Session 40 Karin Andersson

SHIPPING AND MARINE TECHNOLOGY

Technical solutions for the sulphur regulations 2015

Professor Karin Andersson

Shipping and Marine Technology

Maritime Environment


•SHIPPING

• Low energy use and specific emissions in intercontinental transport • Small contribution from shipping to emissions and energy use in a long

product chain • But also

• “... absent any new regulations on maritime vessels, shipping will be responsible for NOX emissions that are on par with, and SO2 emissions that are greater than, all land-based sources by 2020”. (European commission 2005)

• Shipping-related particle (PM) emissions cause approximately 60,000 cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths annually (Corbett et al 2007)


Nordic Sea and Baltic Sea (SECAs)

“…man försökt minska (eldnings)oljornas svavelhalt. Den maximala halten sattes fr o m den 1 juli 1969 till 2,5 vikt %. I det centrala Stockholm satte man maximihalten till 1,0 % från den 1 oktober 1968 och till 1 % I hela Stockholms stad från 1 oktober 1969” Ur “Välfärd till döds” Nils Erik Landell, 1969

Euro VI diesel = 0,001 %


Worldwide SECA


Sulphur

• Impurity in fuel • Forms SO2 in combustion

• Impacts

• Acidification • Damages to soil, crops, buildings

• Health effects • From SO2

• From particles formed


Strategies to reduce environmental impact

• Fulfil the need in other way ?

• Remove source

• End-of –pipe – emission abatement

• Restore damaged nature


Change fuel – low/no sulphur alternatives

• Fossil • Low sulphur MGO/MDO

• DME

• Fisher Tropsch diesel fuel (GTL, CTL..)

• Methanol

• (Ethanol)

• Methane (LNG)

• LPG (butane , propane)

• Coal

• Uranium

• Non-fossil • Biodiesel (RME etc)

• DME

• Fisher Tropsch diesel fuel (BTL)

• Methanol

• Bio Ethanol

• Vegetable oils (jathropa etc.)

• Methane (LBG)

• Hydrogen

• Wood


And there are many pathways to a fuel


Future Marine Fuels

Technical Criteria

Fuel pre-treatment requirements

Propulsion system

Fuel properties

Environmental criteria

Economic criteria

Other criteria

Ethics

Security

Public opinion

Political and strategy aspects Life cycle environmental performance

Consequences of fuel spills and accidents

Exhaust emissions

Investment cost

Fuel price

Operational cost

Logistical criteria

Safety and safe handling criteria


End-of pipe solutions


Hansen 2012

Sea Water Scrubber

Closed Scrubber

Dry Scrubber


Some chemistry Sea water: SO2(g)⇆SO2(aq) SO2(aq) + 2H2O(l) ⇆ HSO3

–(aq) + H3O+(aq) HSO3

–(aq) + H2O(l)⇆SO32–(aq) + H3O+(aq)

And the low pH may release CO2 from the water HCO3

-(aq) + H3O+(aq)⇆CO2(aq) + 2H2O(l) CO2(aq)⇆CO2(g)

Dry scrubber : SO2 (g)+ Ca(OH)2 (s)+ 1/2O2 ⇆ CaSO4(s) + H2O SO3 (g) + Ca(OH)2 (s) + O2 ⇆ CaSO4(s) + 2H2O

Closed loop: NaOH (s) + H2O ⇆ Na+ + OH- + H2O SO2(g)⇆SO2(aq) SO2(aq) + 2H2O(l) ⇆ HSO3

–(aq) + H3O+(aq) HSO3

–(aq) + H2O(l)⇆SO32–(aq) + H3O+(aq)

The hydroxide ions will neutralise the surplus acidity and increase the absorption of SO2 A higher pH may also cause absorption of CO2


Reducing impact from use of fuel

Low sulphur fuel and catalyst solves SOx and NOx problem


++++ ------ ????? • No problem to fulfil S reduction requirements

• Sea water scrubbing water release probably no problem in well mixed water, but has initially pH 3-4

• Scrubber technology well known and used on land. Mainly dry scrubbers.

• Scrubber technology is in an early stage of development at sea

• Adds weight and needs space

• Sludge from closed scrubbers has to be handled in ports

• Dry scrubber gives solid waste.

• One scrubber per engine?

•Wet scrubber may prevent use of SCR

• Pressure drop and cooling of exhausts – may affect waste heat recovery

• Baltic Sea? HELCOM

• ….


What does it cost?

• Retrofit of scrubber – pay back time seems to be 3 – 20 years depending on ship type and use. Depends on difference in fuel price (source: manufacturers and shipping companies)

• Cost of NaOH – 30 – 40 €/ton fuel (source Danish EPA)

• Loss of space on board?

• Increase in weight ?


•Member States may provide State aid for retrofitting existing vessels with emission abatement equipment

• Promotion of testing and development of alternative methods, such on-board EGCS, liquefied natural gas (LNG) or biofuels is encouraged

•Member States should ensure the availability of port waste reception facilities to meet the needs of ships using EGCS

• The Commission should consider reducing port fees for EGCS waste streams


Conclusions

•Fuels • Many possible “HFO-alternative” fuels • Fuel selection is a multi-criteria process

•End- of pipe solutions – scrubbers • Give good S reduction • Requires space and adds weight • Pay-back for retrofit varies a lot • Closed scrubbers give waste • May prevent use of SCR and WHR

Session 40 Karin Andersson

Documents

Transcript of Session 40 Karin Andersson