LNG Fuelled Vessel Design - PoseidonMed · 2018. 12. 10. · - GTT membrane tanks present the...
Transcript of LNG Fuelled Vessel Design - PoseidonMed · 2018. 12. 10. · - GTT membrane tanks present the...
Antonis Trakakis, Arista Shipping PoseidonMed II Conference ,
Dec.08 2016
LNG Fuelled Vessel Design
Was envisioned in March 2013 by:
In May 2015 additional prestigious entities joined the group
and a Joint Development Project was founded:
©
TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) calculations proved that in
shipping which is a constantly evolving industry, it is important
to adapt in order to maintain a highly competitive position.
Objective:
To develop a Bulk Carrier vessel which will comply with all
known environmental regulations, current and forthcoming,
with a highly competitive capex and opex
Objective of Project Forward
03
• CO2 : Reduction of EEDI by 30% until 2025, applicable only to NB’s
• NOx : Additional reduction by 75% in NECA, applicable only to NB’s, after 2016
• SOx : Reduction of Sulfur in fuel to 0.5% globally after 2020 for ALL VESSELS
NB’s will become more expensive but with reduced emissions
This additional capex should have a payback, not only for the society but for the shipowner as well
©
Regulatory Frame
04
LNG as Fuel
ADVANTAGES
EEDI is significantly reduced
Provides direct solution to SOx
Meets NOx Tier III (lean burn Otto cycle only)
Abundance (proven reserves 6,900 Trillion cubic ft)
Geopolitical stability (significant deposits in too many
countries-GR)
ISSUES
Chicken-an-egg dilemma for its supply
Requires much bigger storage volume for same
range than HFO
Requires high investment cost
5
Business As Usual is no longer an Option
in Fujairah
in Singapore in Rotterdam
in Houston
MGO is 3-5 USD/MMBTU more expensive than HFO/LNG
Fuel Price / MMBTU
Observation: “MGO is 3-5 USD/MMBTU more expensive than HFO/LNG”
6
Rapid developments, GLOBALLY
Drivers :
• Global Sulfur cap in fuel
• Low S% fuel prices
Coal and Oil used to be
the God, but…
LNG Infrastructure
1
Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Diesel fuel 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Propane 139
Natural gas 117
0
50
100
150
200
250
lb CO2/MM
BTU
7
Even tramp shipping bunkers in major ports
Project Forward and Shell have come together to discuss and investigate the
options of supplying LNG-powered vessels, and assess the bunker requirements
for globally-trading bulk carriers, tankers and container vessels.
Bunker Ports
Singapore 25%
Fujairah 10%
Gibraltar 8% Durban
3% Korea
6%
Shanghai 6%
USA 14%
Brazil 5%
Panama 5%
ARA / EU 10%
Others 8%
8
B.delta 82
Top energy efficiency
• Main particulars : 229 x 32.26 x 14.45
• MCR : 8,830 kW @ 80.0 rpm
• Service speed : 14.5 kn @ 7,100 kW
Vessel Design
9
Type of LNG Tanks
- GTT membrane tanks present the highest volumetric efficiency &
geometrical flexibility of any currently available LNG containment
system, yet at min cost and weight involved.
- Less loss of cargo space & less loss of DWT vs Type B or A tanks.
- Ideal for large dry or wet cargo ships.
- Tank adaptable to shape of hull or deck space – hull integrated tanks.
- GTT specialists in LNG containment and gas handling systems with
vast references in LNG ship systems.
10
The B.Delta82LNG will have new
DWT of 83.500 t: + 1.500 tons cargo
No implication on stability and stresses
Possibility to adjust size depending on
Owner’s requirements
Concept equally applicable for
conversion of existing ships
Position & Size of LNG Tanks
GTT Membrane type tanks
+10m in length
40 days at sea
2500 m3 capacity
11
Key factors in the technology selection process
Main Engine Selection
Reliability (port-to-port operation on
gas)
Environmental friendliness
Lowest possible investment and operating costs
Simple and maintenance friendly installation
Redundancy in case of gas system failures
12
DF Engines : Low vs. High Pressure
Low Pressure High Pressure
- Low gas pressure (<12 bar, target 10 bar) - Gas pressure 300 bar
- Higher SFOC in diesel - Maintains low SFOC
- Homogenous combustion meets Tier III - Diffusion burning needs SCR/EGR
after treatment
- Transient response
- Methane slip
- 4-stroke DF track record - Very limited track record
13
Main features
• Selected prime mover :
2 x Wärtsilä W31DF
Only two engines
Optimal efficiency at eco speed
NO generators
Twin Input/Single output gearbox
PTO driven alternators with variable frequency
One engine capable to handle total el.load demand
No NOx after treatment necessary
Controllable pitch propeller
Both CPP and variable rpm modes possible for
highest efficiency
W31DF
W31DF
Equally applicable to bulkers, tankers and containers
Machinery Arrangement
14
W31 – Methane Slip
15
Main Engine Main Engine Main Engine Main Engine
Fuel Gas Handling
Fuel Gas Handling
Fuel Gas Handling
SCR
SCR
Generators
Generators
Generators
Shafting
Shafting
Shafting
Shafting
Reduction Gear
VFD Alternators
LNG Tank LNG Tank
LNG Tank
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Diesel & SCR 4S LP 2S LP 2S HP
mill
ion
USD
Capex
Main engine selection is of key importance for cost (Own & FGHS & SCR) Budgetary prices are shown 16
Long term projections indicate that the price of LNG will range close to 9 USD/MMBTU
or even lower (including 3.5 USD/MMBTU premium for delivery onboard)
Price of LNG
17
Opex – Maintenance Costs - TBO
• A conventional ship’s load profile
• LNG price of 9.0 USD/MMBTU
• Better SFOC & Reduced transmission losses of the option with 2 stroke + SCR
• Maintenance costs are very much similar
Calculations Made Taking Into Account
Annual OPEX between two alternatives matches when 0.5% sulfur fuel is priced at abt.360 USD/MT
18
Annual Difference in Fuel Cost: LNG vs 0.5 S% Fuel
19
LNG
PR
ICE
(USD
/MM
BTU
) FUEL PRICE (0.5% S PRICE, USD/MT)
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
2 1.287.179 1.586.980 1.886.781 2.186.583 2.486.384 2.786.186 3.085.987
3 1.031.364 1.331.165 1.630.967 1.930.768 2.230.569 2.530.371 2.830.172
4 775.549 1.075.350 1.375.152 1.674.953 1.974.755 2.274.556 2.574.357
5 519.734 819.536 1.119.337 1.419.138 1.718.940 2.018.741 2.318.543
6 263.920 563.721 863.522 1.163.324 1.463.125 1.762.926 2.062.728
7 8.105 307.906 607.707 907.509 1.207.310 1.507.112 1.806.913
8 -247.710 52.091 351.893 651.694 951.495 1.251.297 1.551.098
9 -503.525 -203.723 96.078 395.879 695.681 995.482 1.295.283
10 -759.340 -459.538 -159.737 140.064 439.866 739.667 1.039.469
11 -1.015.154 -715.353 -415.552 -115.750 184.051 483.852 783.654
12 -1.270.969 -971.168 -671.366 -371.565 -71.764 228.038 527.839
The proposed design of Project Forward with LNG as fuel offers a significant commercial advantage for most
projections of price variation
Daily Difference in Fuel Cost: LNG vs 0.5 S% Fuel
20
LNG
PR
ICE
(USD
/MM
BTU
) FUEL PRICE (0.5% S PRICE, USD/MT)
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
2 3.527 4.348 5.169 5.991 6.812 7.633 8.455
3 2.826 3.647 4.468 5.290 6.111 6.933 7.754
4 2.125 2.946 3.768 4.589 5.410 6.232 7.053
5 1.424 2.245 3.067 3.888 4.709 5.531 6.352
6 723 1.544 2.366 3.187 4.009 4.830 5.651
7 22 844 1.665 2.486 3.308 4.129 4.950
8 143 964 1.785 2.607 3.428 4.250
9 263 1.085 1.906 2.727 3.549
10 384 1.205 2.026 2.848
11 504 1.326 2.147
12 625 1.446
Despite the current condition of saturated market, savings of that magnitude are bound to make an LNG fuelled ship of this design a
much sought after option
LNG Price 0.5% Fuel Price (USD/MT)
(USD/MMBTU) 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
3 3.1 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2
4 4.0 3.0 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.3
5 5.6 3.8 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.4
6 9.3 5.1 3.5 2.7 2.2 1.8 1.6
7 27.3 8.0 4.7 3.3 2.6 2.1 1.8
8 18.3 7.0 4.3 3.1 2.4 2.0
9 13.8 6.2 4.0 3.0 2.3
10 35.0 11.1 5.6 3.7 2.8
11 35.0 9.2 5.1 3.5
12 26.6 7.9 4.7
13 18.0 6.9
14 13.6
15 35.0
300350400450500550600
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
3
5
7
9
11
1315
Fuel Price ($/MT)
Pay
bac
k in
Yea
rs
LNG Price ($/mmBTU)
Conclusions : The payback period for NB is very reasonable for most of the price scenaria In case price of 0.5% fuel goes above 550 USD/MT then conversion of modern, highly energy efficient ships (HP DF) also becomes feasible and meaningful
Payback Period of Extra CAPEX
21
Conversion
Conversion will require local strengthening of hull structure and insert of a pre fabricated section.
Such works are NOT considered as “major conversion”.
For Solas (compliance with new rules)
For Marpol (NOx Tier III)
The development of infrastructure from PF vessels, may allow more frequent bunkering and will make possible the use of a smaller LNG tank and keep overall conversion cost moderate.
22
Approval In Principle
23
Summary / Conclusions
©
The payback period for NB is very reasonable for most of the price
scenarios.
The expected advantages from reduced bunker costs are significant
The new regulations give a clear sign for the industry to proceed in
adjusting and changing towards meeting the new trends; This will
inevitably establish new leaders in the market.
One should not stay inert but instead capture the advantages offered.
Infrastructure : There is no chicken-and-egg issue.
When proven designs are in place, supply chain and shipbuilding
develop in parallel.
24