37
THE IMO'S 50% GHG REDUCTION TARGET BY 2050 IS ACHIEVABLE CHIEF SCIENTIST –SINTEF OCEAN AS ELIZABETH LINDSTAD
THE IMO'S 50% GHG REDUCTION TARGET BY 2050 IS ACHIEVABLE
CHIEF SCIENTIST –SINTEF OCEAN ASELIZABETH LINDSTAD
Globally we must across all sectors cut energy consumption and GHG emissions to limit Global warming to 1.5 – 2 degrees
TRANSPORT
18%
CONVERSION & LOSSES
22%
OTHER
12%
INDUSTRY
30%
RESIDENTIAL
19%
1971
TRANSPORT
21%
CONVERSION
& LOSSES
29%
OTHER
9%
INDUSTRY
26%
RESIDENTIAL
16%
2015
5 523 Mtoe 13 647 Mtoe
Source: www.iea.org2
Motivation → The need for reducing shipping's: global energy consumption & GHG emissions
16 different scenarios developed by the Third IMO GHG study (Smith et al., 2014)
The IMO 2050 target, agreed in April 2018
The IMO 2050 GHG strategy can be summarized in three bullet points
• Reduce the carbon intensity of ships through implementation of further
phases of the energy efficiency design index (EEDI) for new ships.
• Reduce CO2 emissions per transport work by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing
efforts to reducing them by 70% by 2050 (compared with 2008)
• To peak GHG emissions from international shipping as soon as possible and
to reduce annual GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050 (compared to
2008).
The IMO 2050 target are within reach with todays technology (Bouman, Lindstad, Rialland, Strømman, Transportation Research Part D, 2017 )
5
The World's cargo fleet
Ship Type
Number
of vessels
Average size
todays fleet
Average size
newbuildings
Average
age
Crude oil tankers 2 073 190 500 201 700 dwt 10
Product - chemical tankers 9 790 19 800 32 100 dwt 20
Chemical tankers 2 343 12 000 17 100 dwt 17
LPG 1 505 22 200 32 300 dwt 16
LNG 520 147 200 145 400 dwt 11
Dry Bulk 11 658 71 300 80 300 dwt 10
General Cargo 17 084 4 700 8 700 dwt 28
Container 5 134 4 000 6 100 TEU 12
Vehicle 833 4 700 5 600 CEU 13
Ro-Ro 1 007 1 300 2 200 lane-meter 28
Ro-pax & Passenger only 6 311 524 585 Pax 28
Cruise 582 1 200 2 000 Beds 23
Offshore 11 704 8 400 9 500 dwt 20
Service 15 734 700 900 GT 25
Miscellaneous 25 420 1 800 3 000 GT 28
Total 124 801 16 700 35 300 dwt 23
Source: Shipbuilding outlook - Lloyds List Inteligence September 2018, issue 75
Approach to achieving the IMO target, i.e. 75 – 85% reduction per ton nm up to 2050
3 – Low and zero carbon fuels
1 – Reduce energy consumptionthrough hull form and design above the waterline, power
systems, and how energy is used onboard
Combining Scenario 1 – 3
2 – Operations & Supply chain
3 - Low and Zero carbon fuels versus Traditional fuels
Climate impact (100 years) of various power source (gram CO2-eq. per Mj) A review of published studies; Bengtson et al 2011; Bengtson et al 2012; Verbeek 2015; Chryssakis and Stahl 2013; Concawe and EUCAR 2013; Bengtson et al 2014; Verbeek 2015; Gallagher et al 2017; Silva 2017; Lindstad et al 2017; Lindstad 2018) . Here the solid part of the bar represents lowest estimate published and the dashed part of the bar the variance, where the highest published estimate represents the top of the bar.
3b -NOx and Sox regulations comes at a high climateprize (2020 Sulphur capand Tier 3)
3b – Climate Tradeoffs between IMO - regulations
Climate mitigation
through cooling
emissions requires
change of IMO policies
for SOx and NOx
at high seas.
Global warming impact over 100-year horizon in kg CO2-equivalents per 1000 kWh producedSource: Lindstad et al. 2015, A three-layered, damage-based approach, Ocean Engineering
War
min
gef
fect
Co
olin
gef
fect
The Supramax case will be updated 1 of 2
The Supramax case will be up-dated2 of 2
Stricter EEDI thresholds might not give the desired reductions - The Aframax case
Source: Lindstad, E., Bø, T., I., 2018. Potential power setups, fuels and hull designs capable of satisfying future EEDI requirements, Transportation Research Part D
Stricter EEDI does not encourage slender hull forms which reduces the required power
The lesson learnt from the car industry indicates the importance of having realistic test conditions
We perform a feasibility study on MR-tankers, to investigatepotential GHG reductions up to 2030 based on existing technology
• MR tankers, might be the most homogenous vessel type in the world fleet
• Main measurements: 183m x 32.2m x 13.3m
• Scantling: 50 000 DWT, 60 – 61 000 ton displacement, Cb = 0.82
• Design: 37 000 DWT, design draft 11.0m, Cb = 0.79 – 0.80
• Average engine development (source: Lloyds List Intelligence 2018)
• 8816 kW, 14.5 knots, planned delivery 2017- including ships on order. Total 473 ships.
• 9295 kW, 14.9 knots, ships delivered 2007-09 including scrapped/lost. Total 598 ships.
Operationalfleet data 2018
MR concepts evaluated in Case Study
• 4 variants of 50000 DW MR tanker designs produced
• Conventional MR reference vessel 183 x 32.3 x 11 m (max draught 13.3m), Cb 0.782 (11m)
• 200 x 32.3 x 11 m (max draught 13.3m), Cb 0.728 (11m)
• 220 x 32.3 x 13.3 m (design draught 13.3m), Cb 0.677 (11m)
• 183 x 35.3 x 13.3 m (design draught 13.3m), Cb 0.720 (11m)
• Methology
• Hull design in NAPA for all variants
• DW kept constant, LW adjusted acc. to main dimension adjustment
• Resistance and propulsion power prognosis in calm water for all versions
• Resistance based on of regression methods scaled with relevant SINTEF Ocean database vessels
• Propulsion efficiency based on B-series propellers adapted to each variant
• Added resistance in head waves based on StaWave 1
21
Energy & cost per nm for a Standard MR tanker as a function of speed
InvestigatedPower options
MR tanker variants
24
1. Power and Propulsion relative improvement compared to MR-
tanker hull form & propulsion only
Energy usage Standard versus Slender MR tanker
Operational assumptions
SpeedStandard MR
tanker 183m
Slender MR
tanker 200m
Days Knots kW kW
Days with adverse weather 10 3 - 5 6747 4748
Days with calm water or following sea 114 12.5 3981 3855
Days with average impact head sea Hs=3m 114 12.5 6162 5635
Days loading 14 700 700
Days discharging 14 2000 2000
Days manouvering, idle, repair or waiting 99 425 425
Rotterdam - Houston 5100nm,
7-roundtrips per year
Summarizing
CostTotal
Capex
Annual
fuel
Annual
Fuel
Saving
Annual
CO2eq.
saving
Change in
annual cost
Abatetment
cost per ton
of CO2 eq.
Annual
CO2eq.
Saving
MUSD MUSD Ton Ton MUSD USD/ton
0
Power & Propeller 7.0
All other items 29.0 36.0 5 950
1
PTO & PTI cost 2.0
Clutch 0.5
CP-Propeller 0.5
2 instead of 3 aux engines -0.7 38.3 5 795 155 491 0.11 217 3 %
2
6.0 42.0 5 950 0 3 772 0.48 127 0 %
3
3.0 39.0 5 565 385 1 220 0.05 39 6 %
4
6.0 42.0 5 017 933 2 958 0.00 0 16 %
5
12.0 48.0 5 017 933 6 138 0.48 78 33 %
Standard MR tanker - 183 meter
PTO & PTI & Slender MR - tanker 200m
PTO & PTI & Standard MR - tanker
Slender MR tanker - 200 meter
Standard MR tanker - 183 meter
PTO & PTI & Slender&LNG MR-
Aerodynamic-PTO&PTI&Battery&LNG HP
Aerodynamic-PTO&PTI&Battery
Cost for increased length
Dual fuel LNG - HP
Next steps – Low Emission Deep sea vessel
• Use Gymir to verify the fuel saving potential (183 m & 200m)
• Investigate the real potential of CP-propeller
• Utilize the results and knowledge gained through the EGR – scrubber
Solvang case (7100 kW 2-stroke engine)
• Identify additional fuel savings to reach 20% reduction
• Update the Supramax case and utilize General cargo concepts from
our research project on Autonomous vessels
• Positioning paper ready ultimo June – The IMO 2030 target is within
reach – a case study of Tank – Dry Bulk – General Cargo vessels (25%
fuel reduction and 40% on emissions)
Revitalization of Coastal and Short-Sea Shipping through Autonomous Transport Systems
(Source: Baltic Maritime Outlook 2006 and Eurostat, 2014) Month 2016
Traditional Vessels Length : 85 m
Beam : 14 – 16 m
Draught : 5 – 7 m
DWT : 2 500 – 5000 tSpeed 10 – 13 knots
The North European General Cargo Fleet
WP 3 Basic design concepts status
• Working on 5 container – general cargo vessels
• The traditional 85 m container – gen cargo vessels
• Reference vessel of main dimensions 85 x 15.8 x 5.4. Typical container feeder
• Variant based on reference vessel with approx. 75% of reference vessel DW
• Variant based on reference vessel with approx. 50% of reference vessel DW
• Variant based on reference vessel with approx. 37% of reference vessel DW
• Container vessels maturing
• Hull design in NAPA
• Arrangement sketch
• Loading conditions
• First estimate of speed/power
34
WP 3 Reference Vessel
• Main dimensions
• Lpp 85m, LOA 90.4m
• B 15.8 m (to fit 5 2.6m wide
containers in hold and 6 on
deck)
• T=5.4m (maybe a bit on the
high end)
• Cb=0.7
• Service speed 12 knots
• Cargo capacities
• 190 14t TEU
• DW 3550t35
WP 3 Smaller variants
• 75% of ref. DW variant
• Lpp 74,5m, B 15.8m T=4.9m Cb=0.67
• Service speed 12 knots
• DW 2660t, 158 14t TEU
• 50% of ref. DW variant
• Lpp 68m, B 13.3m T=4.6m Cb=0.64
• Service speed 12 knots
• DW 1780t, 86 14t TEU
• 37% of ref. DW variant
• Lpp 60m, B 13.3m T=4.6m Cb=0.61
• Service speed 12 knots
• DW 1300t, 71 14t TEU
36
