Energy Efficiency

Regulations for LNG Carriers

Biswajoy Roy
Marine Intern

Brown Bag
Aug 30, 2016
 Brief Details about the study

 Study encompasses 493 LNG Carriers (>10,000 DWT –

EEDI Requirement). Includes vessels on order up to 2019.

 Includes four major propulsion technologies considered.

o Steam Turbine Propulsion System

o Dual Fuel Diesel Electric

(4 stroke – operates on Otto cycle in Gas Mode)

o Slow Speed Diesel Propulsion with Re-liquefaction

o Main Engine Gas Injection (ME-GI)

(2 stroke – operates on Diesel cycle in Gas Mode)

2
 Background Information

History of LNG Carriers and subsequent technological development

History of LNG Carriers

4
 Oldest vs Largest

1st Commercial LNG Largest LNG Carrier

Carrier
Ship

Name Methane Princess Mozah

Entered Service June 1964 September 2008
Gas Capacity 27,400 cubic meters 266,000 cubic meters
Number of tanks 9 5
Length 188 345
Width 24 54
Propulsion Type Steam Heavy Fuel Oil - Motor

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/50th-Anniversary-of-First-Commercial-LNG-Tanker-2014-06-19
How does it look ??

• View of a Q-Max ship -

266,000 cubic meters
cargo capacity

• One cargo can light up

approximately 70,000
US homes for one year.
(2008 Figure)
 How does it look ??

• Inside an LNG tank –

Prismatic Membrane type
made of 1.2 mm thick
stainless steel.

• Cargo capacity– 57,700

cubic meters (98.5% of
size)

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd188/bulkers/LNG-Carriers/Mozah-3.jpg
 Challenges in carrying LNG

 Liquefaction temperature of -161 °C – Cryogenic

Cargo. Special materials and insulations required to
contain the cargo in liquid form.

 Due to such low temperature, there is continuous

generation of Boil-off Gas (BOG) which must be
controlled to maintain the tank pressure.

 Is highly flammable and has extremely high energy.

 Technical Details

Operating Principle of Engines and Methane Slip

 Propulsion Technologies

Steam

HFO with Re-

liquefaction
Propulsion Types
Dual Fuel Diesel Electric
(DFDE)

Main Engine Gas Inject

(MEGI)
Steam Turbine Propulsion System

11
Dual Fuel Diesel Electric Propulsion

12
Slow Steam Diesel Propulsion with
Reliquefaction

13
Main Engine Gas Injection – New Build

14
Main Engine Gas Injection – Retrofit

15
 Marine Engines Operating on Gas

 ME-GI
o 2 Stroke Slow Speed Engines
o Operates on Diesel Cycle in Gas Mode

 DFDE
o 4 Stroke Medium Speed Engines
o Operates on Otto Cycle in Gas Mode

16
 Diesel Cycle vs Otto Cycle
Diesel Cycle
Combustion is a constant pressure process
Fuel is injected before gas
No pre-ignition/no knocking
Less methane slip
High pressure gas injection (300 bar)
Do not meet NOX Tier III standards
MEGI Propulsion (slow speed engines)
Otto Cycle
Combustion is a constant volume process
Gas is injected before fuel
Pre-ignition/Knocking
Significant methane slip
Low pressure gas injection (<10 bar)
Meet NOX Tier III standards
DFDE Propulsion (medium speed engines
 Methane Slip

 Methane slip is the unburned methane in the

combustion chamber which escapes into the
atmosphere along with the engine exhaust.

 Methane has a GWP of 25 for a 100 year period

Engine Type Methane Slip SFC % of SFC

(g/kWh) (g/kWh)
DFDE (Otto Cycle – Gas) 5.000 162 3.09%
MEGI (Diesel Cycle – Gas) 0.693 140 0.49%

Diesel (HFO & MDO) 0.034 190 0.02%

http://www.martinottaway.com/blog/rik-van-hemmen/methane-slip-and-marine-industry 18
 Methodology

EEDI for different propulsion type and how methane slip affects it
Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)

 EEDI is a performance standard for new vessels, to

encourage more efficient ship design.

 IMO’s main motive behind EEDI was to device an

index to represent marine GHG emissions from
ships.

 Since marine GHG emissions consists primarily of

CO2, the EEDI is representative of only CO2
emission.
Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)

Environmental Cost CO2 emitted

EEDI = =
Benifit tothe Society Transport mile

 Originally adopted in 2012 for merchant vessels at MEPC

63

 Amended in 2014, with a special category of LNG

Tankers, apart from other Gas Carriers at MEPC 66.

21
EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index)

22
EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index)

23
 SFC and CF Values Used

Technology & Fuel ME SFC AE SFC CF

(g/kWh) (g/kWh) (gCO2/gF
uel)
Otto Cycle – Gas 140 162 2.75
Diesel Cycle - Gas 140 - 2.75
Boiler - Gas 285 - 2.75
Conventional HFO 190 215 3.114
MDO (Pilot Fuel) 6 6 3.206

 2-Stroke SFC claim to be 20% lesser than DFDE (4-stroke Otto Cycle)

 These values are without considering the methane slip

24
 CF Including Methane Slip

Cycle (gas) SFC CF (Gas) CH4 Slip CF (gas) with

(g/kWh) (gCO2/gFuel) (g/kWh) CH4 slip
Otto – 4 stroke 162 2.75 5.0 3.437
Otto – 2 stroke 140 2.75 4.0 3.386
Diesel – 2 stroke 140 2.75 0.693 2.860

Diesel Cycle 2 - stroke

Otto Cycle - 2 stroke

Otto Cycle - 4 stroke

0 1 2 3 4

CF (gCO2/gFuel)
With Methane Slip Without Methane Slip 25
 EEDI Baseline and Future Standards
æ x ö
Attained EEDI £ Required EEDI = ç1- ÷ Reference Value
è 100 ø
ReferenceValue = 2253.7´ DWT -0.474.

Ship Size Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Type (DWT) 01/01/2015 – 09/01/2015 – 01/01/2020 – 01/01/2025
08/31/2015 12/31/2019 12/31/2025 onwards

LNG >10,000 0% 10% 20% 30%

Carrier

26
 Note

 Attained EEDI in this report will be referred to as

EIV– Estimated Index Value

 This is because, the attained EEDI calculated in

this project might differ from the actual attained
EEDI on board the ship during sea trial.
Delivery of LNG Carriers

28
 Results & Analysis

Calculation of EIV (Estimated Index Value) for different propulsion

carriers
EIV for Steam Propulsion

30
EIV for HFO Propulsion with
Re-liquefaction Plant

31
EIV for Dual Fuel Engines using Otto
Cycle in Gas Mode (DFDE)

32
EIV for Dual Fuel Engines using Diesel
Cycle in Gas Mode (ME-GI)

33
 EIV Compliance
Without Methane Slip

34
 EIV Compliance
With Methane Slip

35
 Policy Alternatives

Ways to make the EEDI Regulation more effective

 Policy Alternatives

1. No Change in Current Baseline

o On paper EEDI Regulation would still seem to be

effective.

o However, would not encourage technological

development towards reduction of marine GHG
emission

o Continue to ignore methane slip

37
 Policy Alternatives
2. Maintain Present Reference Baseline with more
stringent reduction

o IMO probably have underestimated the technological

development that has taken place

o Reduce 2020-2025 standards by 25% from the

baseline.

o Reduce 2025 standards 40-50% from the baseline as

per needs.

o MEPC can have a constant check on the emission

levels and decide future reductions accordingly.

38
 Policy Alternatives

3. Change the current Reference Baseline

o Since last reference line based on 2000-2010.

Mostly represent steam vessels

o Since steam propulsion is getting obsolete, make

a new baseline representing current technologies
representing dual fuel engines.

39
 Policy Alternatives
4. Include Methane Slip in EEDI Calculations

o EEDI calculation is not representative of the

marine GHG emissions for LNG carriers

o Inclusion of methane is important to correctly

represent the marine GHG emissions.

o This can be done without changing the current

reference baseline, or along with any of the
other policy alternatives suggested above.

40
 Policy Alternatives

5. Correction Factor for methane slip

o Propulsion Methodology based correction factor
which can be directly multiplied with CF.
o SlipCH4 will depend upon the engine stroke and
engine cycle.
æ SlipCH 4 ö æ SlipCH 4 ´ GWPCH 4 ö
Correction Factor = çç1- ÷÷ + çç ÷÷
è SFCgas(ME ) ø è SFCgas(ME ) ´ CF ø

Engine Cycle & Stroke Correction Factor

Otto Cycle – 4 Stroke 1.25
Otto Cycle – 2 Stroke 1.23
Diesel Cycle – 2 Stroke 1.04
41
 Conclusion

 This presentation tries to find out whether the current EEDI regulation
is incentivizing the technological improvement, it aimed at doing.

 We see that the EEDI regulation needs to be revamped to make it

more relevant and provide a regulatory push to reduce marine GHG
emissions.

 Inclusion of methane slip for LNG Carriers is necessary if IMO wishes

to use EEDI as an index for marine GHG emissions and just not CO2.

 The policy alternatives suggested might provide some answers to

make the EEDI regulation more effective

42
QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION
Thank You !!!

Acknowledgements:

Special Thanks to the ICCT Marine

Team: Bryan, Dan, Xiaoli and Naya.

It was an enjoyable learning

experience. Grateful to everyone at
ICCT for their warmth and friendliness!
43