Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Dual-Fuel Engine Investment of a Container Ship

Abstract

In this study, environmental and economic examinations of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) investments are conducted. A year-long noon report data is received from a container ship and LNG conversion is performed. Savings from both the fuel expenses and the amount of the emissions are calculated and presented. To eliminate the fuel consumption uncertainties in future operation periods of the stated ship, different scenarios that simulate various fuel consumption statuses are created and analyzed within the Monte Carlo Simulation method. Lastly, calculations are made with two different time prices, approx. one and half year apart. As a result of the analyses, LNG can provide high environmental benefits since it reduces 99% for SOx, 95% for PM₁₀, 95% for PM_2.5, 41% for CO₂, and 82% for NOx, respectively. It is also determined that LNG investment is highly sensitive to fuel prices. In addition, the LNG usage can be beneficial for maritime companies in terms of marine policies such as paying carbon tax based on the expanding European Union Emission Trade System to maritime business. Still, it needs supportive carbon reduction method to comply with the maritime decarbonization strategy. This study has great importance in that the economic analysis way presented is able to adapt any alternative fuel system conversion for the maritime industry.

Keywords

Dual-fuel engine / Monte Carlo simulation / Emission reduction / Maritime transportation / Economic analysis / Environmental analysis

References

[1] Altosole M, Campora U, Donnarumma S, Zaccone R (2019) Simulation techniques for design and control of a waste heat recovery system in marine natural gas propulsion applications. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse7110397

[2] Ammar NR, Seddiek IS. Eco-environmental analysis of ship emission control methods: Case study RO-RO cargo vessel. Ocean Eng., 2017, 137: 166-173

[3] Average Bunker Prices Available online: https://shipandbunker.com/prices/av (accessed on 27 September 2023)

[4] Average Bunker Prices Available online: https://shipandbunker.com/prices/av (accessed on 2 June 2021)

[5] Balcombe P, Staffell I, Kerdan IG, Speirs JF, Brandon NP, Hawkes AD. How can LNG-fuelled ships meet decarbonisation targets? An environmental and economic analysis. Energy, 2021, 227: 120462

[6] Bhardwaj U, Teixeira AP, Guedes Soares C (2023) Uncertainty in the estimation of partial safety factors for different steel-grade corroded pipelines. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11010177

[7] Bruzzone A, Sciomachen A (2023) Simulating operating performance of alternative configurations of LNG bunkering stations. Sustainability 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139940

[8] Brynolf S, Fridell E, Andersson K. Environmental assessment of marine fuels: Liquefied natural gas, liquefied biogas, methanol and bio-methanol. J. Clean. Prod., 2014, 74: 86-95

[9] Burel F, Taccani R, Zuliani N. Improving sustainability of maritime transport through utilization of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) for propulsion. Energy, 2013, 57: 412-420

[10] Campora U, Coppola T, Micoli L, Mocerino L, Ruggiero V (2023) Techno-economic comparison of dual-fuel marine engine waste energy recovery systems. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11804-023-00368-0

[11] Ce Delft, UMAS (2019) Study on methods and considerations for the determination of greenhouse gas emission reduction for international shipping. Final report prepared for the European Commission

[12] Ceylan BO, Akyar DA, Celik MS. A novel FMEA approach for risk assessment of air pollution from ships. Mar. Policy, 2023, 150: 105536

[13] De Bruyn S, Bijleveld M, De Graaff L, Schep E, Schroten A, Vergeer R, Ahdour S (2018) Environmental Prices Handbook EU28 Version. CE Delft

[14] Deniz C, Zincir B. Environmental and economical assessment of alternative marine fuels. J. Clean. Prod., 2016, 113: 438-449

[15] Eise Fokkema J, Buijs P, Vis IFA. An investment appraisal method to compare LNG-fueled and conventional vessels. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 2017, 56: 229-240

[16] Ejder E, Arslanoğlu Y. Evaluation of ammonia fueled engine for a bulk carrier in marine decarbonization pathways. J. Clean. Prod., 2022, 379: 134688

[17] EMSA (2019) The World Merchant Fleet: Statistics from Equasis Fan H, Tu H, Enshaei H, Xu X, Wei Y (2021) Comparison of the economic performances of three sulphur oxides emissions abatement solutions for a very large crude carrier (VLCC). J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9020221

[18] Giernalczyk M. Analysis of the possibility of using low speed two-stroke dual-fuel engines for propulsion of sea-going vessels. J. Kones, 2019, 26: 45-52

[19] Huang J, Fan H, Xu X, Liu Z (2022) Life cycle greenhouse gas emission assessment for using alternative marine fuels: a very large crude carrier (VLCC) case study. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121969

[20] Huang L, Wen Y, Geng X, Zhou C, Xiao C. Integrating multi-source maritime information to estimate ship exhaust emissions under wind, wave and current conditions. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 2018, 59: 148-159

[21] Iannaccone T, Landucci G, Tugnoli A, Salzano E, Cozzani V. Sustainability of cruise ship fuel systems: Comparison among LNG and diesel technologies. J. Clean. Prod., 2020, 260: 121069

[22] IMO (2020) Fourth IMO GHG study executive summary. London, UK

[23] IMO (2018) Initial IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships

[24] Jafarzadeh S, Paltrinieri N, Utne IB, Ellingsen H. LNG-fuelled fishing vessels: A systems engineering approach. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 2017, 50: 202-222

[25] Jalkanen JP, Brink A, Kalli J, Pettersson H, Kukkonen J, Stipa T. A modelling system for the exhaust emissions of marine traffic and its application in the Baltic Sea area. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2009, 9: 9209-9223

[26] Jeong B, Jang H, Zhou P, Lee J. Investigation on marine LNG propulsion systems for LNG carriers through an enhanced hybrid decision making model. J. Clean. Prod., 2019, 230: 98-115

[27] Jiang L, Kronbak J, Christensen LP. The costs and benefits of sulphur reduction measures: Sulphur scrubbers versus marine gas oil. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 2014, 28: 19-27

[28] Kakaie A, Guedes Soares C, Ariffin AK, Punurai W (2023) Fatigue reliability analysis of submarine pipelines using the Bayesian approach. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11030580

[29] Kana AA, Harrison BM. A Monte Carlo approach to the ship-centric Markov decision process for analyzing decisions over converting a containership to LNG power. Ocean Eng., 2017, 130: 40-48

[30] Kanberoglu B, Turan E, Kökkülünk G (2023) Decarbonization of maritime transportation: A case study for Turkish ship fleet. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11804-023-00370-6

[31] Karatug C, Arslanoglu Y, Guedes Soares C (2022) Evaluation of decarbonization strategies for existing ships. Trends in Maritime Technology and Engineering Vol 2. pp 45–54. In: Guedes Soares C, Santos TA, editors. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003320289-5

[32] Karatuğ, Ceylan BO, Ejder E, Arslanoğlu Y. Zincir B, Shukla PC, Agarwal AK. Investigation and examination of LNG, methanol, and ammonia usage on marine vessels. Decarbonization of Maritime Transport, 2023, Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 65-85

[33] Karatuğ, Durmuşoğlu Y. Design of a solar photovoltaic system for a Ro-Ro ship and estimation of performance analysis: A case study. Sol. Energy, 2020, 207: 1259-1268

[34] Kim AR, Seo YJ. The reduction of SOx emissions in the shipping industry: The case of Korean companies. Mar. Policy, 2019, 100: 98-106

[35] Koričan M, Perčić M, Vladimir N, Alujević N, Fan A (2022) Alternative power options for improvement of the environmental friendliness of fishing trawlers. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10121882

[36] Lebedevas S, Norkevičius L, Zhou P (2021) Investigation of effect on environmental performance of using LNG as fuel for engines in seaport tugboats. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9020123

[37] Li J, Wu B, Mao G. Research on the performance and emission characteristics of the LNG-diesel marine engine. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., 2015, 27: 945-954

[38] Li K, Wu M, Gu X, Yuen KF, Xiao Y. Determinants of ship operators’ options for compliance with IMO 2020. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 2020, 86: 102459

[39] Lin Y, Yu Y, Guan G. Research on energy efficiency design index for sea-going LNG carriers. J. Mar. Sci. Appl., 2014, 13: 430-436

[40] Livanos GA, Theotokatos G, Pagonis D-N. Techno-economic investigation of alternative propulsion plants for Ferries and RoRo ships. Energy Convers. Manag., 2014, 79: 640-651

[41] MAN Energy Solutions (2018) 11000 teu container vessel. An MEGI Powered Vessel Fitted with Fuel Gas Supply System and Boiloff Gas Handling Milner A (2014) Liquefied Natural Gas: A Marine Fuel for Canada’s West Coast. Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance

[42] Pagonis DN, Livanos G, Theotokatos G, Peppa S, Themelis N. Open-type ferry safety system design for using LNG fuel. J. Mar. Sci. Appl., 2016, 15: 405-425

[43] Pavlenko N, Comer B, Zhou Y, Clark N, Rutherford D (2020) The climate implications of using LNG as a marine fuel

[44] Salem AM. Use of Monte Carlo simulation to assess uncertainties in fire consequence calculation. Ocean Eng., 2016, 117: 411-430

[45] Schinas O, Butler M. Feasibility and commercial considerations of LNG-fueled ships. Ocean Eng., 2016, 122: 84-96

[46] Sharafian A, Blomerus P, Mérida W. Natural gas as a ship fuel: Assessment of greenhouse gas and air pollutant reduction potential. Energy Policy, 2019, 131: 332-346

[47] Sharma NR, Dimitrios D, Olcer AI, Nikitakos N. LNG a clean fuel-the underlying potential to improve thermal efficiency. J. Mar. Eng. Technol., 2020

[48] Sherbaz S, Duan W. Operational options for green ships. J. Mar. Sci. Appl., 2012, 11: 335-340

[49] Stenersen D, Thonstad O (2017) GHG and NOx emissions from gas fuelled engines. Mapping, verification, reduction technologies.

[50] Tadros M, Ventura M, Guedes Soares C (2023) Review of the Decision Support Methods Used in Optimizing Ship Hulls towards Improving Energy Efficiency. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11040835

[51] Tadros M, Ventura M, Guedes Soares C. Optimization of the performance of marine diesel engines to minimize the formation of SOx emissions. J. Mar. Sci. Appl., 2020, 19: 473-484

[52] Theotokatos G, Stoumpos S, Bolbot V, Boulougouris E. Simulation-based investigation of a marine dual-fuel engine. J. Mar. Eng. Technol., 2020, 19: 5-16

[53] Trivyza NL, Rentizelas A, Theotokatos G. A novel multi-objective decision support method for ship energy systems synthesis to enhance sustainability. Energy Convers. Manag., 2018, 168: 128-149

[54] Trozzi C (2010) Emission Estimate Methodology for Maritime Navigation; 9th International Emissions Inventory Conference San Antonio, Texas September 27–30

[55] Wan C, Yan X, Zhang D, Yang Z. A novel policy making aid model for the development of LNG fuelled ships. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 2019, 119: 29-44

[56] Wang C, Corbett JJ, Firestone J. Modeling energy use and emissions from North American shipping: Application of the ship traffic, energy, and environment model. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2007, 41: 3226-3232

[57] Xu H, Yang D. LNG-fuelled container ship sailing on the Arctic Sea: Economic and emission assessment. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 2020, 87: 102556

[58] Zhang H, Li C, Zhao N, Chen B-Q, Ren H, Kang J (2022) Fire risk assessment in engine rooms considering the fire-induced domino effects. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10111685