Maritime Emissions Reductions Cost by GreenEcoTek LLC

EnviroArabia 2007 Pre Conference workshop MARPOL Annex VI regulations on marine fuels/air emissions

The Impact of Marine Emission Legislation on the Bunker Industry

Pricing

Robin Meech Marine and Energy Consulting Limited EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 1 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

Since 2003 the European sulphur premium (1.0% to 3.5%) has averaged $32/ton

EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 2 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

There are adequate avails of lower sulphur residual material but at increasing prices Diff 1.5%S and HSFO

Sweeter crude oil slate and increased distillate blending

40 US$/MT

Increased blending of distillates

Additional blending and importing of lower sulphur fuel oils

De-blending Existing fuel oil streams

Avails Million Tons

EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 3 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

Basic blending economics for low sulphur fuels Sulphur % cSt Density CCAI Cost $/ton

Residual 3.0 430 991 843 250

Sulphur % cSt Density CCAI Cost $/ton

Blend to 380 cSt 98% 3.0 380 990 843 255

Sulphur % cSt Density CCAI Cost $/ton

Blend to 1.5% S 46% 1.5 15 934 856 385

Sulphur % cSt Density CCAI Cost $/ton

Blend to 1.0% S 30% 1.0 12 889 850 425

MGO 0.2 4 852 500 2%

• Viscosity very low • Cost premium $130 at 1.5% and $170 at 1.0% • Judicious blending can reduce the premium to $70 to $80/ton at 1.5% and $90 to $100/ton at 1.0% BUT • Compatibility problems • Ignition problems

54%

70%

• Premium will increase as gas oil - fuel oil differential grows • Reflects refiners propensity to invest in fuel oil conversion / coking • Three times more costly to remove a ton of SOx than scrubbing EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 4 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 5 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

Economics of Residual Desulphurisation

Capacity million tons p.a. 1.5 Capital cost US$ million 475 Required capital return % 22 Operating costs $/ton 9 Fuel costs $/ton 33 Annual costs US$Mill Capital charge 105 Operating costs 64 Total 169 Production yield % 93 Desulphurisation efficiency % 90 Feedstock sulphur content % 4.5 Costs per ton of 0.45% S Fuel $/ton 120 Sulphur price premium for 1.5% S fuel when blending with 3.0%S $/ton 70 Cost of SOx removed $/ton 1,500

Max S % 1.5 1.0 0.5

Premium $/ton 70 95 118

Refiners and bunker suppliers will find always find ways to minimise these costs

Generates significantly more GHG than scrubbing or blending

Potential compatibility problems

Almost twice as costly to remove a ton of SOx than scrubbing BUT Could be an option in the future EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 6 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

Residual desulphurisation appears less costly than distillate blending â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1.5

1.0 Residual Desulphurisation

0.5 Distillate Blending

But refiners are far less likely to build desulphurisation units EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 7 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

Economics of cracking – demonstrative only

• Typical worldscale cracker is 50mbpd capacity equivalent to 2.5 million tons pa

• Yield of low sulphur distillate is 2.2 million tons • To convert all current BFO to distillate would require 115 crackers by 2010 • Unit cost of a worldscale cracker within an existing refinery is $750 million • Total capital investment would be over is $85 billion • Typical Major’s total annual refinery capital budget is of the order of $3 billion • If refiners go down this route it will take at least 10 years to be able to switch all vessel to 1% diesel fuels • The premium on LSBFO would average $250/ton • Cost of reducing a ton of SOx by this approach would be $6,700 EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 8 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

Comparative costs of producing LSFO 3,000

Cost of SOx removal $/ton of SOx Residual Desulphurisation • Is a less attractive investment • Significant GHG generation

2,500 2,000 1,500

Blending • No capital investment • Cost / price risk

1,000 500 0 Residual Sesulphurisation

Blending

Exhaust Scrubbing

Capital Investment ($) per ton of SOx removed 4,500 4,000

Marine Exhaust Gas Scrubbing • Removes 80% of PM’s • Little extra GHG generation • BUT multiple decisions

3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Residual Sesulphurisation

Blending

Exhaust Scrubbing

EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 9 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

There is little doubt that a large proportion of ships emissions have an impact on land

85 per cent in Northern hemisphere 70 per cent within 400 km of land EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 10 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

Relative benefits of switching to 1% S diesel globally in 2010 would appear economically unattractive Pollutant

SOx PM

Reduction in deposition on land assuming 70% falls on land 6,700 1,000

Value of reducing deposition by 1.0 ton $/ton

4,300 29,000

Cost increase in global fuel purchases/manufacture Net loss

Total Benefit/ Costs $billion

29 29 Total 58 65 8

â&#x20AC;˘ It is recognised that converting fuel oil to distillates generates significant emissions

â&#x20AC;˘ These economic losses would only increase as bunker consumption grows in the future

EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 11 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

Relative benefits of switching to 1% S diesel globally in 2010 would appear economically unattractive • Bunker consumption would be reduced by 3 - 5% but fuel consumed in converting fuel oil to diesel would be of the same order or greater generating a net global increase in CO2 and NOx • SOx and PM emissions from refineries, which are generally in populous areas, would increase but can be removed by existing technology • PM emissions from diesel are considered, by some, to be more harmful than from residual fuels • There would be reductions in sludge disposal from ships • Lower ship building costs in the future from reduction in fuel processing and tankage • Easier to enforce and reduce risks from fuel change overs with a single bunker fuel worldwide

EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 12 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

Additional Global Expenditure on LSBFO $millions Additional Expenditure on LSBFO $ mill 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 North America Europe

2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2010

2015

2010 2015 Global expenditure adopting INTERTANKO resolution ($billion) 1% Diesel

100

138

Average Global Cost Increase $/ton 190 % 200

206 185

Reduction in SOx Million tons Cost/ton

10.9 6,400

9.3 5,960

2010 Global expenditure ($billion) LSBFO 5 HSBFO 45 Total 50

2015 14 61 75

Average Global Cost Increase $/ton 3.70 11.80 % 1.9 5.0 Reduction in SOx Million tons 0.68 Cost/ton $1,410

1.20 $3,000

EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 13 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

Sulphur price differential formulation Local S/D

Freight Rates

Gas Price

Bunkers

Bunkers 3.5% Price

Quality

1.5% Price

1.0% Price

Power Generators

Service Costs

Power Generators

Lower Sulphur Cutter Stocks

Avails

Refinery C.O. slates

Weather

Freights

Politics

Inland Legislation

Refinery EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 14 Investment RMeech@RobinMeech.com

The 1.5% sulphur premium in the Baltic is averaging at about $25/ton

Other Locations

Rotterdam $/ton 380 cSt 180 cSt HS 298 318 LS 323 343 Diff 25 25

Murmansk $20 Mongstad $19 Hamburg $18 Rotterdam $25 Lisbon $15 Singapore $30 Primorsk $20 St Petersburg $27 Tallin $11

Klaipeda $21 Kaliningrad $40 Great Belt $20

Source:

Gdansk $25 EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 15 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

4 April 2007

Global average fuel oil prices $/ton GLOBAL AVERAGE FUEL OIL PRICES $/ton

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2005

2006

2007

2008 LSFO

2009

2010

HSFO

Source: “Outlook for Bunker Fuel Oil and Heavy Fuel Oil to 2015”

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Sulphur Premium EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 16 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

The 1.5%S premium will climb steadily to $80/tons over the coming decade 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2005

2006

North West Europe

2007

2008

2009

Mediterranean

Source: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Outlook for Bunker Fuel Oil and Heavy Fuel Oil to 2015â&#x20AC;?

2010

2011

US Gulf

2012 Singapore

2013

2014

2015

Weighted Average EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 17 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

The 1.5% to 3.0%S price premium will increase until refiners invest in cracking/coking and abatement technologies start to mature $/ton

140 120 100

A feasible price premium range

80 60 40 20 0 2007

2010

2015

2020

Quality issues will ensure 1.5% S bunkers prices are above 1.0% S inland utility fuels Source: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Outlook for Bunker Fuel Oil and Heavy Fuel Oil to 2015â&#x20AC;?

EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 18 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

Over the next decade the HSFO – Gas Oil differential will average $245/ton 350

300

250

200

150

100

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: “Outlook for Bunker Fuel Oil and Heavy Fuel Oil to 2015”

EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 19 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

EnviroArabia 2007 Pre Conference workshop MARPOL Annex VI regulations on marine fuels/air emissions

The Impact of Marine Emission Legislation on the Bunker Industry Pricing Robin Meech

Marine and Energy Consulting Limited RMeech@RobinMeech.com

Bahrain 22 April 2007 EnviroArabia 2007 Bahrain 22 April 2007 20 RMeech@RobinMeech.com

7S50ME-C MAN B&W Alpha Diesel, Denmark, Feb. 2003

L/73847-8.2/0403

(2440/PCS)

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

Clean Ships: Advanced Technology for Clean Air – San Diego February 7-9, 2007

Panel Discussion on Emission Reduction Solutions for Marine Vessels ’Engine Technologies’

Svend Henningsen MD-C, R&D, Process Development, Emission SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

Status on MAN Diesel NOx Reduction Methods NOx mg/Nm3 (dry,15%O2)

NOx g/kWh

17 15 10 5

Comments

Methods

Pre-IMO Uncontrolled -

Fuel optimized

IMO compliant -

Fuel nozzle optimization

Expected future IMO/ EPA Expected/existing local regulation (Power Plants)

2600

Additional low-NOx optimization ME optimization Water in combustion (WFE, WFI) SAM (under development) EGR (under development) ( combinations of WFE, SAM & EGR) SCR (NH3 or UREA)

2250 1500 750

WFE: Water Fuel Emulsion, WFI: Water Fuel Injection, SAM: Scavenge Air Moistening EGR: Exhaust Gas Recirculation, SCR: Selective Catalytic Readuction SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

Diesel Combustion

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

NOx Emission – Compliance using fuel-nozzle optimization NOx Emissions for MAN B&W 2-Stroke Engines NOx g/kWh, E2/E3 cycle

25 20

IMO NOx limit

15 10 Before 2000

After 2000 IMO Limit

0 50

100

150

200

Engine - r/min

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

HC & PM Emission – Reduction using slide-valve design Cross sections of fuel-valve nozzle tips

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

Slide-Valve Characteristics

Minimal sac volume – no ’dripping’

Less Hydrocarbons and particulate emissions Less smoke formation Reduce fouling of gas ways and exhaust-gas boiler Reduce fouling of piston top land and cylinder liner

Usually combined with low-NOx behavior (but this causes a fuel-oil penalty) Easy to retrofit (depending on engine model year – and not available for non-MC engines)

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

HC & PM Emission – Reduction using Alpha Lubrication System

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

Emission Optimization of the ME engine From MC-C to ME-C – the Mechanical Differences

MC Engine

L/73987-9.0/0303

ME Engine

(3000/OG)

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

Performance flexibility of the ME Concept 140 130 120 110 100 Change 90 NOx in % 80 70 60 50 40

g/kWh SFOC: Specific Fuel-Oil Consumption

NOx

ME-C MC-C

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

∆SFOC

30 L/74336-7.0/0502

(2430/NK)

70 90 Engine load in %

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

110

130

Examples of Economy & Emission Modes 1300

Economy mode

Low NOX mode

1200 1100

2003-02-17 800

160

700

140

600

120

600

100

500

100

500

400

300

200

100

160

1000

140

Cylinder Pump

120

NOx [ppm]

900 800 700 600

0 140

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

0 230

0 140

2003-02-17 800

Cylinder Pump

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

700

0 230

500 400 300 200 100 0 16:37

Time 16:38

16:39

16:40

16:41

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

16:42

16:43

16:44

16:45

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

16:46

The ME-Engine NOx Emission NOx control with the ME concept:

NOx - g/kWh

NOx emission for 7S50ME-C 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 0

Economy mode:

IMO NOx (E2) 15.4 g/kWh.

Emission mode:

IMO NOx (E2) 12.1 g/kWh

100

120

Engine Load - % of MCR MCR: Maximum Continuous Rating SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

ME Characteristics The ME engines comply with the IMO NOx requirements

Up to four (eight) different operational ‘Modes’ can be introduced

The ME engine emission optimization potential – especially for ‘local’ areas – still need to be explored in detail

The ME engine concept adapts more easy to the IMO requirements (surveys and reports)

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

NOx Emission â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Reduction using WFE

NOx - %rel. to Zero H2O

NOx vs. water content for miscellaneous wateremulsion tests 120 100

10% line

Comment: Heavy lines are theoretical calculations for K90MC at 85% and 100% load.

Homogenizer for emission control of a 40 MW low-speed diesel engine

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

20 30 40 Water Content - %mass ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

Comments on Water Emulsification The effect of water emulsion on NOx is known (a rough guideline gives 1% NOx reduction per 1% water content) A ’standard’ FIE (pump-valve-nozzle) system is used for on-off operation A size optimized FIE present the best sfoc & emissions trade-off

Fuel-oil consumption penalty – roughly 1-2% per 10% NOx reduction May increase Hydrocarbons and smoke (PM) Requirement for fresh water supply and a number of fuel-system changes to be considered (fx higher heating & fuel-line pressure capacity for viscosity control)

The control system/governor needs to be designed for safe operation in case of emergencies/failures

Running on Diesel Oil requires additive for stabilizing the emulsion Water emulsion (FWE) has not yet been long term tested on the ME engine SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

NOx Emission Control – Schematic EGR & SAM Systems Line for simple EGR

Experimental set-up on 4T50ME-X research engine

Spray WMC

Spray

Diesel engine

Exhaust gas scrubber

Spray WMC

WMC Spra y

EGR blower

WMC

Non-return valve Auxi liary blower

Cooler No. 1 + No. 2

WMC

EGR: Exhaust Gas Recirculation SW: Salt Water FW: Fresh Water WMC: Water Mist Catcher

Line for simple EGR

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

NOx Emission Control – SAM Application and Conventional Cooler

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

SAM Application on 8S60MC Engine (initial full scale tests in progress)

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

Summary – SAM System Potential for high NOx reduction Increases fuel consumption as FWE but some gain by rematching of Turbo Charger (T/C)

May increase Hydrocarbons and Soot (PM) Water treatment plant necessary The method not proven in practice Not easy to retrofit (may also require a new turbocharger)

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

SCR Installation – 12K80MC-GI Chiba Plant

L/8343-3.0/0597

(3230/JH)

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

Installation Aspects – 12K80MC-S 40 MW KOMIPO at Cheju Emission Control Installation 1 12K80MC-S 2 Generator 3 SCR

4 Exhaust gas boiler 5 ESP 6 Wet FGD

32530

Control room Electrical room

Office & HVAC room

9760

Electrical room

Mechanical annex

Cable room

Mechanical annex Engine/generator foundation

112830 3332029/20041123

(3230/JH)

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

Summary – SCR System Potential for high NOx reduction (up to 95-98% at certain conditions)

Requires a certain exhaust temperature to keep the catalyst working depending on the HFO Sulfur content. This restricts operation to engine loads above 30-35% (depending on engine type)

Expensive and bulky Consumption of Ammonia or Urea corresponding to an increase in operating costs equivalent to 8 to 10% of the fuel costs

Not easy to retrofit (may also require a new turbocharger) SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

NOx Reduction on Existing Engines Retrofit possibilities (emission reduction methods) (in order of increasing difficulty & cost)

Spray & performance optimization (SL valves) Lube-oil optimization (Alpha Lube) Water-in-fuel emulsion (FWE) Future systems under development

Moisturising of intake air (SAM or HAM) Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) Scrubbers (wet or dry FGS) and filters (ESP) Comments on pre Year 2000 engine regulation SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

Emission Control â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Cost Reduction capability NOx CO HC PM

First cost in % of engine price

Running cost index Tier 1 = 100

Primary methods 10-15%

0%/Small

102

SL & Alpha lube

0%/Small

101

Water emulsion

20-30%

10-20% *)

101

SAM (Scavenge Air Moistening)

40-50%

20-30% *)

101

80-98%

50-70%

110

Engine adjustments

Secondary methods SCR (Sel. Cat. Reduction)

*) Depending on installation SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

Summary Strong impact from fuel nozzles on NOx, soot and smoke. (SL valves easy to retrofit)

Alpha lube-oil system saves lube oil and improves cylinder conditions. (Easy to retrofit)

The ME engine improves emission optimization and allows different optimization for local areas

Water emulsification possible for future NOx requirements – if required. (Possible to retrofit, but need decision on scope)

SAM (and EGR) have potentials, but further tests are needed SCR still only solution for NOx reduction in the 85 to 90% range

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

QUESTIONS

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

Hydrocarbon Emission

Hydrocarbons 12K90MC Mk VI

Std valve Mini sac Slide

HC (as CH4) - g/kWh

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0

100

Engine Load - %

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

Particulate Emission

Particulates 12K90MC Mk VI

Std valve Mini sac Slide

Particulates - g/kWh

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0

100

Engine Load - %

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

PM vs Lube-Oil Feed Rate Particulate emissions

1.2

Particulate emission g/BHPh

7L90GSCA engine 1.0

Effect of lube oil

Plant water

0.8 Effect of water: No water

0.6

Pure water

0.4

0.2

0 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Cylinder lube oil dossage g/BHPh SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

High-pressure water-injection unit

Water inlet pressure 100 bar

HFO from supply pump

Emulsion to circulation pump

Nozzles for water injection

3331552/20040525

(2160/KEA)

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

Water Emulsification – System Additions External Fuel-Oil-Supply System (New Items)

Homogeniser unit Water Supply System Closed dumping tank for fuel and water mixtur Air driven emergency fuel-oil-supply pump or other means for maintaining the fuel-oil system pressurised Meter for measuring ‘water content in fuel oil’ 3330072-2003-04-01

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

Fuel system w. safety systems for water emulsion

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

Water Stages on SAM System

SW Spray Unit Transition piece

Sea Water Inlet

S-bend for separation of residue SW SW mist catcher Sea Water Outlet Box with FW1 and FW2 stages

FW Stage1 Inlet FW Stage1 Outlet FW Stage2 Inlet

Air Cooler with Water Mist Catcher

FW Stage2 Outlet

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

NOx Emission Control – EGR Emission Parameters Relative change in % 100

PM 90 80

100

Emission parameters at 75% load at various EGR ratios

200

150 100

100

NOx 80 60 40 0

EGR ratio in % SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

NOx Emission Control â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SAM Emission Parameters Change in % 120 115 110 100 95

100 95 90

Emission parameters at 100% load at zero, half and full SAM

250 200 150 100 50

100 90 80 70 60 50

NOx

zero

half

full

Absolute humidity (vol./vol.) of scavenge air in % SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

ÂŠ MAN Diesel A/S

EGR Scrubber Targets:

Reduce 60-70% of particulates on MDO

Reduce 80-90% of particulates on HFO

Reduce the level of SOx up to 90%

Use of salt water as cleaning media

Self containing of SOx solutions in harbour areas

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

Low-NOx Slide-Valve Retrofit Potential NOx reduction as for new engines (till

now approx. 20%) An additional reduction (10-15%) may be possible after the new ’Tier 2’ engines are introduced Improves Hydrocarbons & Particulates compared with conventional fuel valves (depending on lowNOx behaviour) Fuel-oil consumption penalty depending on required NOx reduction Applicable for (almost) all MC engines (though an evaluation may be necessary) Not available for ’non-MC’ engines

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

Water Emulsion as Retrofit On-off possibility depending on purpose or trade

off with sfoc penalty (10 to 20% NOx reduction) An evaluation of engine and fuel system necessary (fuel pump size, cam shaft and chain drive, uni-fuel system, fuel-line pressure) Increased temperature and pressure for fuel viscosity control Extra heating capacity Extra water production capacity (Needs to be long term tested on the ME engine)

SVH / R&D Dept 2431 Basic Research & Emission

Selective Catalytic Reduction Per Holmström DEC - Diesel Emission Control

•Comparison land / ship sources •NOx regulations •The SCR system •SCR development review •Cost examples

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

Comparison land-based versus marine sources

Paper mill

Paper carrier

•Fuel cons.: 160 000 ton oe / year

•Fuel cons.: 15 000 ton / year

•Emission to air: 570 ton NOx / year

•Emission to air: 1 500 ton NOx / year

• 3.5 kg NOx / ton fuel

• 100 kg NOx / ton fuel

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

Comparison land-based versus marine sources

Paper mill

Paper carrier

•Fuel cons.: 160 000 ton oe / year

•Fuel cons.: 15 000 ton / year

•Emission to air: 570 ton NOx / year

•Emission to air: 1 500 ton NOx / year

• 3.5 kg NOx / ton fuel

• 100 kg NOx / ton fuel

Retrofit with SCR in 2004 •Emission to air: 75 ton NOx / year • 5 kg NOx / ton fuel

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

Marine NOx regulations 20

IMO DNV CD SMA 1998 SMA 2005

18 16

NOx (g/kWh)

14 12

SMA=Swedish Maritime Administration

10 8 6 4 2 0 0

500

1000

1500

2000

Engine speed (rpm) 4

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

2500

SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction

SCR Converter // SCR Converter Silencer Silencer

Urea Injection Injection Urea

• NOx reduction up to 99% • Also reduction of VOC • After treatment – easily adopted to various diesel engine makes • DEC has delivered SCR system to 230 marine diesel engines for more than 50 ships • For new-buildings and retrofits, large bore 2-stroke and 4-stroke engines

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

2007 – Reference list with many new buildings and retrofits 2x

New buildings with SCR

Picture2.jpg

SCR is a well proven method to reduce ships NOx emissions 6

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

More vessels with SCR systems

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

SCR Honeycomb Cross Section

150mm

150mm 9

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

SCR Converter for 7.2 MW Main Engine

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

SCR installation M/V Cinderella Retrofit installation in narrow funnel casing

D.E.C. Marine â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SCR Converterâ&#x201E;˘ system

Urea service pump unit

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

SCR Control Metering Units

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

Converter monitoring equipment

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

SCR Display Panel

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

NOx Certification

•

Third party measurements by accredited company.

•

Certificate renewed every third year.

•

Inbetween, regular functional control and notations in log-book by crew onboard.

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

Marine SCR - Development review

1992 – First marine SCR + OXI installation

Aurora af Helsingborg Urea / water solution introduced as NOx reagent • Accumulated operating hours > 80 000 • Up-graded for < 0,5 g NOx /kWh in 2006 17

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

Marine SCR - Development review

1996 – First installation for operation on Heavy Fuel Oil

IB Atle • Today 35 ships with SCR designed for HFO • Fuel Sulfur content up to 3% in operation

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

Marine SCR - Development review

1999 – First installations for slow speed 2-stroke engines

Three new-buildings with 11 MW Sulzer 7RTA52 • Designed for < 2 g NOx/kWh in 1999 (90% reduction) • Up-graded for < 0,5 g NOx /kWh in 2006 (98% reduction)

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

Pre-turbo SCR arrangement for 2-stroke engines •

• •

The exhausts are led from the engines exhaust receiver through the injection section, the SCR and further to the turbo charger. A by-pass is arranged for start-up purpose. The engine performance is not influenced except for the emission reduction.

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

Installations with NOx reduction True retrofit examples

Ship type

Ferry

Cargo

Power

39 MW

10 MW

Average power

75%

90%

Average duty time

75%

95%

Fuel oil

38 000 t/y

15 000 t/y

BL NOx

14 g/kWh

20 g/kWh

NOx red.

95%

NOx red.

2600 t/y

1400 t/y

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

Costs with NOx reduction True retrofit examples

SCR 60 kUSD 100 kUSD Invest / MW

Investment cost includes SCR system, Urea tankage and installation at yard. Hire off not included.

Operating 260 USD cost / t NOx

Operating cost includes 40% urea/ water solution 1,5 liters per kg NOx reduced. Other costs small.

NOx red.

260 USD

Annual NOx reduction.

2600 t/y

1400 t/y

Cost / t NOx 435 USD

400 USD

Straight pay back calculation 5 years.

330 USD

Straight pay back calculation 10 years.

5 years

Cost / t NOx 350 USD 10 years 22

D.E.C. Marine – SCR Converter™ system

Emission Reduction Solutions for Marine Vessels Large 4-Stroke Technology

Dr. Frank Starke Caterpillar Clean Ships: Advanced Technology for Clean Air Conference 2007 San Diego, CA Caterpillar Confidential: yellow

Future emissions regulations

Global picture gets more complex: • Country specific regulations • Targeted emissions – NOx, Particles, Sulfur, CO2 … • Local restrictions are spreading – low emission areas, costal waters, inland waterways, harbors… • Rules are defined by application – even with same engine

Caterpillar Confidential: GREEN

Customer Value

Future Challenge

Caterpillar Confidential: GREEN

Cu Ex sto pe m ct e r at io ns

Near zero emissions will challenge the value equation

Hi s We must maintain customer value

Emissions

to ry

NOx Emission Reduction Technologies Inside the Engine

After-treatment

Combustion Temperature Control

Dry

Water

Low NOx Combustion

Direct Water Injection Humid Air Water in Fuel Emulsion Steam Injection

Selective Catalytic Reduction - SCR

Potential: Water in Fuel Emulsion Steam Injection Dry Low NOx Combustion Humid Air Direct Water Injection SCR

Caterpillar Confidential: GREEN

NOx Emission in g/kWh

Particulates Emission Reduction Technologies

Inside the Engine

Fuel

After-treatment

Combustion Temperature Control

Low Sulfur Fuel Variable - High Performance Air System Electronically controlled Fuel System Water in Fuel Emulsion

Caterpillar Confidential: GREEN

Particulate Traps Scrubber

Emission Reduction System Selection Inside the engine Baseline dry water Reliability ++ + -Complexity ++ + 0/Cost ++ + 0/Operating Cost + + Emission Reduction 0 + ++ Space Req. ++ ++ -- / Retrofit +/-

Inside the Engine â&#x20AC;&#x201C; dry Caterpillar Confidential: GREEN

System Approach

after-treatment ----+++ ---

System Integration Combustion design & control

Long Stroke Technology

Variable Injection Systems

The Medium Speed System Concept

Variable Valve Timing Caterpillar Confidential: GREEN

High Performance Air System

Electronic Controls The Key Element Combustion design & control

Long Stroke Technology

Variable Injection Systems

Variable Valve Timing Caterpillar Confidential: GREEN

High Performance Air System

Summary • Several competing Emission Reduction Technologies available or under development • Major Challenges are operational: Reliability, Cost, Complexity • Increasing Customer Value needs Innovations • Best System Combination wins – sub systems are specialized • System Integration is Key • Electronic Control is one Key Element for System Integration

Caterpillar Confidential: GREEN

Components potentially controlled by ECM • Injection System Amount, Timing, Pressure, Multiple Injections

• Inlet & Outlet Valve Events Timing, Duration, Overlap

• Air System Valves Waste Gate, Blow-Off, By-Pass

• Variable Air System Geometry Turbine Geometry, Nozzle Ring, Split Air Stream

• After-treatment Components Process Control, Re-Generation Cycle Caterpillar Confidential: GREEN

Electronics - Opportunities: 9 Flexibility to adapt to Application & Load Profile 9 Interactive System Integration 9 Static and dynamic Engine Operation Optimization 9 Software Update Capability 9 Monitoring & Failure Analysis 9 Adaptation to aging Hardware

Caterpillar Confidential: GREEN

EMISSIONS REDUCTION SOLUTIONS FOR MARINE VESSELS – WÄRTSILÄ PERSPECTIVE – CLEAN SHIPS: ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY FOR CLEAN AIR FEBRUARY 8, 2007 GERMAN WEISSER

Fundamental considerations

• Criteria for the evaluation of emissions reduction technologies – Target pollutant emission reduction potential – Effect on the emission of other pollutants – Effect on engine efficiency and CO2 emissions – Impact on engine reliability and operational safety – Operational flexibility, versatility – Development status, maturity of the technology – Extent of engine modifications associated Retrofitability – Extent of on-board installation modifications – Effect on operating costs, total energy balance – Requirements towards on-shore infrastructure

}

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• Possible approaches: – Fuel treatment – Change of fuel system (common rail) – Change of fuel type (conversion to gas) – Engine tuning – Advanced turbocharging (Miller cycle) „Dry“ Low-NOx technologies – Exhaust gas recirculation – „Wet“ technologies – Aftertreatment systems • Additional options – Propulsion system optimisation – Optimisation of marine transportation systems

}

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• „Dry“ low-NOx technologies – state of the art – Main elements: • Increased compression ratio and late injection timing • Early inlet closing on 4-stroke, late exhaust closing on 2-stroke engines • Optimised combustion chamber and injector layout

Classical tuning

Low-NOx tuning 150

Cylinder pressure [bar]

pC pI

130

120

110

100 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

crank angle Crank Angle [°CA] 4

pF = pF_nominal pC pI

140

Cylinder pressure [bar]

pF = pF_nominal

140

cylinder pressure

150

130

120

110

100 -30 -20 -10 0

10 20 30 40

crank angle Crank Angle [°CA]

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• „Dry“ low-NOx technologies – further development – Extreme Miller (4-stroke engines): • Further advanced inlet valve closing • High-pressure turbocharging

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• Fuel system effect – Smokeless mode: sequential injector operation at low loads

3 nozzles Standard engine

1-nozzle operation at slow steaming RT-flex with Sulzer Common Rail System

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• Fuel system effect – Smokeless operation throughout the load range (results sea trial mv “Gypsum Centennial”, 6RT-flex58T-B) 0.50

Filter Smoke Number [ FSN ]

0.45 0.40

HFO

0.35

380 cSt 3% sulphur 0.1% ash

0.30 ON

0.25

OFF Aux. Blower

0.20 Smoke visibility limit

0.15

Conventional low speed engine

0.10 0.05 6RT-flex58T-B with common rail

0.00 0

40 50 60 Engine Load [% ]

100

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• Fuel system effect – Injection patterns for optimising the NOx / bsfc trade-off Pre-injection

Triple injection

Sequential injection

Cylinder pressure

Fuel pressure rail

Needle lift Injection pressure

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• Fuel system effect – Low-NOx injection (suitable injection patterns – RT-flex58T-B results) IMO limit RT-flex IMO-compliant

RT-flex tuned for IMO-20% RT-flex tuned for IMO-20%

bsNOx, g/kWh

25 20 15 10 5 0 25% load 9

50% load

75% load

100% load

weighted average

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• „Wet“ low-NOx technologies overview – Addition of water at various stages • Charge air humidification • Direct water injection into the cylinder • Water/fuel emulsification

– Correspondingly, different variants of wetpac technologies have been tested/developed Direct Water Injection

Wetpac DWI

Humidification

Water-fuel-Emulsions

Wetpac H

Wetpac E

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• Wetpac H working principle Evaporated water is partly re-condensing in the charge air cooler

Compressor

Water injection 130-135 bar

Saturated air 40…70°C

Injected water mist is evaporated and hot air after compressor is cooled to saturation point

Heat from cooling water is reducing re-condensation 11

Non-evaporated water Is captured in the water mist catcher and re-circulated

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• Wetpac DWI outline (two-stroke variant – second common rail system) – DWI system fully independent from fuel injection system – Greatest flexibility regarding DWI settings to optimize NOx – No limit regarding amount of water at any load Ö w/f ratio ≥ 1 : 1 possible – DWI can be switched on and off without affecting fuel injection behaviour – Investment cost target (engine only) ≈ 15 US$ / kW 12

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• „Wet“ Low-NOx technologies performance – Sample results wetpac DWI – RT-flex58T-B

water / fuel ratio, % ∆bsfc, g/kWh, ∆bsNOx, %

w/f ratio

bsNOx

100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 25% load

bsfc

50% load

75% load

100% load

weighted average

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• Further development of „wet“ Low-NOx technology through combination with other emissions reducing measures: WaCoReG (water-cooled residual gas) – EGR: Internal exhaust gas recirculation by reduced scavenging ports and smaller turbochargers – DWI: Direct water injection to reduce combustion chamber temperatures and NOx emissions – RT-flex: Common rail technology and variable exhaust valve timing to adjust EGR level – NOx reduction: up to 70% ≈ 5 g/kWh 14

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• Aftertreatment systems – Compact SCR – system placed downstream of turbocharger (selective catalytic reduction 4-stroke application example)

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• Aftertreatment systems – SCR unit integrated with turbocharging system (selective catalytic reduction 2-stroke application example)

Sulzer 6RTA52U with SCR system

• Exhaust gas temperature ≈ 350°C Ö before T/C • Urea consumption ≈ 25 l / MWh • NOx reduction ≥ 90% Ö ≤ 2 g/kWh • Investment costs 40’000-60’000 US$ / MW • Running costs (urea) ≈ 3.75 US$ / MWh • Maintenance costs ≈ 0.9 US$ / MWh

Emissions Control Technologies Review

• NOx reduction potential of technologies applicable to Wärtsilä two-stroke engines '

-4

-2

2 ∆bsfc, %

Installation related emissions reduction

• Reducing gaseous emissions by means of improved overall fuel utilization (Waste heat recovery technology)

Ship service steam

Exhaust gas economiser

Turbogenerator Ship service power

– System schematics

Power turbine

Aux. engine

Turbochargers

Shaft motor system

Main engine

Installation related emissions reduction

• Reducing gaseous emissions by means of improved overall fuel utilization (Waste heat recovery technology) – Overall system efficiency improvement Standard engine Total efficiency = 49.3%

with heat recovery Total efficiency = 54.9% Gain = 12%

Conclusions

• A range of emission control technologies for Wärtsilä 2-stroke engines is under development in order to comply with future emissions regulations. • Strong focus is put on the most desirable balance between emissions and fuel economy. • RT-flex with its common rail system is the key technology for achieving further emissions reductions, in particular for realizing smoke-free engine operation. • In parallel, technologies for better utilization of the fuel energy are being developed, which also contribute to lower emissions.