Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Content
Benefits of using LNG as ship fuel................................................................. 5
Objectives of the study.................................................................................. 6
Status of regulatory framework...................................................................... 7
Approach...................................................................................................... 7
Ship size variants and route profiles............................................................... 7
LNG technology and modelling assumptions................................................. 8
Main engine technology and modelling assumptions...................................... 8
Scrubber technology and modelling assumptions........................................ 10
Waste heat recovery technology and modelling assumptions....................... 10
Use of distillate fuels................................................................................... 10
Fuel price scenario...................................................................................... 11
Results....................................................................................................... 11
Results payback time............................................................................... 12
The drivers LNG tank cost and LNG price ................................................ 14
Conclusion.................................................................................................. 16
Acknowledgements..................................................................................... 17
g/kWh
1000
NOx
SOx
- 23 %
the USA. There are three visible drivers which, taken together, make LNG
100
10
sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions by 9095%. This reduction level will also be
- 80 %
mandated within the so- called Emission Control Areas (ECAs) by 2015. A
- 92 %
0,1
6S70ME-GI
(with EGR)
6S70ME-C
USD / mmBTU
35
30
25
20
LNG Zeebrugge
HFO Rotterdam
MGO Rotterdam
15
10
5
0
Ja
n- 0
Ap 6
r- 0
Ju 6
l-0
Ok 6
t -0
Ja 6
n- 0
Ap 7
r- 0
Ju 7
l-0
Ok 7
t -0
Ja 7
n- 0
Ap 8
r- 0
Ju 8
l-0
Ok 8
t -0
Ja 8
n- 0
Ap 9
r- 0
Ju 9
l-0
Ok 9
t -0
Ja 9
n- 1
Ap 0
r- 1
Ju 0
l-1
Ok 0
t -1
Ja 0
n- 1
Ap 1
r- 1
Ju 1
l-1
Ok 1
t -1
Ja 1
n- 1
2
systems.
Approach
2020.
Scrubber
engine)
Main engine
power (kW)
2,500 TEU
20
14,500
5,300
65,1%
4,600 TEU
21
25,000
13,300
11,0%
8,500 TEU
23
47,500
23,000
6,3%
14,000 TEU
23
53,500
23,000
6,3%
18,000 TEU
23
65,000
23,000
6,3%
sizes were selected for the study. Assumed design speeds account for the
current trend towards lower speeds.
Round trips were selected for three
trades: Intra-European, Europe-Latin
America and Europe-Asia. The ECA
exposure was used as a primary input
parameter.
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
m3
6,000
4,000
2,000
USD/kW
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2,500 TEU,
2,650 nm
500
4,600 TEU,
6,650 nm
8,500 TEU,
11,500 nm
14,000 TEU,
11,500 nm
18,000 TEU,
11,500 nm
Fig. 7: Specific additional costs for LNG installation for various ship sizes
kg/kWh
0.20
0.15
HFO
0.10
MGO
engine series. This means that the application potential for the ME-GI system
LNG
0.05
Pilot fuel
30%
50%
70%
90%
Engine load
The control concept of the ME-GI engines comprises three different fuel
modes:
globally by 2020
2.00
erence vessels.
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
2,500 TEU
4,600 TEU
8,500 TEU
14,000 TEU
14,000 TEU
USD/mmBTU
40
HFO 2.7% S
MGO 0.1% S
LSHF 0.5% S
LNG
30
20
and LNG with stronger increase in demand. The starting year for the fuel
10
0
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Results
mUSD
10
tions described above for each technology and vessel size. Cost advantages are the sum of fuel cost savings,
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Invest
2015
2016
2017
2018
Scrubber
Scrubber + WHR
2019
2020
LNG
LNG + WHR
Fig. 13: Annual cost advantage for 2,500 TEU container vessels
2,500 TEU
4,600 TEU
8,500 TEU
14,000 TEU
18,000 TEU
72
the shorter the payback time for all variants, with operation start in 2015. The
payback time is shorter for smaller container vessels (2,500 TEU and 4,600
TEU). This is caused by the relatively
36
24
smaller investment for the LNG system compared to large vessels. With a
12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Scrubber
LNG-fuelled
84
72
60
48
36
24
12
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
4,600 TEU vessels, operating 11% inPayback time for 4,600 TEU vessels (start in 2015)
Scrubber
LNG- fuelled
72
60
48
36
24
12
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
The LNG system offers a shorter payback time than the scrubber system for
72
LNG-fuelled
60
36
ber systems.
24
12
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
72
4,600 TEU
8,500 TEU
14,000 TEU
18,000 TEU
60
48
36
24
12
1,000 USD/m
2,000 USD/m
3,000 USD/m
4,000 USD/m
5,000 USD/m
sels.
Fig. 18: Payback time for LNG system
Scrubber
36
24
12
65% ECA operation share
0
1,000 USD/m
2,000 USD/m
3,000 USD/m
4,000 USD/m
48
LNG-fuelled
5,000 USD/m
2,500 TEU
4,600 TEU
8,500 TEU
144
132
120
108
96
84
72
60
48
36
24
12
0
14,000 TEU
18,000 TEU
pends strongly on the LNG price (delivered to the ship). At price parity of HFO
and LNG, based on the energy content,
the payback time for larger vessels is
longer than 60 months (indicating a
breakeven is possible only when the
2020 fuel standard is in force.)
-4.3
-2.3
-0.3
1.7
3.7
5.7
For the 2,500 TEU vessel, a comparison of payback times for the scrubber
and for the LNG system, and varying
LNG prices, shows that the LNG system is attractive as long as LNG (de-
Scrubber
LNG-fuelled
144
132
120
108
96
84
72
60
48
36
24
12
0
-4.3
-2.3
-0.3
1.7
3.7
5.7
Conclusion
established.
tem
payback time.
tank configurations.
The price of LNG delivered to the ship
is difficult to predict. Base LNG prices
classed by GL.
Acknowledgements
This study was jointly performed
by GL and MAN Diesel & Turbo in 2011.
The work was performed by Dr. Pierre C.
Sames (GL), Mr. Niels B. Clausen (MDT)
and Mr. Mads Lyder Andersen (MDT).
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. CopyrightMAN Diesel & Turbo.
5510-0122-02ppr Aug 2012 Printed in Denmark