lng as marine fuel - ashrae.gr · bunker suppliers unaffected –readily available in ports –no...
TRANSCRIPT
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
GREEN TRANSPORTATIONSaturday June 4, 2016 - Athens, Hellas
Nikolaos P. Ventikos, Assistant ProfessorNational Technical University of Athens
LNG as marine fuel
An expectation becoming a reality?
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
• Introduction
• LNG development drivers
• LNG compared to alternatives
• Barriers to LNG Development
• LNG Fuelled Vessels
• Instead of conclusions
Outline / Agenda
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 2
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Introduction
What is LNG?
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is natural gas compressed 50 to 80 times and cooled from ambient temperature until it liquefies.
– At 𝑝 = 1𝑎𝑡𝑚, this happens at 𝑇 = −162°𝐶– 600 volumes of gas equal 1 volume of liquid
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 3
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Introduction
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is a mixture of hydrocarbons, predominately methane (80 – 95%).
– Alkanes – ethane, propane and butane.
– Nitrogen may also be present at levels up to 1%.
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 4
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Introduction
Virtually all the LNG produced was used for:1. electricity generation, 2. industrial and commercial gas use, and 3. by residential customers.
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 5
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Development Drivers
LNGin the
shipping industry
Emission Control Regulations
High supply
Low priceCleaner
burning fuel
High energy content
Environmentally friendly
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 6
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Development Drivers
IMO Emission Control Regulations
• SOX (shipping accounts for 14% of SOX pollution)
– MARPOL Annex VI revision (2010)
• NOX (80% reduction from 2020 for new-builds)
• CO2 (under consideration)
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 7
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Emission Control Areas (ECAs)
LNG Development Drivers
Baltic Sea – Annex I (SOx)2006
North Sea –Annex V (SOx)2007
North America -Appendix VII of Annex VI (SOx, NOx and PM)2013
United States Caribbean - Appendix VII of Annex VI (SOx, NOx and PM)2014
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 8
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Development Drivers
European Emission Control Regulations
• EU Sulphur Directive 2012/33/EC – 3.5% to 0.5% from 1/1/2020– eliminates the possibility to postpone the 0.5% sulphur
content after 2020
• Alternative Fuels Directive 2014/94/EU – EU wide network of refueling points (infrastructure)– Maritime ports (by 2026), inland ports (by 2031)
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 9
If IMO decides there is insufficient low sulphur fuel
available, the 0.5% sulphur limit can be delayed until 2025.
EU
IMO
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Development Drivers
LNG over qualifies for compliance
• Practically NO sulphur (0.004% by mass)
• LNG sulphur levels: 1/875th of current Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) limits and 1/25th of future ECA limits
LNG is cheaper
• Current low oil and gas prices result largely from an oversupply in the market
Nils Smedegaard Andersen, Maersk’s CEO:“The possible use of LNG as fuel for ships presents an opportunity to reduce both SOx emissions and in reducing the transport sector’s CO2 footprint.”
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 10
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Development Drivers
LNG is in high supply
• Mid-2010s US shale gas revolution
• The biggest producers in 2013 were
Qatar (78 million tonnes)
Malaysia (25 million tonnes)
Australia (22 million tonnes)
• New producers include Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Norway, Peru and Yemen.
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 11
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Development Drivers
However, in the long term LNG is considered as an intermediate solution with a limited time window for
application!
Angus Campbell, Managing Director of Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement UK: “LNG will be with us for a very long time – with over 200 years supply in the ground it is sustainable, meets current and planned emission limits and, as it is a clean fuel, offers maintenance cost improvements.”
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 12
LNG
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG compared to alternatives
Viable and realistic alternatives to LNG
Marine Diesel Oil (short term solution - next five years)
– Familiarity for ship-owners
– Commercial relations and/or general contract terms with bunker suppliers unaffected
– Readily available in ports
– No problems regarding regulations, logistics or operations
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 13
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Viable and realistic alternatives to LNG
Retrofitting Exhaust Scrubbers (medium term option)
LNG compared to alternatives
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 14
+ Ability for ship-owners to maintain their current supply practices
- Potential stability problems (installation on top of the exhaust stack)
- Fuel consumption approx. increase 1- 3%
- Higher maintenance costs and Operating Expenses
- Initial investment (€3-4 million each)
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG compared to alternatives
LNG advantages
• LNG retrofit is 50% cheaper than for low sulphur MDO
• LNG combustion emits around 20% less CO2 (tank-to-wheels); Some studies deem 10% reduction (well-to-wheels)
• Cleaner burning fuel means less maintenance and lower costs
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 15
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG compared to alternatives
Cleaner alternatives
• Ship electrification
– Rapid developments but many issues to be resolved (e.g. energy storage etc.).
• Wind and Solar energy
– Will augment fuels, such as gas or oil, but are unlikely to replace them.
– Electricity production for cold ironing and to charge batteries for fully electric and hybrid ships.
• Biofuels (methanol)
• Hydrogen cells (abundant source but experimental)
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 16
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Barriers to LNG development
Limited availability (chicken-and-egg problem)
Lack of existing LNG infrastructure (bunkering facilities)
Required initial investments (propulsion and fuel handling systems and bunkering facilities)
Safety Requirements
Bunkering, maintenance, commercial operations
Skilled and trained crews
Fragmented regulatory framework
Address every part of the supply chain (Transportation, storage, bunkering, LNG as fuel)
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 17
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Barriers to LNG development
Cost of new-building
According to DNV GL the cost of building a new LNG-fuelledvessel can be up to 30% higher than for vessels running on conventional fuels
Ship design issues
Smaller energy density (22.2 MJ/m3) compared to petroleum fuels (35 – 40 MJ/m3) means larger tanks are required
Space limitations
Reduction of cargo space
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 18
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Barriers to LNG development
Existing Terminal Infrastructure
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 19
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Barriers to LNG development
Existing Bunkering Infrastructure
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 20
Europe - Ports of Antwerp, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Stockholm and Zeebrugge. Norway - Ports of Bergen, Florø, Karmøy, Oslo and Risavika/Stavanger.
South Korea - Port of Incheon
Source: WPCI
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Barriers to LNG development
Risk and Safety Considerations
Important risk-related items to consider include:
– High energy content of the LNG tank
– Explosion hazard in case of gas leakage
– Extremely low temperatures of the LNG fuel (areas at risk must be protected against accidental LNG spills using drip trays and/or water curtains)
– Location/arrangements of system
– Hazardous vs. non-hazardous spaces
– Inexperienced crew (new fuel source)
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 21
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Barriers to LNG development
Risk and Safety Considerations
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 22
LNG spills tend to leave fewer lasting environmental impacts than marine oils
Source: SSPA
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Barriers to LNG development
Regulatory Framework
• IMO Interim Guidelines (MSC Resolution 285.(86)/2009)
• IMO IGF Code
– safety and operational issues for gas-fuelled seagoing vessels
– The IGF Code is currently being finalized and is expected to be released in the next version of SOLAS (Safety Of Life At Sea) in 2017.
• ISO Technical Committee 67, Working Group 10
– Development of international guidelines for bunkering of gas-fuelled vessels
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 23
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Barriers to LNG development
Regulatory Framework
• Guidelines from Classification Societies
• Existing guidelines for handling and transport of LNG as cargo may be amended and adopted
– International Society of Gas Tanker and Terminal Operator (SIGTTO)
– International Oil companies Marine Forum (OCIMF)
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 24
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Barriers to LNG development
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 25
Class Date Title
ABS May 2011Guide for propulsion & auxiliary systems for gas-fuelled ships
BV May 2011 Safety rules for gas-fuelled engine installations in ships
DNV Oct. 2010 Gas-fuelled engine installations
GL May 2010 Guidelines for the use of gas as fuel for ships
KR July 2012 Guidance for gas-fuelled ships
LR July 2012Rules and regulations for the classification of natural gas-fuelled ships
NK Feb. 2012 Guidelines for the issuance of ship fuel gas
PRS July 2012Guidelines on safety for natural gas-fuelled engine installations in ships
RINA June 2011 Rules for the classification of ships
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Bunkering System
How can an LNG fuelled vessel be bunkered?
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 26
1. Directly from LNG Terminal (Shore-to-Ship)
2. Road Tankers (Truck-to-Ship)
3. Bunker vessels (Ship-to-Ship)
4. Containerized LNG (20 or 40 foot Type C Tank inside a container frame)
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Bunkering System
LNG Containment
System
Transfer System
Control System for
transfer
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 27
Type Description
IMO Type C Tanks Avoids venting any cold gas
Moss Rosenberg spheres • Extremely robust in terms of strength
and operability • Take up very large amounts of space
Prismatic type B (SPB) Tanks Self-supporting
Membrane containment systemsThin metallic barriers supported by the strong hull structure via load-bearing insulation
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Bunkering System
The transfer system consists of:
• valves;
• a flexible piping system
• safety valves;
• a connector system to the ship’s pipework;
• control system.
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 28
LNG Containment
System
Transfer System
Control System for
transfer
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Bunkering System
Best practice is to connect the two LNG tanks and control systems to:
• allow each side to monitor the filling process
• prevent any hazardous scenarios
– over-filling
– over-pressurization
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 29
LNG Containment
System
Transfer System
Control System for
transfer
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Fuelled Vessels
Most suitable ship types
• Ships navigating on fixed route
– Car/passenger ferries
– Offshore supply vessels
– Ro-Ro Ferries
• Ships with large deck area
– Oil tankers
– Chemical tankers
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 30
Bunkering and ship design are much easier
• Space available for LNG storage tank
• Reduction of cargo tank loss
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Fuelled Vessels
Operating vessels and confirmed orders
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 31
77 LNG fuelled vessels already in operation
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Fuelled Vessels
Operating vessels and confirmed orders
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 32
85 confirmed LNG fuelled newbuilds
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
LNG Fuelled Vessels
Expected developments
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 33
Stage 1
• Short sea ships in ECAs with fixed routes (Ro-Ro Ferries, Product Tankers)
• Inland ships
Stage 2
• Deep sea liners (Containerships)
• Mostly new-buildings - retrofitting appears very challenging
Stage 3
• Around 2025 LNG in North American, European and Asian ports
• VLCCs and Bulk Carriers may not convert due to route flexibility requirements
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
• LNG is the most promising alternative for the shipping industry to comply with new regulations and reduce environmental footprint.
• Momentum is building for overcoming the chicken and egg problem the industry is facing.
• Many techniques have already been developed for bunkering of LNG fuelled vessels.
• Still fragmented regulatory framework needs to include every part of the supply chain.
In stead of conclusions
4/6/16 MARITIME RISK GROUP 34
International Conference “GREEN TRANSPORTATION 2016”
Thank you for your attention!
Nikolaos P. Ventikos