year EU funded project aiming to maximize energy content while minimizing CAPEX investment for a ship owner. Cruise ship owners crossing sensitive waters have also been early adopters of BESS technology. However, despite rapid increases in energy density and falls in the price per kilowatt hour, using batteries alone to propel a large ship over long distances is not feasible. The same is not true of less mature fuel cell technology, which converts hydrogen-rich fuel into electrical and thermal energy by electrochemical oxidation. Although owners should not be considering investment based on the prospect of short-term returns, the direct nature of the conversion achieves high electrical efficiency and offers broad potential as a viable ship propulsion technology and the promise of meeting IMO’s GHG-busting targets. Research work that looks towards marine fuel cell systems with output of up to megawatt scale is already underway, while several sea-going installations are planned in the hundreds of kilowatts range covering commuter ferries and research vessels. If not commonplace, it is expected that fuel cells generating stable loads will be part of accepted (and expected) marine propulsion technology within a reasonable amount of time, perhaps supported by BESS for peak loads. Certainly, Foreship has recently seen fast-accelerating interest from owners seeking guidance on the way fuel cells can work in parallel with combustion engines to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. Two fuel cell technologies are maturing in the maritime context: to date, the PEM (Polymer Electrolyte Membrane) technology used in the automotive industry has led the way, where its relative maturity has brought lower pricing and higher power density than its Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) counterpart. PEM fuel cells use platinum-based electrodes and a humidified polymer membrane as the Electrolyte. The SOFC Electrolyte is a porous ceramic material, while the anode is of Nickel Alloy and the Cathode is normally made of lanthanum strontium manganite However, some of the advantages claimed for PEM fuel cells may not prove telling in the marine context. For example, where hydrogen is the primary fuel, the PEM is highly sensitive to impurities. Again, hydrogen has a boiling point of -253 ̊C at 1 bar and would need to be stored on a ship as a cryogenic liquid, compressed gas or chemically bound. Using LH2 as fuel for a PEM fuel cell to drive a ship would need fuel space roughly equivalent to four times that needed for MGO. As it stands, even setting aside the space needed to carry hydrogen in the quantities that would drive a deep sea ship across oceans using PEM technology, no supporting infrastructure exists to bunker hydrogen. One solution is to use fuel reformers to convert an original fuel, such as natural gas, methanol or even low-flashpoint diesel, into hydrogen rich fuel. After a painful birth, an LNG bunkering network has been developed and, unlike the internal combustion engine, a fuel cell using LNG would not experience methane slip and would therefore achieve significantly lower GHG emissions compared to internal combustion engines. However, while LNG can be reformed in the case of the SOFC, an external reformer is needed for the PEM solution, taking up space but also requiring complex and potentially short-lived water management systems. In fact, in the case of PEM the best alternative primary fuel to hydrogen itself is methanol. Not only is methanol less mature as a marine fuel than LNG, but it is also toxic: furthermore, it is primarily produced today from natural gas. Converting natural gas to methanol is therefore

193

Conference Paper less efficient in involving an extra step, while a sizeable reformer external to the fuel cell is also needed. If these are practical obstacles that some believe will be overcome by determination, it is a simple fact that the energy conversion efficiency from hydrogen to electricity in a ‘conventional’ PEM cell is 45-50%; the SOFC process has potential for 60-65% electrical efficiency. Furthermore, the combination of zero methane slip and high efficiency achieves the required 50% reduction in GHG emissions. While the reforming process generates carbon monoxide as well as hydrogen, SOFC plants can utilize both as fuel. In addition, the higher operating temperature of the SOFC (750 ◦C vs. 160 ◦C) creates the potential to increase efficiency further by exploiting Waste Heat Recovery. It is nonetheless fair to point out that the SOFC’s relatively high operating temperature, together with its smaller power density and higher cost in the short to medium term, may restrict the use of this technology onboard ships. Furthermore, Foreship believes that PEM technology will make a valuable contribution to ship propulsion in the years ahead. However, over time, we believe the relative advantages of PEM technology will be eroded and that, like BESS before it, potential will be most fully realised in shorter transits where fuel storage on board is not an issue. Possibilities and limitations to consider with fuel cells:

l l l l l l

Overall efficiency Power and energy density Load response characteristics and systems start-up and shut-down time Environmental impact Safety and reliability Economics

Questions to be answered

1. I s it feasible to replace internal combustion engines with fuel cells on a cruise ship possible with the current concept? 1. How the heat- and energy balances are for a fuel cell powered ship compared to the reference ship? 1. What are the space needs for a fuel cell power system and how does it affect the general arrangement of the ship?

In order to answer the questions above, a state-of-the-art reference cruise ship has been used in the assessment.

2. Reference ship The reference ship is a 77,000-gross ton (GT) cruise ship, which has capacity for 1,800 passengers when two persons are berthed in each of the 900 cabins. The maximum passenger capacity is 2,500. Crew number is 700, with crew being berthed on one- and two-person cabins. The ship has total installed engine power of 46,000 kW from six LNG-MGO dual-fuel enginegenerator sets (two 9,200 kW engines and four 6,900 kW engines) that are set up as a power plant providing all the electricity and heat that the ship needs. The ship’s propulsion is provided by two 15,000 kW electrically driven pod units. The service speed is 21 knots. In addition, two auxiliary boilers are installed to provide additional steam and heat when the heat production from main engine waste flows, namely exhaust gases and engine jacket cooling, is not sufficient to cover all the demand. Several novel technologies are included in the design to boost environmental friendliness and efficiency.

194

Conference Paper The fuel capacities are defined so that the amount of both fuels carried onboard is enough to solely power the ship over a typical one-week cruise itinerary on a speed distribution that is presented in Graph 1.

Graph 1: Speed distribution profile used to estimate the ship’s fuel capacity.

Cruise ships are often described as small floating towns, which produce their own water and power, accommodate, and entertain the guests and in the end handle their own waste, too. Ship’s different energy needs are:

l l l

The mechanical energy demand of the propulsion to move the ship, Electrical energy demand to power lights and services, Heat energy demands of onboard climate and warm water

See Figure 2 for the reference ships energy balance at the speed of 20 kn. With this energy balance, the entire heat demand can be supported from the excess heat produced from the power plant. Normally the power plant and distribution are built trying to utilize as much waste heat as possible. With a typical maximum utilization rate of energy content in fuel, a ship can reach an efficiency range of 60 – 65%.

Figure 2: The reference ship’s energy balance at 20 knots

195

Conference Paper 2.1 ENERGY BALANCE OF A LT-PEMFC The electrical efficiency of LT-PEMFC, based on lower heating value of hydrogen, is between 40–50 %. The excess heat must be removed from the stacks to maintain a constant temperature inside. Of the heat generation, 25–35 % is let out from the fuel cell stack by extra reactants and the latent heat of water vaporization (the product of the fuel cell reaction). The remaining excess heat, known as the cooling load, needs to be removed by the cooling system. Generally, the liquid cooling is the most suitable for large installations. The energy balance of a typical LT-PEMFC is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Typical energy balance of a LT-PEMFC

The low temperature poses a challenge when different WHRS possibilities are considered. For cooling water, it seems that the temperature range falls in between the LT- and HT- cooling waters in conventional machinery. Swedenborg has simulated cooling systems for a 200kW fuel cell unit in an automobile and reports the average cooling water temperature between inlet and outlet of the fuel cell as 75 °C. As the coolant temperature is between LT- and HT-water temperatures, also possibilities to utilize this “medium-temperature water” (MT) directly for HT-consumers could be considered. Apart from heat recovery, there is a possibility to collect water produced in the fuel cell from the exhaust flow and use it as technical water. The water production per 1 MWh of electrical power is roughly 500 litres when the humidity of incoming air is not considered. However, a cooling source would be required to condensate the water. In the calculation of energy balance, 50 % of the fuel energy is converted into electricity and 35 % into MT-heat at 75 °C). 10 % is heat losses and 5 % of the hydrogen is lost unreacted.

2.2

ENERGY BALANCE OF A SOFC

The Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) is the second promising fuel cell technology for marine use, especially given to its high operating temperature, 750–1000 °C and the flexibility available to use different fuels without the need for a separate reformer. The achieved cell electrical efficiency is high, with current record being 74 % (Elcogen, 2020). SOFC applications available in the market generally target off-grid and distributed power production. One of the advantages of the SOFC is its flexibility for fuels and impurity tolerance. The cell reforms hydrocarbon fuels and ammonia internally into hydrogen and other gases utilizing the water vapor produced at the anode. Thus, a separate fuel reformer is typically not needed.

196

Conference Paper A typical SOFC is optimized for maximized electrical efficiency. Heat production is an additional benefit, where a SOFC produces one part of heat for two parts of generated electricity when the internal needs are already covered (i.e. 30 % of heat, 60 % of electricity). See Figure 4 for a typical energy balance of a SOFC.

Figure 4: Typical energy balance of a SOFC (Convion)

In order to assess the applicability of these technologies onboard a Cruise ship, it is good to compare the efficiencies and volumetric energy density to understand the possibilities and demand from the power plant view. Table 1 will give an indication on limitations from the different configurations. This still does not include the space required for fuel tanks, fuel preparation and fuel system. Table 1: Comparison between different type of power production units

From the electrical efficiency perspective both fuel cell types could replace an internal combustion engine. This is also true when looking at the volumetric energy density, although the internal combustion engine is currently the best choice.

2.3 Fuel tank and fuel preparation requirements Of the fuel cell types presented, the SOFCs can use a variety of fuels through internal reforming while PEMFCs require an external fuel reformer to reform the bunkered fuel into gaseous pure hydrogen. Bunkered fuel is usually referred to as primary fuel or in some papers as logistic fuel. As fuel cells always use hydrogen in the end, primary fuels, other than pure hydrogen may also be referred to as hydrogen carriers. On a more general level, an important distinction can be

197

Conference Paper made between primary energy sources and energy carriers. The former means the original raw material such as oil, gas, coal, waste oil, biomass, wind, solar power or hydropower. The latter covers the same as primary fuels, but also electricity. Hydrogen offers the simplest layout for a fuel cell ship because no reforming systems are needed. Ammonia may gain popularity, as it offers the same benefit of carbon-freedom as hydrogen but uses considerably less storage space. Methanol and natural gas can be produced either as electro-fuels or as biofuels and have already been applied as fuels in passenger ships, too. Other future fuel options that are often suggested and reviewed in different studies include bio diesel, ethanol, dimethyl ethers and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Table 2: Energy density for LNG, H2, LH2 and CHG

As Table 2 shows the storage options for CGH are not suitable for cruise ships, which require a long endurance and are already restricted by volume and weight. For LH, around 2.5 times of the volume is needed to achieve similar energy content to LNG. However, where fuel cell power systems use options other than hydrogen, the volume taken by the fuel processing systems need to be considered too. Where safety is considered, hydrogen gas is non-toxic in its natural state, which is a benefit compared to other fuel options. However, hydrogen is unscented and invisible, which makes leakages difficult to detect. This is a risk, since H2 is highly explosive and flammable when mixed with air. Furthermore, the hydrogen flame is not visible in daylight. Table 3: Fuel properties for different “future fuels”

Table 3 shows that all “future fuels” demand more space and weigh more than conventional liquid fuels, as well as having negative characteristics when it comes to flammability and toxicity.

2.4 Fuel processing system Apart from fuel storage, processing equipment is needed to transform the primary fuel into a fuel cell-ready form. For liquid hydrogen, the fuel processing system consists of re-gasification and possible cold recovery. For other fuel types, the process of extracting hydrogen is generally subdivided into the following phases:

198

Conference Paper

Evaporation of the primary fuel De-sulfurization of fuel to prevent sulphur-induced deactivation of catalyst materials that are used in subsequent processing steps. Fuel reforming that is used to convert the primary fuel into a hydrogen rich mixture CO clean-up to minimize the carbon monoxide content in the mixture and to maximize the yield of hydrogen Purification that is necessary if hydrogen with a high purity is required, which is the case in LT-fuel cells

SOFCs do not generally require separate fuel processing systems, but de-sulfurization may be needed depending on fuel quality. Therefore, SOFCs are typically equipped with sulphur absorbers. The fuel processing systems have a significant impact on the efficiency, size, weight, cost, load response performance, and additional loads of a fuel cell power system. The most straightforward fuel processing is for LH. Reforming LNG into high purity hydrogen for LTPEMFC requires multiple phases even if the technology is well established. Systems targeted for ships are not directly available for any fuel, and the stage of development of the fuel processing system required for ammonia is unclear.

2.5 Fuel Cells in the vessel electrical network The electricity produced by fuel cells is DC. Each separate fuel cell produces a certain voltage, with stack output produced by cells in series. The DC power generated has a variable voltage and current depending on the load of the fuel cell system. Therefore, a DC-DC converter is needed to balance output as constant voltage. However, due to the large power requirements of systems concerned - such as the propeller motors and thrusters - most electric devices still need AC power; this justifies the AC grid as the base of the electrical distribution.

3. Regulatory landscape for Fuel Cell installations The international regulation for fuel cell powered ships by the IMO is still under development. The IGF-code (International Code of Safety for Ships using Gases or Other Low-Flashpoint Fuels) which came into force in 2017 will eventually include amendments and additions for fuel cell power systems. In the meantime, ships designed to use other low flashpoint (LF)-fuels than LNG or fuel cells follow the alternative design process and prove an equivalent level of safety in accordance with SOLAS II-1/55. The alternative design process includes all safety and hazardous aspects of a fuel cell power installation, such as hazardous areas, ventilation of hazardous areas, fuel cell spaces, fuel cell air supply and exhaust systems, fuel storage, fuel processing, gas pipes and fuel reforming.

Conclusion Beneath is a summary of Fuel Cell technologies with volume and weight estimation.

Hydrogen is the most space consuming fuel and SOFC is the most space consuming fuel cell type. PEMFCs are the most compact fuel cell type, but especially in case of LT-PEMFCs the benefit is lost when the total installation including fuel storage and processing systems are considered. Fuel alternatives that have more desirable power to volume ratio than LH lose much of their advantage when reformer systems are needed. Need of onboard fuel reformer lowers the total efficiency significantly and causes a considerable additional electrical load and water consumption. The reduction of total efficiency makes LT-PEMFCs combined with fuel reformers below the ICEs in energy efficiency, which is not preferred.

199

Conference Paper

The highest electrical efficiency is gained from natural gas fuelled SOFCs, with possibilities to reach over 70 % efficiency. Considering the load-response and start up times, SOFCs are not suitable alone to power a ship.

The power to volume and weight characteristics for different fuel cells – fuel combinations are presented in Graph 2 and Graph 3. For the fuel energy densities, the values including system required sizes are included. The installed power of 30,000 kW and fuel capacity for 3,000 MWh are defined to calculate the actual weights and sizes of the system that could be used in the reference ship. The combined electrical efficiency from the fuel cell and the fuel reformer is indicated as a line and is considered in fuel storage size.

Graph 2: Volumetric comparison of Fuel Cell and Fuel Combination for studied cases

Graph 3: Gravimetric comparison of Fuel Cell and Fuel Combination for 30,000kW power

200

Conference Paper Summary of the different fuel cell technologies in comparison to the reference ship can be found in Table 4. Table 4: Comparison table between the reference ship and fuel cell ship cases

The difference in energy demand between the reference ship and the fuel cell alternatives is big, at +17%, for the LTPEMFC with methanol as fuel, mainly because of the high energy demand for the fuel reformation both in losses and electrical power demand for the steam processing. This also includes water consumption for the reforming process. The best alternative from the energy consumption perspective is liquid hydrogen with LTPEMFC, where the energy consumption is reduced with 13%.

201

SESSION 7.1

Wind Propulsion

Moderator

Gavin Allwright Secretary, International Windship Association (IWSA)

BIOGRAPHY Gavin Allwright is the secretary of the newly formed International Windship Association (IWSA). Established in 2014, this grouping of maritime wind propulsion companies and projects supported by academia, NGO’s and seafarers aims to promote and facilitate the uptake of wind propulsion solutions in commercial shipping. He has also been working closely with the Oceania Centre for Sustainable Transport on the development of sustainable shipping in the South Pacific and gained extensive knowledge of the small vessel sector from his work as the Commercial Director for the Greenheart Project, a not-for-profit organisation he joined in 2005, designing a zero-emissions, sail/solar electric cargo vessel for least developed regions. Gavin holds a Masters degree in Sustainable Development, specialising in the development and impact of low carbon vessels in developing countries and has recently collaborated on a soon to be released IRENA technical brief – Renewable Energy in Shipping.

204

Conference Paper

Setting the scene for Wind Propulsion

Gavin Allwright Secretary, International Windship Association (IWSA)

205

Conference Paper

Wind-powered ship performance – the tools and trades

MIKAEL RAZOLA Project Manager wPCC Research Project Wallenius Marine

BIOGRAPHIES Mikael Razola is the project manager for the wPCC research project that Wallenius Marine is running together with SSPA and KTH. The aim is to develop a sailing car-carrier ship for long-distance shipping. Mikael has a Ph.D. in Naval Architecture and has been working with a wide range of marine development projects within the government, private and military market, first as consultant at SSPA and since 2019 at Wallenius Marine. Sailing has always been an important part for Mikael, both professionally and as leisure, he has among other projects been involved with the development of an autonomous sailing research platform (Maribot Vane), and in the development of courses in sailing mechanics.

206

Conference Paper

Introduction of Guidelines for WindAssisted Propulsion Systems for Ships

MOTOKI SAKAGAMI Marine Engineer, Technical Solution Department, ClassNK

BIOGRAPHY Motoki Sakagami joined ClassNK in 2015 and is now in charge of technical evaluation for innovative technologies in shipping, including alternative fuels and wind-assisted propulsion. He was also responsible for the establishing work of “Guidelines for Wind-Assisted Propulsion Systems for Ships” which was released by ClassNK last year. His previous experience includes the plan approval of hull structures.

1. WIND POWER IN SHIPPING INDUSTRY Trends in environmental regulations affecting the shipping industry are accelerating year after year. A representative example of these moves is the “Initial IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships,” which was adopted in April 2018, targeting a 50% reduction in total GHG emissions from international shipping by 2050 (compared to 2008) and zero GHG emissions in the current century 1). Based on this, clean technologies which minimize GHG emissions are also demanded in the shipping industry. Among clean technologies, “wind-assisted propulsion systems” (hereinafter referred to as “WAPS”) have attracted attention, as these systems utilize clean wind power to produce propulsive force for ships. While the mention of “wind power” in the world of ships may call to mind the image of the classic sailing ship, WAPS have continued to evolve by incorporating modern technology, and technical development of various systems is now underway in countries around the world. Originally, the beginnings of wind power in shipping are said to predate the Christian era. Shortly after the invention of the ship as a means of movement on water, the technique of using sails to harness the power of the wind was also devised, and that technology developed with the times. Large numbers of sailing ships were constructed in many countries from the 15th to the 18th century, which is called the Age of Great Voyages. However, following the invention of the steam engine, steam engines replaced wind power as source of power for ships and, in turn, steam was replaced by the internal combustion engine in the 20th century. The traditional sailing ship gradually declined, and now only small sailboats used for leisure and a few training ships remain.

207

Conference Paper Some decades later, in the 1970s and 1980s, wind power was again in the spotlight as a result of the sharp rise in crude oil prices accompanying the Oil Crises of the 1970s. In Japan, research on modern sail-assisted ships utilizing the technologies available at the time was carried out, and WAPS developed by then-NKK Corporation (now JFE Engineering Corporation) and thenJAMDA (Japan Marine Machinery Development Association, now Japan Ship Machinery and Equipment Association) were installed on a total of 17 ships, beginning with a coastal service tanker, the Shin-Aitoku Maru (Fig. 1). Although the system reportedly reduced fuel consumption by 8-10% 2), for various reasons, including the maintenance cost of the sail system, the additional work load on the crew and the recovery (decline) of crude oil prices following the Second Oil Crisis, adoption of this modern sailing ship was limited to those vessels. it seemed that the modern sailing ship might disappear from the scene at this point, but in the 2000s, active research on a variety of technologies was conducted around the world, encouraged by heightened environmental awareness. The latest sails tend to be designed with larger scale and optimized operation by automation and weather routing, which are indicative of the technological progress from the devices of the past. In Japan, the Wind Challenger Project, a joint industry-academia research initiative which began in 2009, is widely known. Also some concept ships designs with WAPS were highlighted in the Roadmap of the Shipping Zero Emission Project (organized by JSTRA – the Japan Ship Technology Research Association) (Fig. 2) 3). Now the above-mentioned IMO target for GHG reduction accelerates the development of WAPS, and some technologies have already been at the actual ship application stage.

Figure 1 The Shin-Aitoku Maru

Figure 2 Concept Design Ships with WAPS

2. Class approach for WAPS Not to mention, if operated correctly, WAPS can realize the merits of improved fuel consumption and reduced GHG emissions. At the same time, they must not cause unexpected accidents or harm to the ship’s equipment, crew or surrounding environment. Although the safety of ships is guaranteed by international conventions, domestic laws, related regulations, etc., there are still no conventions applicable to WAPS. Figure 3 Guidelines for Wind-Assisted Propulsion Systems for Ships Under these circumstances, in 2019, ClassNK issued “Guidelines for Wind-Assisted Propulsion Systems for Ships” (Fig. 3). The guidelines provide the guidance for the safe design of WAPS, such as;  Risk assessment l Design loads and structural strength  l Driving / electric / control systems  l Materials  l Maintenance and survey  For the installation of WAPS onboard ships, ClassNK review and approve the design of WAPS

208

Conference Paper itself and of the modification on base ship based on the guidelines. Upon satisfactory completion of the plan approval and survey, Product Approval is issued for WAPS, and the special Class Notation “Equipped with WAPS” is affixed to the ship on which the WAPS is installed. Although the guidelines were established assuming all types of WAPS, successive updates are planned, corresponding to progress in technology, for example, updating of the special conditions for individual types of systems at the stage when actual results and knowledge concerning the adoption of WAPS have been accumulated. The guidelines are available via our website ( https://www. classnk.or.jp/account/en/Rules_Guidance/ssl/login.aspx ).

3. Issues to be Considered 3.1 INTERFERENCE WITH SHIP’S FUNCTION When planning the installation of WAPS onboard ships, not only the design of WAPS itself, but also the risks that WAPS may interfere with the base ship’s function is to be considered. Such risks are also mentioned in the above guidelines, and the typical design issues include (but not limited to) the followings. l   l l  l  l  l  l  l 

Stability Manoeuvrability Navigation bridge visibility Deck reinforcement Longitudinal strength Equipment numbers Gross tonnage Power capacity, etc.

3.2 CONTRIBUTION TO EEDI/EEXI While WAPS are expected to have the effects of improving fuel consumption and reducing GHG on the ship concerned, there are cases where these improvements are not directly linked to the profit of the user. For example, because fuel costs are generally borne by the ship charterers, the ship owners cannot profit directly from the effect of investment in the system. To solve this kind of problem, providing clear institutional incentives is considered necessary. The EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index) and EEXI (Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index) are major examples of the regulations to promote CO2 reduction. However, in its present form, the effect of wind power cannot be reflected in the EEDI/EEXI due to the lack of an official certification scheme. To cope with the situation, the above-mentioned Shipping Zero Emission Project aims to create a scheme for the certification by 2022 3). In line with this, China, Germany and Japan submitted a draft amendment proposal to 76th session of MEPC (Marine Environmental Protection Committee) on June 2021 4), accompanied by some additional proposals by other parties, in order to make it possible for WAPS to be reflected in EEDI/EEXI. The proposals were not considered at MEPC 76 due to time constraints, and will be discussed at the next session of MEPC, which will be held on November 2021.

4. Conclusion This paper has introduced the background and class view of WAPS, which are being developed at an accelerating pace in recent years in response to more stringent environmental regulations.

209

Conference Paper Due to the nature of wind power, it is foreseen that wind power “cannot be used as the main source for propulsion for reasons of scale” 3). However, unlike other GHG reduction technologies, such as some alternative fuels, wind power is a clean technology which generates no GHG emissions. Today, when the IMO has laid out a GHG reduction strategy, increasingly high expectations for WAPS, which utilize renewable energy, are foreseen in the future. On the other hand, use of wind power still has not gained wide acceptance in the shipping industry, and no small number of issues must be solved in order to popularize this technology. To overcome these issues, improvement of the reliability of the technology, while accumulating actual results in the form of demonstration tests and installation on actual ships, will be indispensable, and it is also important to create the related standards for this. ClassNK intends to contribute to the further development of WAPS from the viewpoint of safety assessment for this technology based on the “Guidelines for Wind-Assisted Propulsion Systems for Ships” and the other expertise in the field of ship industry.

References 1) IMO: Resolution MEPC.304(72), Initial IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships, 2018 2) Nippon Kaiji Kyokai: Introduction of New Ships Built in Japan, Sail-assisted Motor Cargo Ships with NK Class, Technical Bulletin of Nippon Kaiji Kyokai, Vol. 3, pp.97-100, 1985 3) Shipping Zero Emission Project: Roadmap to Zero Emission from International Shipping, 2020 4) IMO: MEPC 76/6/2, Draft amendments to MEPC.1/Circ.815 for verification of the wind propulsion system, 2021

210

Conference Paper

The application of Rotor Sail technology and optimising fuel and emission reduction

NICK CONTOPOULOS COO, Anemoi Marine Technologies

BIOGRAPHY Nick Contopoulos is COO at Anemoi Marine Technologies, Nick is a Chartered Engineer with over 15 years’ experience across multi-disciplinary engineering and shipping sectors, with a proven track record of delivering complex engineering projects in Europe and the Far East. Nick is one of the founding members of Anemoi which he took a lead role in setting up, following an established career working at a prestigious ship owning company and as a consultant at some of the world’s largest providers of professional and technical services. Nick is extremely passionate about innovation and the environment, so delivering renewable wind propulsion solutions to the shipping and maritime sector is a perfect fit as the industry looks for sustainable ways to operate and lower its environmental impact on the natural world.

1. ABOUT ANEMOI Anemoi Marine Technologies (Anemoi) is a London based provider of proven wind technology, driving a more sustainable future for the global shipping industry. The company was incorporated in 2015 following extensive Research and Development. Anemoi delivered the world’s first Rotor Sail installation on board a globally trading Bulk Carrier, the m/v Afros, 64k DWT Ultramax, delivered in January 2018. Since then, Anemoi has developed a commercial product range to support its mission to help create a sustainable future for the shipping industry, in line with targets set out by the International Maritime Organisation, by rolling out this proven wind power technology across the global shipping fleet. At least two upcoming installations of Anemoi Rotor Sail technology are already set to take place in 2022/23. Anemoi’s systems have been previously certified for installation and received Plan Approval by Lloyds Register of Shipping. Our systems are designed in accordance with LRS, DNV-GL and ABS requirements for Wind Propulsion systems.

2. ROTOR SAIL TECHNOLOGY Rotor Sails (also known as Flettner Rotors) are comprised of tall cylinders which, when driven to spin by an electric motor, harness the renewable power of the wind to provide auxiliary propulsion to vessels.

211

Conference Paper Rotor Sails make use of the aerodynamic phenomenon known as the ‘Magnus Effect’. As the cylinder rotates within an airflow, a forward thrust force perpendicular to the apparent wind direction is created, which delivers additional thrust to the vessel. The thrust generated can either provide additional vessel speed or maintain vessel speed by reducing power from the main engine. This results in less fuel burned and reduced emissions.

3. MARKET ASSESMENT & TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION 3.1 DRIVERS As tighter regulations are introduced to address decarbonisation in the shipping industry, shipowners are increasing their efforts to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions. This not only benefits their business but also the entire value chain. The value proposition for wind technologies is strong and will become increasingly economical as the technologies mature. The drivers for wind propulsion technology are clear and compelling. Some of the drivers include:

3.1.1 REGULATION The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has made it clear that it wants significant cuts in ship emissions as part of its 2030 and 2050 targets, which set out to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from vessels by at least 40% before the end of this decade and by at least 50% by 2050 (compared with 2008 baseline figures). The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) is already in place and has been created to ensure newbuild vessels meet requisite levels of efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI), meanwhile, is due to come into force by January 2023, along with Carbon Intensity Indicators (CII). These measures mean ship owners already have to weigh up the options available to achieve compliance. Debate still surrounds the realistic timeline, availability and eco nature of alternative fuels. As a result, many shipowners are looking to invest in future proof technologies such as wind propulsion. This is further enforced by recent reports citing that less than 25% of bulkers and tanker will attain EEXI compliance*. *https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/regulation/less-25-bulkers-and-tankerswill-attain-eexi-compliance

3.1.2 ENVIRONMENT More ship owners are taking closer looks at their internal Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) initiatives and setting their own decarbonisation targets. These first movers are investing heavily in research and innovation, trialling emerging technologies on their vessels before full fleet roll out. This strategy also aligns with the banks bringing sustainable finance options to the ship owners and shipping stakeholders through initiatives like the Poseidon Principles and the Sea Cargo Charter.

3.1.3 BUNKER COST SAVINGS Rotor Sails provide auxiliary thrust to a vessel, allowing the main engine to be powered down while maintaining speed. This results in reduced fuel consumption and therefore lower bunker costs. The industry is currently working towards introducing new, clean fuels and work is underway to utilise hydrogen, ammonia and even fuel-cell technology. Irrespective

212

Conference Paper of what fuel replaces fossil fuel, there will be a continued desire for wind assisted propulsion. Future fuels are likely to be in demand across a number of industries and therefore carry a high price tag. Owners and charterers will always want to contain their bunker costs and Rotor Sails provide a route to uptake new fuels without seeing dramatically increased bunker bills. Over the coming couple of decades, Rotor Sails may primarily be installed as a way to help owners meet their environmental obligations. Thereafter – and when low carbon fuels become the norm – the systems will also become an aid to reducing operating costs.

3.1.4 CHARTERERS Charterers with strong ESG initiatives are emerging as a driving force for adoption of clean technology. Ship owners with more efficient ships provide a more competitive offering to the charter market.

3.1.5 FREE ENERGY Wind is a free, abundant energy and through installing Rotor Sails, this energy is delivered to the vessel at source .

3.1.6 MONETISING CARBON SAVINGS Although not yet widely adopted, the industry is moving towards the concept of carbon credits, which will significantly lower the payback period of wind propulsion and other clean technologies, further supporting the economics and the overall business case. Anemoi is working with partners to explore these opportunities as they come online.

3.2 ADDRESSABLE MARKET The global addressable market for Rotor Sails is significant. The existing world fleet and confirmed order book totals >47,000 commercial vessels made up of: • 44,604 existing vessels • 2,425 newbuild* vessels on order *Newbuild data from Clarksons Trade Outlooks Jul 2019 forecasting 2020-2021+. Retrofit data from Clarksons World Fleet Monitor and Clarksons SeaNet. The existing fleet not considered suitable for Rotor Sails include vessels that do not have the available deck space or an appropriate trading pattern to make effective use of wind propulsion technology.

3.3 TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION Rotor Sails are suitable and commercially available now for a wide variety of vessel types including bulk carriers, tankers, RoRos and ferries. Anemoi is also assessing applicability with its customers on other vessel segments including container ships and autonomous vessels.

4. BARRIERS TO UPTAKE 4.1 SPLIT INCENTIVE Currently the market expects vessel owners to invest in ship efficiency. However, with wind propulsion technology, the monetary benefits of the technology (reduced bunker costs) are often realised by the charterer. Although this makes for a more competitive offering from the ship owner, there is limited market evidence that suggests day rates of the vessel reflect the increased efficiency, we believe this is now changing. Of course, this only applies to economic drivers for installation as Rotor Sails also assist with regulatory

213

Conference Paper compliance. Areas currently under assessment include profit sharing agreements between owners and charterers through the Charter Party Agreement, and financing options for new clean technology.

4.2 AVAILABLE REFERENCE INSTALATIONS According to the International Wind Ship Association, as of February 2021, there were approximately 11 large commercial vessels sailing with wind propulsion technology fitted and the EU has forecast that up to 10,700 wind propulsion installations could be in place by 2030*. In the meantime, however, there are a limited number of first mover ship owners willing to invest in these technologies until more installations have been made, which would give further confidence and strengthen the business case. Similarly, there is not currently a standardised approach for measuring operational performance, which give further transparency for ship owners prior to investment. * https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/driving-the-decade-of-wind-propulsion/

4.3 UNCERTAINTY AROUND ROTOR SAIL VESSEL OPERATION One of the main uncertainties surrounding wind propulsion is the impact on vessel business and operations.

4.3.2 CREW Often with wind propulsion, there is some required input from the ship’s crew. For owners, initial questions and concerns are around the responsibilities, training, crew change over and maintaining onboard knowledge of the technology. Anemoi’s Rotor Sail technology is automated and will switch on automatically when the wind direction and speed is right for Rotor Sails. Full training is provided on supply of the equipment, with refresher training available.

4.3.3 INSTALLATION Some clean technologies require a ship to be dry-docked, taking time out of vessel operation. This is not necessarily a requirement with Rotor Sails as the technology is fitted on the deck of a ship, offering greater flexibility when planning the integration and installation works on board.

4.3.4 CARGO OPERATIONS AND AIR DRAFT For Rotor Sails, air draft has been lessened as an issue, thanks to the development of Folding Rotor Sails. Folding Rotor Sails also play a role during cargo handling, where the Rotor Sails can be lowered to the horizontal so as not to obstruct cargo operations. Anemoi has also created another unique deployment system whereby the Rotor Sails can be moved along or across the deck of a ship on a rail system so as minimise risk to port operations. Both the folding and rail deployment systems significantly reduce the impact Rotor Sails have on port operations. We are now seeing many key ports interested in Rotor Sail technology that are supporting stakeholders in assessing vessel operations. In general ports are very supportive in finding and validating solutions.

4.3 COST As emerging technologies, most wind propulsion technologies can require a relatively high upfront CAPEX investment due to low production volumes. That said, for Rotor Sails the OPEX (maintenance costs) is low and for Anemoi, production volume is being scaled

214

Conference Paper up significantly to support the increasing demand we see in the market, which will add value to both Anemoi and our customers. The business case for wind propulsion is also improved by increased regulation and greater economic benefit through bunker and emission savings, and the potential introduction of a carbon levy.

5. PERFORMANCE & ROUTE SPECIFIC RESULTS 5.1 FACTORS AFFECTING ROTOR SAIL PERFORMANCE There are a number of factors that affect Rotor Sail performance, including: l

The size of Rotor Sail installed – the larger the Rotor Sail, the more thrust generated o The decision of the size is determined by a vessel’s size, available deck space, technical feasibility and business operations l The number of Rotor Sails installed o Again, this is determined by a vessel’s size, available deck space, technical feasibility and business operations l The route sailed – some routes lend themselves better to wind propulsion than others o See section 5.3 for more

5.2 PERFORMANCE Rotor Sails can reduce fuel consumption and emissions by between 5% and 30%, dependent on the factors outlined above. Examples on a tanker and bulk carrier are provided below. Anemoi estimates the expected fuel and emissions savings using our in-house Fuel Saving Assessment Method (FSAM). This method combines the following 4 key sets of input data: l

Rotor performance data, from our UK test facility Vessel performance data, from the Client or Clarksons Research World Fleet Register l Route data, from the Client or 3rd Party AIS provider l Wind Data, from NASA dataset l

These 4 sets of data are run within FSAM to determine the expected fuel and emissions savings for the vessel on any desired trade routes. Thousands of historic voyages on each route are simulated for the previous 5 years to ensure that the results reflect the wind conditions experienced. We present “net” savings, which take into account the negative impacts of Rotor Sail operation including headwind drag and increased generator usage to give a fair and transparent estimation of performance.

215

Conference Paper

5.3 ROUTE SPECIFIC RESULTS Rotor Sails require wind to produce thrust to a vessel, but the wind needs to come from the right direction and at a favourable speed. The plot below shows the best wind direction for use of Rotor Sails (green (good), orange (moderate) , red (unfavourable)). Overlaid onto this is an example of the wind experienced by the m/v Afros, Anemoi’s pilot installation, on a recent voyage. It can be seen that a large proportion of the wind was from the green sector and therefore the fuel saving was good. Anemoi’s control system automatically switches the rotors on when the winds are favourable.

Anemoi has assessed various routes that are popular with bulk carriers and tankers including: Routes (Ballast) New York San Francisco Tianjin Qingdao Qingdao Mobile Nantong Ningbo Qingdao

to Rotterdam to Shanghai to Newcastle to Port Hedland to Tubarao via Malacca to Rotterdam to Vancouver to LOOP to Doha 216

Conference Paper In the heatmap below, we have assessed Rotor Sail performance during the route sailed. This map is based on the average for configurations of Rotor Sails on an MR Tanker, VLOC, Ultramax, Capesize, Newcastlemax and an VLCC. In dark blue, the Rotor Sails were off and not producing any thrust due to unfavourable wind speed and direction. On the other end of the spectrum, the bright green colour represents savings of up to 84%. This averages out to 21.6% on the voyages.

6. IMPACT ON EEDI, EEXI AND CII Rotor Sails can help reduce EEDI and EEXI scores. The following is subject to further information expected during MEPC 77 (November 2021). Currently, the EEDI/ EEXI Formula contains feff*Peff for innovative mechanical energy efficiency technologies (see figure 1). Rotor Sails fall into this category. Since Rotor Sail propulsion power depends on wind conditions, they cannot be operated to produce a certain amount of power by the push of the button. The EEDI/ EEXI calculation method introduces feff*Peff as the average available power from the Rotor Sails. It is determined by matrix operations for thrust force, wind probability and external power demand. Figure 1:

217

Conference Paper The calculation method applied for EEDI for Wind Propulsion outlines the detailed method for calculating these matrices. The Rotor Sail force matrix F(Vref)ij is obtained from lift and drag coefficients measured at Anemoi’s full scale test facility in Newcastle. The wind matrix Wij is obtained through the IMO “Global Wind Probability Matrix”. The external power matrix P(Vref) is defined in the same way as the force matrix. The power matrix is multiplied by the Global Wind Probability Matrix. EEXI calculation guidelines for wind propulsion to be provided in MEPC77. Figure 2: MEPC 62/INF.35 Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships

As an example, Anemoi has assessed EEXI for a Kamsarmax installed with 4 Rotor Sails (size 4mx28m). In the example, the Kamsarmax in question has an attained EEDI score of 3.48 (phase 2). Adding the Rotor Sails moves this vessel from phase 2 to phase 3 with an estimated score of 3.03. To achieve the same score using engine limitation only, the vessel speed would need to be reduced by 5.7% (reducing from 14.48kn to 13.65kn).

7. KEY TAKEAWAYS Rotor Sails and wind propulsion are likely to play a vital role in shipping’s decarbonisation l Some barriers to technology uptake remain, but these are likely to be removed once further installations are completed and as financing to support decarbonisation becomes more readily available l Rotor Sails can have a significant impact on EEDI and EEXI scores, along with CII (Carbon Intensity Indicators) with more information to follow from discussions at the upcoming MEPC 77 meeting.

218

MOTORSHIP

THE

INSIGHT FOR MARINE TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS

Reach industry professionals with The Motorship MAGAZINE RECIPIENTS

OPT-IN ENEWS SUBSCRIBERS

PAGEVIEWS PER MONTH

17,300

10,000

43,800

2020 AUDIENCE GROWTH

79%

It’s more important now than ever to deliver your marketing message and business competencies to your desired audience. The Motorship saw an overall audience growth of over 79% in 2020 due to our digital first strategy and authoritative editorial, we aim to continue this through 2021. The Motorship’s audience are technical leaders in ship owning or management companies, shipbuilders, naval architects, engine builders, machinery makers and regulators. It’s our mission to engage with our audiences globally through multi-media platforms, offering our commercial partners a wide range of opportunities for campaign delivery. We deliver bespoke packages and quantifiable ROI. Let us be part of the solution - Contact Sue Stevens today on +44 1329 825335 or email sstevens@mercatormedia.com

SESSION 7.2

Electrification – Using electrification to ready fuels for 2030

Conference Paper

The road to zero-emission shipping

KIM STRATE KIEGSTAD Vice President Sales, Corvus Energy

BIOGRAPHY Kim Strate Kiegstad joined Corvus Energy in August 2019 as Vice President and has a strong background in the Maritime industry, where he has been the front runner to providing innovative and sustainable solutions for the last 25 years. With a degree in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering and as former Naval Officer Kim has for more than the last decade focused on optimizing the efficiency of maritime propulsion systems, this including implementation of Energy Storage Systems in pilot projects paving the way for more commercial useable solutions. He started his career in the Royal Danish Navy as Chief Engineer and joined Siemens Marine Solutions in 2007. Together with Corvus Energy he introduced how to utilize batteries as hybrid propulsion and have grown the business ever since. Kim is located close to Copenhagen in Denmark and is Vice President Sales for Denmark, Germany and BeNeLux.

ABSTRACT The goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has given us ten years to halve greenhouse gas emissions and maintains that they must drop to zero by 2050. In response the entire maritime industry takes a leading role in developing new technology and sustainable solutions to drastically reduce emissions in the years ahead. Since 2009, Corvus Energy has been leading the way in how battery technology is used on board ships to reduce emissions. Technological excellence in combination with Maritime DNA has made Corvus Energy pioneers in their field with unsurpassed experience from 500+ projects and more than 3 500 000 running hours. However – we know we cannot reach zero emission on batteries alone. This is why we are developing sustainable, large-scale maritimecertified hydrogen fuel cell systems together with world leader in fuel cell technology, Toyota. We believe the combination of clean fuel and fuel cells together with batteries is the solution to reach the goal of zero emissions by 2050 for the marine industry. In this session we will explain in more detail where we are today, how technology will develop in near future, the harmony between batteries and fuel cells and how the shipowners can prepare for new technology.

221

Conference Paper

Battery Powered Vessels, lessons learned

SVERRE ERIKSEN Principal Expert Risk & Safety, Systems Engineering, DNV

BIOGRAPHY Sverre has a Master of Science degree in Electric Power Engineering from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (1991). He joined DNV GL Maritime in 2008. DNV GL Maritime is the world’s leading classification society and a recognized advisor for the maritime industry. DNV GL Maritime enhance safety, quality, energy efficiency and environmental performance of the global shipping industry – across all vessel types and offshore structures. Sverre has worked with electrification of ships since 2011 and has followed up the safety of battery installations onboard many ships. He has also been responsible for developing the DNV GL class rules for battery powered ships.

ABSTRACT The presentation will cover the development and status of battery powered vessels during the last 10 years. DNV have more than 300 vessels with large Li-ion batteries in class, either out sailing or under construction. The presentation will address the development of maritime Li-ion batteries with respect to safety in the same period. Further it will cover the learnings with respect to the physical installation of Li-ion batteries on vessels by addressing the latest applicable class rules including learnings from recent incidents.

222

Conference Paper

Enhancing Safety Standards of Energy Storage Solutions (ESS)

SVEN THY CHRISTENSEN Vice President, Business Solutions, Shift Clean Energy

BIOGRAPHY Sven brings comprehensive experience with business development in the global maritime and energy sectors focused on efficiency, clean fuels and sustainable solutions. His work includes senior management positions for leading diesel engine designers, ship designers and EPC power-plant developers. Sven has participated in several start-ups for circular economy including Green Ship of the Future.

ABSTRACT When lithium batteries were being first design for the maritime space, the initial concerns were centered around actual performance and safety. The questions were simple: Does large scale lithium energy storage have the capability to optimize or replace fuel driven engines? Can this be done with the same safety and reliability of current commercial marine systems? The next consideration was cost: Could lithium ESS match or improve the financial operating costs of commercial marine installations? And lastly, did lithium energy storage improve the environmental impact of the commercial marine industry. This led to the design of the first “fit for purpose” lithium battery; one that was scalable to deliver MW scale power on a continuous basis. Our efforts, along with the support of the type of approval agencies, flag authorities, fleet operators and system integrators (and a host of un-named people who all supported the dream of an emissions free marine industry), led to the acceptance of the use of lithium ESS in support of both hybrid electric installations and full electric vessels. By 2014, the price of lithium ESS was approaching $1000/kWh and was regarded as a commercially acceptable solution in the marine industry, centered on Northern Europe and Scandinavia. Government legislation in this market area presented us with an opportunity to support environmental targets, while delivering better financial results than conventional technology. An added bonus was actually reducing risk and improving safety of vessels overall. At this point the revolution was firmly rooted and taking hold of the industry. Most newbuilds were considering use of ESS in some form and many systems were being deployed. Of course, the challenges started to grow as well. Now that the technology was established, we had to figure out how to make it safer and more reliable while reducing cost. There are a lot of lithium solutions that are significantly cheaper than what meets the unique needs of

223

Conference Paper the marine industry, but these are produced to serve markets with very different performance and safety requirements than exist in commercial marine. The inflow of battery supply has created a growing demand on the type of approval agencies and government authorities to further define the standards and safety criteria. The overwhelming number of technologies available present a dizzying variety of potential issues to anticipate and manage in defining the standards.

EVOLUTION Experts estimate that all modern commercial vessels will soon have some form of energy storage on board. Each year there are more and more hybrid or fully electric ships navigating waters worldwide. These ships range in type from ferries transporting thousands of people daily, to offshore supply vessels and now even cruise ships. These vessels increasingly rely on lithium-ion energy storage as a power source, with modern designs containing hundreds of individual modules (batteries) and thousands of individual lithium cells. The technology has proven itself reliable and powerful, but lack of performance history means lessons in safety are being acquired through daily operation. This is new technology and knowledge is being gained in real time. Safety systems need to be validated and must be kept as the highest priority. As the industry founders that brought the first purpose designed energy storage to large marine projects, here is our opinion on what changes need to be made to improve safety.

THERMAL RUNAWAY One of the biggest risks for batteries is not just fire, it is overall thermal management. As long as there is energy within the cells, risk remains of further fire and gas production. Thermal runaway occurs if the lithium-ion cells used in marine batteries are subjected to mechanical abuse, suffer from internal manufacturing defects, or operate over or under the correct voltage or internal temperature. In these situations, heat may be generated within the lithium-ion cells which may in turn increase to a point whereby it melts the separators inside the cells. This causes a reaction between the cathode material and electrolyte and can result in the temperature increasing until the cell vents toxic and flammable gasses. If ignition occurs, these gasses can create an unpredictable fire which can be very difficult to extinguish. In large enough concentrations in an unvented room, these gasses are also capable of creating very large explosions.

TESTING – NEXT GENERATION The technology exists today to nearly eliminate risk of battery failure, starting with fundamental safety systems that are not uniquely dependant on software. These hardware-based systems are complimented by software that can effectively alert the operator of real risk. Further, they must be incorporated with system testing to define the risks for whole system failures. This means that in testing a system, it has to be able to demonstrate gas extraction; that is removing risk of gas exposure to crew and firefighters and dispersing it so that the risk of explosion is mitigated. Safety testing must involve overcharging a pack so that cell failures are forced in more than one location, so that total safety management can be observed. It requires software that is able to continue to deliver important voltage and temperature related alarms at all times, not just when a system is in operation.

224

Conference Paper

The image is a screen capture of a Shift baseline test to show the energy contained in a single cell. A typical commercial vessel may carry many thousands of these cells.

The image is a screen capture of a Shift baseline test to show the energy contained in a single cell. A typical commercial vessel may carry many thousands of these cells. Combined with existing tests, this next generation of testing will be a very strong forward step to reducing the fears of operators and passengers. It will inspire reputable battery companies Image 2 Lithium Cell Fire.JPG – Link to https://youtu.be/kZsqzAx-Svs focussed on the needs of the industry to be better partners and prevent the others from bringing inappropriate solutions to market. This will reduce commercial risk instead of creating The Solution – Prevent Thermal Runaway inevitable issues on board the very vessels that are at the core of this growing market. The Solution Runaway Liquid cooling–isPrevent the onlyThermal safety system currently tested and proven to prevent thermal runaway. Liquid cooling is the only safety system currentlyfrom tested and proven to runaway prevent thermal runaway. These active cooling systems prevent batteries entering thermal by simply These active cooling systems prevent batteries from entering thermal runaway by simply extracting more heat than the cells can produce. Similar to an engine block of an automobile, a extracting more heat than the cells can produce. Similar to an engine block of an automobile, low pressure, high volume closed loop of chilled water is circulated through the battery. Shift a low pressure,ahigh volume and closed loop ofcooling chilledsystem water isthat circulated through thestep battery. Shift has developed proprietary patented takes this idea one further has developed a proprietary and patented cooling system that takes this idea one step further and circulates coolant through the very core of the battery, around each individual cell in the and circulates coolantTM through very core of the battery, around individual cell in the system. Shift CellCool is able the to remove more thermal energy than each the cells can produce system. Shift CellCoolTM is able to remove more thermal energy than the cells can produce when in an overcharge or damage scenario, effectively preventing the cells from achieving the when in an overcharge or damage scenario, effectively preventing the cells from achieving the temperature needed to go into thermal runaway. temperature needed to go into thermal runaway.

Independently it it works even if if Independentlyvalidated validatedtesting testingshows showsthat thatthe theShift Shiftsystem systemisissosoeffective effectivethat that works even the coolant pump is disabled. This means that even in the event of catastrophic damage to the the coolant pump is disabled. This means that even in the event of catastrophic damage to the vessel’s electrical system, vessel’s electrical system, the the system system will willstill stillprotect protectthe thebatteries. batteries.Due Duetotoits itspatented patenteddesign, design, TM CellCool also eliminates hot spots on the cells and maintains optimal cell temperature – thus– CellCoolTM also eliminates hot spots on the cells and maintains optimal cell temperature increasing cycle life and overall lifespan. thus increasing cycle life and overall lifespan. In comparison, forced air air cooling coolingonly onlycools coolsthe theexternal externalsurfaces surfacesofofthe thecells cellsand andisisineffective ineffective In comparison, forced at eliminating eliminatinghot hotspots spotsininthe thecells. cells.An Anair-cooled air-cooledbattery batteryrequires requiresaround around3500 3500times times more at more airair flow volume than water flow volume to achieve the same heat removal. To try to compensate, the battery room for an air-cooled system requires a robust HVAC system, an extra cost not typically included in the battery price by the battery vendor. A system using a chiller plate is only able to cool one single surface of the module and is therefore unable to fully prevent hot spots or remove all of the thermal energy contained in a lithium-ion battery.

225

Additional Safety Considerations – Thermal Barriers and Venting

Conference Effective internal thermal barriers are an essential part of lithium battery safety systems.Paper Shift uses a metal barrier integral to the structure of the battery that works similar to a firewall. It prevents an overheated, overcharged, or damaged cell from propagating to the adjacent cell. The event is therefore isolated to one cell and – does not affectBARRIERS the others.AND Ignition does not jump ADDITIONAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS THERMAL VENTING to adjacent cells because the metallic between them. Because Shift batteries haveShift a Effective internal thermal of barriers are anbarrier essential part of lithium battery safety systems. solid internal assembly, they are in effect of armored and resist mechanical damage from It uses metal a metal barrier integral to the structure the battery that works similar to a firewall. external Even in the event of a totally spontaneous combustion, the to cooling system is preventsforces. an overheated, overcharged, or damaged cell from propagating the adjacent cell. able to prevent propagation from cell. conducting a nail test,does whereby a The event is therefore isolated tocell onetocell andIndoes not affect thepenetration others. Ignition not jump fully chargedcells 75Ah NMC cell punctured, causing the entire cell Because to fail spontaneously andhave a to adjacent because of is the metallic barrier between them. Shift batteries instantly. This release of energythey is considered to be the most dangerous event thatdamage can happen. solid metal internal assembly, are in effect armored and resist mechanical from The damaged cellEven almost instantaneously reaches a temperature of over 500 to is external forces. in the event of a totally spontaneous combustion, theCelsius. cooling Due system the and robust cooling system, not affectaadjacent cells andtest, all gasses ableintegrated to prevent propagation from cell tothe cell.heat In did conducting nail penetration whereby TM were safely released the E-Vent ventilation system. Upon disassembly, the adjacent a fully charged 75Ahthrough NMC cell is punctured, causing the entire cell to fail spontaneously cells showed no visible damage. and instantly. This release of energy is considered to be the most dangerous event that can happen. The damaged cell almost instantaneously reaches a temperature of over 500 Celsius. Due to the integrated and robust cooling system, the heat did not affect adjacent cells and all gasses were safely released through the E-VentTM ventilation system. Upon disassembly, the adjacent cells showed no visible damage.

The image isThe a screen a ShiftofNail Penetration test from 10, 2020. The image image iscapture a screenofcapture a Shift Nail Penetration test June from June 10, 2020. shows cell whichshows was punctured adjacent which did reach than 80C The1image cell 1 whichand was the punctured andcell the 2adjacent cellnot 2 which didmore not reach and remained in good condition. more than 80C and remained in good condition.

VENTING In the event that a cell is damaged or overheated within a module, dangerous gases are released. It is therefore important for every battery system to be vented to protect the crew from exposure and protect the vessel from explosion. E-VentTM is another Shift patented system to vent flammable gasses safely away from the battery area using a one-way valve that opens at low pressure. Gas is removed by an explosion proof fan that operates continuously or upon heat or gas detection. When gas flow stops the valve immediately closes, restricting flow of air or gasses back into the battery. This simple system reduces risk of crew exposure or a secondary explosion. It thus allows the crew to safely re-enter the vicinity of the battery system sooner to make repairs and restore power.

CONCLUSION If the marine industry starts experiencing onboard batteries catching on fire, and in the worstcase scenario, if vessels themselves catch on fire, our customers and the public will lose trust in marine batteries. If this happens, it will set climate action back by decades.

226

Conference Paper Given the rapid uptake of the use of large format lithium-ion batteries it is difficult for regulators to stay abreast of technology changes. The best way for energy storage to be successful is for the entire industry to be completely transparent about safety testing and safety records and have zero heat events. We encourage customers to ask us or any battery provider hard questions about fires, safety, and associated standards.

227

Conference Paper

Maximising system efficiencies through enhanced integration

DOMINIK SCHNEITER Vice President, Research and Development WinGD

BIOGRAPHY Dominik has a Masters of International Management and Affairs and a BEng in Mechatronics. He has over 26 years of international experience in developing, validating, building, commission and troubleshooting maritime engine applications. Dominik joined New Sulzer Diesel (NSD) in 1992 and has continued with the company through its evolution to Wärtsilä-NSD, Wärtsilä Switzerland and finally now Winterthur Gas & Diesel (WinGD). Dominik presently oversees the largest team at WinGD, the Research and Development Team. The activities of the department are focused on the development of leading technologies for application on a new generation of low-speed engines. In addressing the future challenges of tightening emission regulations and requirements for alternative fuels, Dominik guides WinGD’s R&D pursuit of achieving the best possible economic and environmental performance for its customers.

228

Reach industry professionals with Maritime Journal MAGAZINE RECIPIENTS

OPT-IN ENEWS SUBSCRIBERS

PAGEVIEWS PER MONTH

37,600

41,800

45,400

2020 AUDIENCE GROWTH

49%

Contact us today Find out more about the marketing packages Maritime Journal have to offer It’s more important now than ever to deliver your marketing message and business competencies to your desired audience. Maritime Journal saw an overall audience growth of over 49% in 2020 due to our digital first strategy and authoritative editorial, we aim to continue this through 2021. It’s our mission to engage with our commercial marine audience through multimedia platforms, offering our commercial partners a wide range of opportunities for campaign delivery. We deliver bespoke packages and quantifiable ROI. Let us be part of the solution – Contact the Maritime Journal team today (+44) 1329 825 335 or email sales@maritimejournal.com

Conference Contacts: Markell Charles-Bailey Conference Producer Tel: +44 1329 825335 Email: mcharlesbailey@mercatormedia.com

Sue Stevens Events Sales Executive Tel: +44 1329 825335 Email : sstevens@mercatormedia.com

Nick Edstrom Motorship Magazine Editor Tel +44 1329 825335 Email: nedstrom@mercatormedia.com

Marianne Rasmussen-Coulling Events Director Tel: +44 1329 825335 Email: mrasmussen@mercatormedia.com

Andrew Webster Chief Executive Officer

Mercator Media Limited Spinnaker House, Waterside Gardens, Fareham, Hampshire, PO16 8SD, UK t: +44 1329 825335, f: +44 1329 550192 www.mercatormedia.com The organisers and publishers accept no responsibility for the statements made neither in this publication nor for any errors or omissions which may have occurred. ©Mercator Media Limited 2021

230

2021-2022 | Events Schedule Commercial Marine Network Conference

3 November, COP26 International Maritime Hub, City of Glasgow College, UK

'Get set for Workboat 2050', a hybrid conference with expert panels navigating the waters of decarbonisation compliance and looking at critical aspects of vessel operations and safety in the workboat industry. Attend in person and virtual. workboat2050.com

MARITIMEJOURNAL INSIGHT FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMERCIAL MARINE BUSINESS

IceFish Connect

16-18 November 2021

IceFish Connect is a virtual exhibition with rich and engaging content that enables visitors and exhibitors to meet, network and develop business, features include the conference programme Fish Waste for Proﬁt.

NEC NECT

Coastlink Conference

11-12 May 2022, Port of Antwerp, Belgium

Coastlink is a pan-European network dedicated to the development of a competitive supply chain and promotion of short sea and feeder container shipping.

www.coastlink.co.uk

Icelandic Fisheries Exhibition & Awards 8-10 June 2022, Reykjavik, Iceland

Triennial International commercial ﬁshing exhibition, covering every aspect of the commercial ﬁshing and processing/value added industry. Attend in person and virtual.

www.iceﬁsh.is

Fish Waste for Proﬁt Conference 9-10 June 2022, Reykjavik, Iceland

4th

2022

Fish Waste for Proﬁt provides attendees with knowledge on how to maximise the return on investment (ROI) from potential discarded parts of the catch that can be turned into high value product.

www.iceﬁshconference.com

Commercial Marine Network Conference 21 June, Mayﬂower Park, Southampton, UK

MARITIMEJOURNAL INSIGHT FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMERCIAL MARINE BUSINESS

Seawork

21-23 June 2022, Mayﬂower Park, Southampton, UK

Europe’s leading annual three day commercial marine exhibition and conference.Attend in person and virtual.

www.seawork.com

Seawork USV/Hybrid Conference

22-23 June 2022, Mayﬂower Park, Southampton, UK

The Seawork Conference is a must for all involved in the commercial marine industry who wish to explore the challenges, changes and emerging opportunities in today’s and tomorrow’s commercial marine and workboat sector.

www.seawork.com/cmc

Marine Civils

21-23 June 2022, Mayﬂower Park, Southampton, UK

Marine Civils is Europe's leading event dedicated to showcasing the latest equipment and solutions for marine, coastal and other challenging civil engineering projects with unique landscape features.

www.marinecivils.com

Greenport Cruise & Congress

18-20 October 2022, Host Port of Zeebrugge, Belgium

The yearly congress provides environmental departments in Ports and Terminals with methods of greening their operations.

www.greenport.com/congress

Propulsion & Future Fuels Conference

15-17 November 2022, Le Méridien, Hamburg, Germany

The Propulsion & Future Fuels Conference will be returning to Hamburg to explore the latest emissions-cutting technology and shipping propulsion innovation in association with The Motorship.

www.propulsionconference.com

conferences@mercatormedia.com Mercator Media Ltd, Spinnaker House, Waterside Gardens, Fareham, Hampshire, PO16 8SD,UK • Tel: +44 1329 825335 Fax: +441329 550192

GREENPORT Cruise Congress &

JOIN US FOR PROPULSION & FUTURE FUELS 2022 15-17 November 2022, Le Méridien, Hamburg, Germany

For more information visit: propulsionconference.com contact: +44 1329 825335 or email: conferences@propulsionconference.com

#MotorshipPFF

Media Partners:

MOTORSHIP

THE

INSIGHT FOR MARINE TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONALS