Creating a better Environment through Science
Advanced Maritime Emissions 速 Control System (AMECS ) Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Incorporated
Hazardous Waste Management & Emissions Control Specialists Environmental Systems Development Division
The Problem
The PROBLEM (continued)
Depiction of Various Ship Stack Configurations
The Exhaust Capture System must Can Accommodate Various Stack Shapes accommodate various stack geometries
The PROBLEM (continued)
The system must be able to treat various fuel types, handle various exhaust flows and exhaust temperatures
The Solution
Emissions Control Technology ACTI’s Emissions Control Technology consists of
two types of systems:
• Advanced Locomotive Emissions Control System (ALECS) designed to capture and treat the exhaust emissions from railroad locomotives
• Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System (AMECS) designed to capture and treat the exhaust emissions from ocean-going vessels – Barge-Based System – Shore-Based System – Multi-Capture and Treatment System
Emissions Treatment Subsystem Picture of the Actual System Demonstrated and Tested in Roseville, California
Successful Demonstration Program • The objective of the tests at Union Pacific Railroad’s J. R. Davis rail-yard in Roseville, California was to demonstrate ALECS capability to: -
Remotely attach to a railroad locomotive around the exhaust opening
-
Capture the exhaust gas and direct it via the overhead manifold system into the Emissions Treatment Subsystem
Successful Demonstration Program (continued) -
Maintain attachment and exhaust capture while the railroad locomotive is underway within designated area within the rail yards
• The test of ALECS was a success, meeting all the goals described above and more • The same treatment system is used on AMECS
Successful Demonstration Program (continued)
Shore-Based AMECS Configuration
Barge-Based AMECS Configuration
Emissions Treatment Subsystem Outlet Gas Preconditioning Chamber (PCC)
Cloud Generation Chambers (CGC)
System ID Fan
Inlet Gas
Heat-Exchanger Heater (Burner) Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
Emissions Treatment Subsystem Removal of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Using Sodium Hydroxide Captured Exhaust Gas Cooled
Removal of Particulate Matter and Hydrocarbons
Inlet Gas
Removal of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) using Urea as the active agent Waste-Water Reservoir
Emissions Capture Subsystem
Maximum Envelope 125 Feet
Maximum Envelope 125 Feet
Articulating Arm & Placement Tower shown with Exhaust Intake Bonnet (EIB)
Depiction of station keeping supporting bonnet attachment (30 foot radius)
Articulating Arm & Placement Tower
Articulating Arm (for EIB placement)
Peacock Assembly Expandable Boom Cable Drive Assembly Placement Tower
Counter Balance
Emissions Intake Bonnet (EIB) Side Views of EIB, shown in closed position with Shroud withdrawn
High temperature Shroud
Carbon Fiber Ribs
EIB Station Keeping Wire Sensors
• Three fixed stack points connected to floating arm measure stack position (EIB shown in closed position)
• Wire sensors allow for rapid and accurate arm adjustment
Soft Tri-Pod Stack Interface
EIB Exhaust Control Heat Sensing Device Intake Exhaust Control, EIB shown in open position
Location of Intake Control Damper
Hot Thermal Zone
Intermediate Thermal Zone
Damper Full-Open Temperature Control Threshold Control Sections (Zones) Damper Partially Opened
Coolest Thermal Zone
EIB Wire Position Sensors (Station Keeping) • Three fixed stack points
connected to floating arm measuring stack position
• Wire sensors allow for rapid
and accurate arm adjustment
• Wire Sensor designed and
manufactured by Micro-Epsilon
Soft Tri-Pod Standoff Stack Interface Wire Sensors (Set of Three)
EIB Station Keeping Sensor System Positioning Sensors
• Wire sensors accurate to within ± .1 inches
• Determines arm position
relative to stack within one inch
Wire Sensors
Positioning Standoffs (three)
Emissions Intake Bonnet
Depiction of the EIB being placed onto a typical strait ships stack
Soft Tri-Pod Standoff Stack Interface
Emissions Intake Bonnet Depiction of the EIB being placed onto lip style stack Station Keeping Wire Sensors
Minimal Impact, if any, on Port Operations
Ease of access to stack
Unobtrusive Barge Location
Depiction of Attachment While Anchored
Unobtrusive barge attachment while OGV is anchored
Vertical Compensator
Articulating Arm
Emissions Intake Bonnet (EIB) shown unfurled
Typical Attachment Shown for Single Stack Vessel
Vertical Compensator
Typical Attachment Shown for Dual-Stack Vessel Pair of Emissions Intake Bonnet’s (EIBs) shown furled
SUMMARY
Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System (AMECS®) Advantages: • No ship modification required • Substantial Reduction of Harmful Pollutants – Removal percentages of sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM), oxides of nitrogen NOX) all above 95%, depending on fuel type – Over 60% removal of Hydrocarbons
• Can capture and treat exhaust emissions while ships are berthed and anchored waiting to be berthed
• Provides a Cost-Effective solution
Questions & Answers Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Incorporation Hazardous Waste Management Specialists 18414 South Santa Fe Avenue Rancho Dominguez, California 90221-5612 310 763-1423
Supporting Data The following slides contain additional information regarding ACTI’s Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System (AMECS), and will only be used as required to respond to questions
EIB Light Wind Applications Bellows Bonnet Designed for Light Wind Applications
Top-View Side-View
EIB Stack Interface System Swivels (four)
Tri-Pod Standoff Stack Interface System
Soft Interface Pads
EIB Securing & Release System Securing System
Cinching Cables (sown in blue) after attachment
Cinching Cables (shown in red) prior to attachment
SCR Reactor, Injection System & Burner Directed into front of system Catalyst NOx NOxNOx
Exhaust Gas
NH3 NH3 H2O NH3
NOx
NH3
Heater Diesel Control Fuel
Urea
20 NH 2 20 NH 2 20 NH 2 20 NH 2
Cleaned Gas
Thermal Management System
Captured Hot Engine Exhaust
Cloud Chamber Scrubber Diesel Generator
Scrubbed Gas Hot Exhaust
Hot Exhaust
Heat Exchanger
SCR Reactor
Urea
Hot Exhaust
Clean Exhaust Stream
SCR Reactor – Argillon Catalyst • Titanium – Vanadium Oxide Ti-V2O5 Based • Ceramic Substrate • Homogeneous • Honeycomb
SCR Catalyst Performance NOx Removal Efficiency vs. Operating Temperature o o (Design Temperature = 600 to 680 F)
NOx Removal Efficiency (%)
100.0
90.0
80.0
Designed input input temperature temperature Designed range range 70.0
60.0
50.0 400
450
500
550
600
650
Operating Temperature (F)
700
750
800
AMECS Improvements Under Lessons Leaned: The following two improvements are under consideration as a result of the Demonstration and Testing Program in Roseville, California • Create one common housing partition between the Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) Reactor and the Thermal Management System (shown in the next slide). This would increase thermal efficiency and reduce the system cost. • Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS); the system deployed seems to require a greater amount of technical skill then we believe is necessary. In addition, the system cost seems to be high. We will evaluate other systems. • We developed a much better understanding of rail yard operations and the type of exhaust capture system that would most likely work without interfering with railroad operations.
AMECS Improvements (continued) Thermal Management System
Old Design
New Design
SCR Reactor & Burner Assembly
Heat-Exchanger
Why Shore Side Emissions Matter Clean Ships: Advanced Technology for Clean Air Conference February 8-9, 2007 California Environmental Protection Agency
Air Resources Board
1
Topics ♦
Emissions Resulting from Goods Movement
♦
Potential Cancer Risk
♦
Efforts to Reduce Emissions at Ports
♦
Shore Power Feasibility Report
♦
Regulatory Approach
22
2001 PM Emissions for Goods Movement Locomot ives
ships
harbor craft
TRU
cargo handling
trucks
33
2020 PM Emissions for Goods Movement
Locomotives TRU trucks cargo handling
ships
harbor craft
44
2001 NOx Emissions for Goods Movement Locomotives
ships
TRU
harbor craft
cargo handling
trucks
55
2020 NOx Emissions for Goods Movement Locomotives ships TRU harbor craft trucks cargo handling
66
Diesel PM Emissions at San Pedro Ports cargo handling
trucks
locomotive
harbor craft ships hotelling
77
Population Affected by Cancer Risk Levels (Risk > 100) locomotive cargo handling
trucks
harbor craft
ships
hotelling
88
Population Affected by Cancer Risk Levels (Risk >200) locomotive
cargo handling
trucks
ships
harbor craft hotelling
99
Hotelling ♦
In Port – Ship’s main engine shut down – Auxiliary engines operating
♦
Auxiliary Engines Provide Power for Lights, Pumps, Refrigeration, and Ventilation
10 10
Hotelling (Continued)
♌
Power needs vary by ship category ♌ Ship visitation schedule and hotelling times highly variable
11 11
Reducing Emissions at Ports ♦ ♦
Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan Adopted Regulations – Auxiliary engines – Cargo handling equipment
♦ ♦ ♦
San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Plan Climate Change Program (AB 32) Shore Power Feasibility Report
12 12
Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan ♦Approved by Board April 2006 ♦Emission Reduction Strategies Identified for: − Ships − Commercial harbor craft − Cargo handing equipment − Trucks − Locomotives
13 13
Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan (Continued) ♦
Strategies for Ships – Ship auxiliary engine fuel (adopted) – Cleaner fuels for main engines – Expanded vessel speed reduction program – Clean engines – Clean ships dedicated to California service – Shore power
14 14
Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan (Continued) ♦ Goals of Shore-Based Electrical Power Measure for Ocean-Going Vessels – Shore power for 20% of visits by 2010 − Shore power for 60% of visits by 2015 – Shore power for 80% of visits by 2020
15 15
Shore Power Feasibility Report ♦
Analyzed Cost-Effectiveness, by Ship Category and Port
♦
Draft Released March 2006
♦
30-Day Comment Period
16 16
Shore Power Feasibility Report: Conclusions ♦
Most Cost-Effective for Container, Passenger, and Refrigerated Cargo Ships ♦ Prime Candidate Ports: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, and Hueneme ♦ 2/3 of Capital Costs & Benefits at Los Angeles / Long Beach 17 17
Shore Power Feasibility Report: Conclusions (Continued) ♌
Will Require Significant Infrastructure Investments
18 18
Regulatory Approach
♦
Eighty Percent Reduction in Hotelling Emissions ♦ Hotelling Emissions – Diesel PM – NOx
19 19
Ocean-Going Vessel Categories Considered for Shore Power ♦
Container Ships
♦
Passenger Ships
♦
Refrigerated Cargo Ships
♦
Potentially Some Bulk Ships 20 20
Ocean-Going Vessel Categories Considered for Alternative Techniques ♦
Bulk Vessels ♦ General Cargo Vessels ♦ Ro-Ro Vessels ♦ Tankers
21 21
Regulatory Timetable ♦
Present Regulation to Board for Consideration in November 2007 – Workshop late summer 2007 – Proposed regulation and staff report released late September 2007
22 22
NOx Emission Benefits from Shore Power NOx Reductions From Cold-Ironing 60 50
TPD
40
Hotelling w/o Cold-Ironing
Total Reductions are 100,000 tons
30 20
Hotelling with Cold-Ironing
10 0 2008
2010
2015
2020
* Based on 20%, 60%, and 80% shore power targets
23 23
PM Emission Benefits from Shore Power 1.6 1.4
TPD
1.2 1
Hotelling W/O Cold-Ironing Total Reductions are 2,400 Tons
0.8 0.6
Hotelling with Cold-Ironing
0.4 0.2 0 2008
2010
2015
2020
* Based on 20%, 60%, and 80% shore power targets
24 24
Contacts ♦
Mike Waugh, Manager Project Assistance Section e-mail: mwaugh@arb.ca.gov phone: 916.445.6018
♦
Grant Chin (Staff) e-mail: gchin@arb.ca.gov phone: 916.327.5602
♦
Webpages: Shore Power: www.arb.ca.gov/ports/shorepower/shorepower.htm Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan: www.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/gmerp.htm 25 25
DFMV Cold Ironing™ A Wittmar Solution Made Simple and the Clean Ships Conference February 9, 2007
1
Typical Layout- Dual Frequency * Multi Voltage * Mobile * Modular * Flexible * Built For Purpose
2
Typical DFMV™ System
3
Shore Side Connection Box
4
DFMV™ Long Story Made Short z z
z
z
5
NO Impact To Power Grid No Cable Management Issues. Wittmar DFMV™ Generates The Frequency And Voltage The Ship Needs Thus Requiring Small Cables No Transformers Or Frequency Converters Are Required. This Eliminates $1.5 Million CAPEX Plus Dry Dock Time (= 50% of 1 DFMV™) Achieves Emissions Targets Years Ahead Of The CARB Plan – 2010 Goals In 2008
DFMV™ Long Story Made Short z z
z z z
6
Low Cost- 400% Less Than POLB/POLA Ship Electrification Projects Defined Cost For The Operator – Operator Pays A Daily Fee Or A Per Container Fee. No Amortization In Their Lease. No Public Money Is Required – Works In All Ports Dual Frequency Cold Irons More Ships Than POLA/POLB Ship Electrification Projects Multi Voltage Cold Irons More Ships Than POLA/POLB Ship Electrification Projects
DFMV™ Long Story Made Short z z z
z
7
DFMV™ Especially Suited For Irregular And Infrequent Ship Visits. Bulk Ships Are Easily Cold Ironed Flexible, Mobile, Effective- Preferred By Operators Over AMP Or The POLB Ship Electrification Project. 43 Units Can Be Up And Running By 2012. This Equates To 4,472 Ships Cold Ironed Per Year.
Diesel Pollution vs. Wittmar DFMV Cold Ironing – 2 Day Stay
z
Ship Aux Diesel Engine
z
z
950 bhp – 725 kW NOx – 851 CO – 139 PM10 – 7 SOx 139 CO2 85,955
z
z z z z z z
8
Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs.
3,840 Gallons of 0.5% Diesel Fuel Are Consumed During Each 2 Day Stay
z z z z z z
Wittmar DFMV Cold Ironing™ System 950 bhp – 725 kW NOx – 15 CO – 60 PM10 – 0.05 SOx 0 CO2 49,018
Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs
4752 Gallons of LNG Fuel Are Consumed During Each 2 Day Stay
Diesel Pollution vs. Wittmar DFMV™ Cold Ironing – Pollution Reduction z
Using Wittmar DFMV™ to Cold Iron a typical 48 Hour Ship Stay Will Reduce Pollution by:
z z z z z
9
NOx CO PM10 SOx CO2 -
836 Pounds 79 Pounds 6.95 Pounds 139 Pounds 36,937 Pounds
Diesel Pollution vs. Wittmar DFMV™ Cold Ironing – 4992 hours per year (96 hrs/wk) z z z z z z z
z
10
Ship Aux Diesel Engine 950 bhp – 725 kW NOx – 88,504 Lbs. CO – 14,456 Lbs. PM10 – 728 Lbs. SOx 14,456 Lbs. CO2 8,939,320 Lbs.
z
399,360 Gal of 0.5% Diesel Fuel Used per Year
z
z z z z z
Wittmar DFMV Cold Ironing™ 950 bhp – 725 kW NOx – 1,560 Lbs. CO – 6,240 Lbs. PM10 – 4.99 Lbs. SOx 0 Lbs. CO2 5,097,872 Lbs. 494,208 Gallons LNG Fuel Used per Year
2 ships per week staying 48 hours over 1 year
Diesel Pollution vs. Wittmar DFMV™ Cold Ironing – Pollution Reduction z
z z z z z
11
Depending on the Length of Stay and Hotelling kW load, the Air Pollution Reduced by using Wittmar DFMV™ NOx is Reduced 98% CO is Reduced 57% PM10 - is Reduced 99% SOx is Reduced 100% CO2 is Reduced 57%
The DFMV Capital Cost To Reduce Pollution for 2 Ships per Week is: NOx = $8,010 per Ton
12
Based on 10 Year Minimum Life
Wittmar DFMV Cold Ironing™ Investment Cost z z
z z z
13
Wittmar DFMV Cold Ironing™ Operating Cost Is $4.75 To $9.00 Per Container (Depending On Each Situation) Wittmar DFMV Cold Ironing™ Investment Cost For NOx Reduction = $8,010 Per Ton The California ARB Believes That An Investment Cost Of $4 To $13 Per Container Is Reasonable The California ARB Believes That Nox Reduction Investments Of $18,000 Per Ton In POLB/POLA Is Reasonable The California ARB Believes That NOx Reduction Investments Of $56,000 Per Ton In Oakland Is Reasonable
Wittmar U. S. Trademarks
14
DFMV Cold Ironing™ System
Wittmar DFMV Cold Ironing™ z
A SOLUTION MADE SIMPLE by:
1657 East 28th Street ~ Signal Hill, CA 90755 562-997-7261 (Off) ~ 562-997-7263 (Fax)
15