the me-lgip engine fueled by lpg - intertanko diesel & turbo < 1 > the me-lgip engine...

1 < > MAN Diesel & Turbo

The ME-LGIP Engine fueled by LPG

Niels B. Clausen Senior Manager

EELEE/Engine and System Application Marine Two-Stroke, Engineering


Towards Greener Future Portfolio of solutions

Dual Fuel

Technology

SCR

EGR

MGO

Wet Scrubber

SOx NOx

Countermeasures for


2011 2016

ME-GI DEMO at DRC

Demonstration test at HHI Demonstration test at MES

2012 2013

Engine delivery for TOTE Maritime

Ethane development and operation at MES

ME-GI retrofit of Nakilat

Development of ME-LGI

2014

Engine delivery for TEEKAY LNG

2015

LPG testrig

First sea trial on Methanol

ME-GI PVU DRC

DSME FGSS

2017

ME-GI and ME-LGI Gas Technologies Development Milestones


Fuel gas qualities

ME-GI and ME-LGI Gas Technologies Dual Fuel Combustion Concept

Fuel Methane Ethane Methanol LPG* Diesel Density at injection pressure (kg/m3) 194 440 814 562 860 Typical injection pressure (bar) 300 380 550 600 800 Lower calorific value (LCV) (MJ/kg) 50.0 47.5 19.9 46.3 42.7 Boiling temperature at 1 bar (°C) -162 -89 64 -42 180-360 Critical pressure (bar) 46 49 82 43 435 Kinematic viscosity at injection pressure (cSt) 0.12 0.17 0.67 0.29 2.5-3.0

Bulk modulus at injection pressure (mPa) 78.4 373 1,419 820 1,550

Sulphur content Negligible Negligible No Negligible Max. 2% *Values are based on pure propane

Engine type ME-GI ME-GIE ME-LGIM ME-LGIP Fuel type Methane Ethane Methanol LPG Dual fuel capability Yes Yes Yes Yes Pilot oil MDO/HFO MDO/HFO MDO/HFO MDO/HFO System supply pressure (bar) 300 380 10 50 Tier III SCR/EGR option available Yes Yes/No Yes Yes

Fuel technology platforms for alternative clean fuels


Benefits of Diesel-type versus Otto-type combustion

ME-GI and ME-LGI Gas Technologies Dual Fuel Combustion Concept

Combustion concept Diesel cycle Otto cycle Power density Unchanged Power reduced Gas mode efficiency Increased Unchanged Diesel mode efficiency Unchanged Reduced Gas quality/requirements (LCV) Insensitive Sensitive Methane number dependent No Yes Pilot fuel oil (amount) MDO/HFO (3-5%) MDO (approx. 1%) High ambient temperature Insensitive Sensitive Combustion processes Diesel process Premixed Cylinder max. pressure variations Stable and low Unstable and high Knocking during load change None Possible Misfiring None Possible Methane slip 0.1% of SFOC 2-4% of SFOC GWP Reduced by 20% Increased Scavenge air receiver explosion risk No Yes Crankcase explosion risk No Yes Exhaust receiver explosion risk No Yes


Prototype system volume: 60 m3

17 ton

New system volume: 8 m3

2 ton

The new ME-GI PVS reduces the size of the FGSS installation significantly

Simplification and design optimisation

ME-GI and ME-LGI Gas Technologies FGSS Simplification


Tier III compliance for MAN B&W two-stroke Engines

EGR SCR SCR On-Engine High-pressure Low-pressure

Relevant information is found in the Emission Project guide and CEAS Engine Calculations

Tier III NOx Control Technologies

http://marine.man.eu/two-stroke/project-guides

http://marine.man.eu/two-stroke/ceas


Alternative Fuels Expected reduction of emissions for same engine setting

*Compared to Tier II engine on HFO and conventional fuel valve

NOx SOx PM EEDI (CO2)

Fuel cost

Fuel availability

CAPEX Incl. tanks

LNG* 20-30% 90-95% 90% 25% ++ ++ $$

Ethane* 90-95% 15% +++ - $$

LPG* 10-15% 90-95% 90% 12% ++ +++ $

Methanol* 30-40% 90-95% 90% 7% - ++ $


Introduction to case study (DNV GL & MDT) June 2016

Compare alternatives for a specific ship 75 000 DWT LR1 tanker Focus on comparing fuels High and low fuel price scenario


Application – trading route

Leg State Total distance

(nm)

Approach (h/leg)

Port (h/leg)

Houston – Rotterdam

Cargo (diesel)

5,052 10 36

Rotterdam – Ventspils

Ballast 961 10 36

Ventspils – Houston

Cargo (MGO)

5,670 10 36

Port (10%)

Approach (3%)

Transit (87%)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Power (MW)

MW Propulsion MW Auxiliary MW PTO

53% load including PTOSpeed: 12.5 knots


LR1 example – investment cost distribution As of June 2016

37%

32%

15%

16%

Methanol - Total 3.1 mUSD

7%

39%

5%

49%

LNG - Total 9.6 mUSD

27%

37%

10%

26%

LPG - Total 4.7 mUSD

Engine upgrade

Auxiliary systems

Installation and yard engineering

Fuel tank

LPG represents a relatively low investment since LPG tanks are relatively cheap


Fuel price scenarios

High price scenario based on mid 2014 prices

For LNG and LPG distribution costs are added

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 20220

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Fuel

pric

e ($

/GJ

on L

HV

basi

s)

Time

HFO (380 cSt) HFO/LSFO: High price MGO/MDO MGO: High price Methanol Methanol: High price LNG LNG: High price LPG LPG: High price


Fuel price scenarios

High price scenario based on mid 2014 prices

For LNG and LPG distribution costs are added

Low price scenario based on mid 2015 prices

Less price reduction for methanol and LNG

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 20220

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Fuel

pric

e ($

/GJ

on L

HV

basi

s)

Time

HFO (380 cSt) HFO/LSFO: Low Price MDO/MGO MGO: Low Price Methanol Methanol: Low Price LPG LPG: Low Price LNG LNG: Low Price


Study results

Low- and high price scenario LPG results in shortest pay-back time Largest annual cost saving with LNG Methanol: Requires ~18% discount on MGO to

be comparable to LNG Paper available: http://marine.man.eu/two-stroke/technical-papers

-2 0 2 4 6 82

4

6

8

10

12

Payb

ack

time

(yea

rs)

Price spread to LSFO ($/mmbtu)

High price scenario Payback time methanol Payback time LPG Payback time LNG

-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

12 13 14 152

4

6

8

Payb

ack

time

(yea

rs)

Speed (knots)

LPG: Low price scenario LPG: High price scenario

2017 2018 2019 2020-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

Investments

Ann

ual c

ost d

iffer

ence

(mU

SD)

Time

High-price scenario LNG LPG Methanol ULSFO 0.1%

Globalsulfur cap:0.5%

http://marine.man.eu/docs/librariesprovider6/test/5510-0196_alternative-fuels-low.pdf?sfvrsn=22


Simulation of injection profiles with traditional FBIV: Constant pressure and different temperatures results in delay of injection Different composition of LPG results in delay of injection Solved by independent control of cut-off shaft in FBIV-Hybrid

Injection delay Injection delay

ME-LGIP LPG injection profiles


ME-LGIP LPG injection and control - Design

Valve control block: ELVA-valve (fuel pressurisation) ELGI-valve (injection timing) Hydraulic accumulator Hydraulic and sealing oil connections

LPG inlet

LPG return

Cylinder cover with LPG injection valve and gas block


ME-LGIP LPG injection and control - Design

FBIV-Hybrid

Sleeve for FBIV-Hybrid


Air supply 7 bar N2 Purging

Deck LPG cargo tank

Standard single-walled piping Double-walled piping, ventilated

LPG supply pressure 50 bar @45 +10/-20 °C.

Knockout Drum

Vent

Service tank LPG@18bar & amb.

temp. LPG LFSS

Low Flashpoint Fuel

Supply System

LPG FVT Fuel Valve Train

Liquid return

Vapour return

LS

HC

Vent

New purge/return system Constant recirculation

ME-GI and ME-LGI Gas Technologies ME-LGIP: LPG System layout - Simplified



Deck LPG cargo tank



Knockout Drum

Vent


temp. LPG LFSS

Low Flashpoint Fuel

Supply System


Liquid return

Vapour return

LS

HC

Vent



Deliver LPG at specified conditions Speed controlled high pressure pump In tank/below tank low pressure pump

Tank example

LFSS example

http://atlas.md-man.biz/knowledge-sharing/projects/lpg/LPG%20Fuel%20Supply%20System/IMG_20170125_142711.jpg



Deck LPG cargo tank



Knockout Drum

Vent


temp. LPG LFSS

Low Flashpoint Fuel

Supply System


Liquid return

Vapour return

LS

HC

Vent



Recover liquid during purging Recirculation ensure stable temperature Cubic design with maintenance access from one side


Effort area

Concept ME-GI vs LGI

LFSS Low Flashpoint Fuel Supply System

Engine Design

Research Test

Shop test

2015 2016 2017 2018

Injection concept decided

Sub-suppliers selected

Test rig designed

Test rig initial start

Research engine designed

Research engine initial start

HAZID on concept

Initial shop test 50 or 60 bore

LFSS initial start

LFSS delivered

50 or 60 bore engine designed

First Costumer engines

Year

HAZID/HAZOP on LFSS done

Engine design validated

Test results verified & accepted

ME-LGIP Milestone Plan


Why consider LPG as a fuel?

LPG is widely accepted ( land based and marine )

Meeting SOx requirement ( SECA and future global fuel )

Potential fuel cost savings ( cheaper than MGO )

Comparable cost to down stream SOx scrubber solution

Flexible fuel utilization to meet future fuel cost variation

Retrofit possible

Savings of both time and fees for fuel bunkering, when fuel can be taken from cargo tanks.


Conclusions

Clean gas fuels have a bright future

Full dedication to develop superior gas engine technologies

Development work is maturing fast for major gas qualities


All data provided in this document is non-binding. This data serves informational purposes only and is especially not guaranteed in any way. Depending on the subsequent specific individual projects, the relevant data may be subject to changes and will be assessed and determined individually for each project. This will depend on the particular characteristics of each individual project, especially specific site and operational conditions.

Disclaimer

the me-lgip engine fueled by lpg - intertanko diesel & turbo < 1 > the me-lgip engine...

Documents