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)

Euro VI diesel = 0,001 %

“…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


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 • Non-fossil
• Low sulphur MGO/MDO • Biodiesel (RME etc)
• DME • DME
• Fisher Tropsch diesel fuel (GTL, CTL..) • Fisher Tropsch diesel fuel (BTL)
• Methanol • Methanol
• (Ethanol) • Bio Ethanol
• Vegetable oils (jathropa etc.)
• Methane (LNG)
• LPG (butane , propane) • Methane (LBG)

• Coal • Hydrogen

• Uranium • Wood


And there are many pathways to a fuel


Fuel properties

Propulsion system

Fuel pre-treatment Investment cost
requirements
Technical Criteria Fuel price
Economic criteria

Operational cost

Safety and safe Future Marine
handling criteria Fuels Consequences of fuel
spills and accidents
Logistical criteria

Public opinion Other criteria Exhaust emissions
Environmental
Political and strategy aspects criteria
Life cycle environmental
performance
Security

Ethics


End-of pipe solutions


Sea Water Scrubber

Closed Scrubber

Hansen 2012

Dry Scrubber


Some chemistry
Sea water: Closed loop:

SO2(g)⇆SO2(aq) NaOH (s) + H2O ⇆ Na+ + OH- + H2O

SO2(aq) + 2H2O(l) ⇆ HSO3–(aq) + H3O+(aq) SO2(g)⇆SO2(aq)

HSO3–(aq) + H2O(l)⇆SO32–(aq) + H3O+(aq) SO2(aq) + 2H2O(l) ⇆ HSO3–(aq) + H3O+(aq)

And the low pH may release CO2 from the water HSO3–(aq) + H2O(l)⇆SO32–(aq) + H3O+(aq)

HCO3-(aq) + H3O+(aq)⇆CO2(aq) + 2H2O(l) The hydroxide ions will neutralise the surplus acidity and
increase the absorption of SO2
CO2(aq)⇆CO2(g)
A higher pH may also cause absorption of CO2

Dry scrubber :

SO2 (g)+ Ca(OH)2 (s)+ 1/2O2 ⇆ CaSO4(s) + H2O

SO3 (g) + Ca(OH)2 (s) + O2 ⇆ CaSO4(s) + 2H2O


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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Session 40 Karin Andersson

Similar to Session 40 Karin Andersson (20)

Session 40 Karin Andersson