green ship design & technology - cdn.southampton.ac.uk · green ship design & technology by...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Green Ship Design & Technology
by
Professor Yonghwan Kim
The LRET Research CollegiumSouthampton, 11 July – 2 September 2011
1
Yonghwan Kim
Seoul National UniversitySeoul, Korea
Green Ship Design & Technology
2
3
Pollution from Ships
Tokyo Protocol (1997)MEPC(2008)
Ship Design: EEDI(Energy Efficiency Design Index)
Ship Operation: SEEMP(Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan) EEOI(Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator)
Ship Market: MBM(Market-Based Measure, Market-Based Mechanism)
Regulations by IMO & MARPOL
Key Actions by IMO
4
Pollution from Ships
*GHG (Green House Gas; CO2)*PM (Particulate Matter)*VOC (Volatile Organic Compound)
Air pollutionon voyage
Water pollution
on voyage
Ground pollution
on voyage
Pollution on ship
recycling
SOx
NOx
GHG*
PM*
VOC*
Waterproof oil
Bilge water
Cooling water
Grey water
Antifouling materials
Ballast water
Noise
Precipitates
Wastes
Chemical residues
Oil residues
Paint
Plastic
Electrical product
Sealed gas
Chemical product
www.celsias.co.nz
5
Pollution from Ships
Environmental Aspects and Impacts
Source : APL (MTEC 2011)
6
Ship is the most efficient transportation in view of CO2 emission
6666
Pollution from Ships
7
* Source ; Second IMO GHG Study 2009.
Ship is the most efficient transportation in view of CO2 emission
Crude
LNG
General Cargo
Chemical
Bulk
Container
LPG
Product
Ro-Ro/Vehicle
Rail
Road
CO2 efficiency = CO2 / (tonne * kilometre) ≈ Fuel consumption
CO2 = total CO2 emitted from the vehicle within the period
tonne*kilometre = total actual number of tonne-kilometres of work done within the same period
0 50 100 150 200 250 [%]0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 CO2 efficiency
7777
Pollution from Ships
8
1 Billion ton
2 -3 Billion ton
[million tons/year]Expected Scenario
Pollution from Ships
GHG emissions from ships are predicted to be at least doubled by 2050
* Source ; Second IMO GHG Study 2009.
Year
CO
2em
issi
ons
from
shi
ps
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
02007 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
A1F1A1BA1T
Expected ScenarioA2B1B2
9
10
MARPOL
MARPOL 73/78 Regulations for Prevention & Control of Pollution from Ships
MARPOL ANNEX Target
I Oil
II Noxious liquid substances in bulk
III Harmful substances in packaged form
IV Swages
V Garbage
VI Emissions
11
RPM Tier 1 (current) Tier Ⅱ(from 2011.1.1)
Tier Ⅲ(from 2016.1.1)
Under 130 17.0 g/kWh 14.4 g/kWh 3.4 g/kWh
130 ~ 2000 45.0×n(-0.2) g/kWh 44.0×n(-0.23) g/kWh 9×n(-0.2) g/kWh
Over 2000 9.8 g/kWh 7.7 g/kWh 2.0 g/kWh
IMO NOx Tier II : Adopted on MEPC 58 (2008.10)
- After 1 January 2011 (Keel Laying)
IMO NOx Tier III : Tentative Assent
- After 1 January 2016 (Keel Laying)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Engine speed [RPM]
NO
xem
issi
ons
[g/k
Wh]
IMO Tier I, 2000
IMO Tier II, 2011
IMO Tier III, 2016 in Emission Control Areas
RPM Tier 1 (current) Tier Ⅱ Tier Ⅲ
Emission Regulations - NOx
12
4.5
3.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Sulfu
r lim
it [%
]
0.50.1
IMO (global)
IMO (ECA)
USCGEU Port
Regulation or AreaSulfur Content
2010 2012 2015 2020
Global Limit 4.5 % 3.5 % 0.5 %
IMO ECA 1.5 % 1.0 % (after 2010.07) 0.1 %
EU Port 0.1 %
USCG (within 24NM) 0.5 % 0.1 %
Residual Fuel (IFO380 or LS380)
Distillate Fuel (MGO)
Regulation or AreaSulfur Content
Emission Regulations - SOx
Year
13
Emission Regulations – CO2
EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index) – Technical Regulation
Design Specific
Goal of EEDI Mitigate CO2 emissions Increase cargo carrying capacity Enhance speed performance
Main engine Aux. engine Waste heat recovery systemShaft motor Energy saving device
& design
Transportation capacity & speed
Weather factor(wave, wind)Capacity factor
Correction factor (by ship type)
Main engine Aux. engine Shaft motor Waste heat Energy saving device
Weather factor(wave, wind)
Transportation capacity & speed
Capacity factor
Correction factor
( )
2
( ) ( ) ( ) (1 1 11 1
( / ) [ / ]( )
*M MnME nPTI nWHR
j FMEi MEi MEi AE FAE AE j PTI i eff i AEeff i FAE AE effi i ij j
CO Emissions g hrEEDI g ton mileDWT Speed ton knot
f C SFC P P C SFC f P f P C SFC f= = == =
= = −× −
+ + − − =∑ ∑ ∑∏ ∏
( )) ( )
1
neff
i eff i FMEi MEii
ref W
P C SFC
fiCapacityV f=
∑
If using LNG as ship fuel, Reducing CO2 emission of
Main engine & Aux. engine Reducing EEDI
14
EEOI (Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator) – Operational RegulationVoyage Specific
Fuel consumptionFuel consumption
2 ( ) [ / ]( )
CO Emissions gEEOI g ton mileDWT Miles ton knot
= = −× −
Distance of voyageDistance of voyage
Transportation capacityTransportation capacity
Carbon content of fuelCarbon content of fuel
1 1 11 2 3
arg ,1
...carbon carbon carboni i iFuelType FuelType FuelType
c o i ii
FC C FC C FC C
m D
= = =
=
× + × + × +
=
×
∑ ∑ ∑
∑
Effect of slow steamingSlow steaming as 70 % of design speed
Reducing fuel consumptions down to abt. 30 %
Reducing EEOI
Ship speed Engine power
100 % Service Speed 90% MCR
70 % Service Speed 30% MCR
50 % Service Speed 15% MCR
Service speed = guarantee speed at NCR with 15% sea margin
Ship speed Engine power
Emission Regulations – CO2
15
16
Key Words in Current Green Ship Technology
EEDI
1. Technical Energy Saving and CO2 Reduction
2. Slow Steaming Operation
3. Increase Ship Capacity
• Hull optimization appendages• New propulsion system• Waste energy recovery and renewable energy utilization
• Lower ship speed
• Increase DWT
17
CO2 Reduction Potential by Known Technology and Practices
* Source ; IMO 2nd GHG Study
EEDI
18
EEDI
Main engine Aux. engine Waste heat recovery systemShaft motor Energy saving device
& design
Transportation capacity & speed
Weather factor(wave, wind)Capacity factor
Correction factor (by ship type)
Main engine Aux. engine Shaft motor Waste heat Energy saving device
Weather factor(wave, wind)
Transportation capacity & speed
Capacity factor
Correction factor
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (1 1 11 1
2 ( / ) [ / ](
*
)
M MnME nPTI nWHR
j FMEi MEi MEi AE FAE AE j PTI i eff i AEeff i FAE AE effi i ij j
CO Emissions g hrE
f C SFC P P C SFC f
EDI g ton mileDWT Speed ton
P f P C SFC
knot
f= = == =
+ + − −
= = −× −
=∑ ∑ ∑∏ ∏
( )) ( )
1
neff
i eff i FMEi MEii
ref W
P C SFC
fiCapacityV f=
∑
2 2CO from propulstion + CO from Auxiliaries - Efficient use of energy =(DWT) (ship
EEspe
DIed)t wf f⋅ ⋅ ⋅
EEDI
19
2 2CO from propulstion + CO from Auxiliaries - Efficient use of energy =(DWT) (ship
EEspe
DIed)t wf f⋅ ⋅ ⋅
Reduction of aux power
Reduce hotel loadHVAC
LightingAux machinery efficiency
Fuels with less carbon
Clean energy and recovery
Waste Heat Recovery(WHR)Wind power, e.g. Sails,
Kite, Flettner rotorsSolar power
CO2 capturing
Increase capacityHigher speed with same power
Speed reductionReduce ship weight
Lighter materialLarger ship and/or payloadStructural optimization
Propulsion power reduction
Lower resistance mechanismsHull form optimizationCourse OptimizationPropulsion efficiency
Energy saving appendagesPropulsion machinery efficiencyFuels with less carbon, e.g. LNG
EEDI Reduction
EEDI
20
Key Strategy of EEDI Reduction
Speed reduction, Increased Capacity, Improved technology
Deadweight
EED
I
EEDI Reference Line (IMO)(Average, ordinary ship)
Modified Ship
Effic
ienc
yIm
prov
men
t
DWT increase (a)
Speed Reduction (b)
Technologies (c)
DWT increase (a)
Speed Reduction (b)
Technologies (c)
EEDI
21
EEDI Reduction Requirement by IMO
EEDI
Ship Type DWT 2013-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-
BulkOver 20K 0 10 20 3010K-20K N/A 0-10 0-20 0-30
Gas TankerOver 10K 0 10 20 302K-10K N/A 0-10 0-20 0-30
TankerOver 20K 0 10 20 304K-20K N/A 0-10 0-20 0-30
ContainershipOver 15K 0 10 20 303K-15K N/A 0-10 0-20 0-30
General Cargo Ship
Over 15K 0 10 15 303K-15K N/A 0-10 0-15 0-30
Refrigerated Cargo Ship
Over 5K 0 10 15 303K-5K N/A 0-10 0-15 0-30
Combination Carrier
Over 20K 0 10 20 304L-20K N/A 0-10 0-20 0-30
22
23
Estimated Time-Scale for Realization of Energy Efficiency Measures
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
We need quick action in ship operation. Technology development requires longer-term activity.
24
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
LNG Fueled Propulsion 23%
Optimized Hull Form Design
High Efficiency Propeller Design
Bulbous Bow Optimization
Pre-Swirl Stator (PSS), Ducted PSS, Rudder Bulb Fin 3~6%
Waste Heat Recovery System (WHRS) 3~4%
NOx Reduction Device, SOx Reduction Device
Air Cavity System, Micro Bubble 7~10%
Shaft Generator 1%
Trim Optimization 3~4%
Optimum Weather Routing 4~5%
Advanced A/F Paint 2~5%Material
Operation
Energy
Device
Design 2~3%
Expected CO2 Reduction in Different Methods
25
Resistance Components of Commercial Ships
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
Components % in calm water
Wave resistance 5~30%
Air (wind) drag 1~5%
Frictional drag 60~80%
Form drag 10~30%
Increases in actual sea condition: 10~50%
Effective, but hard to reduce
Hull design optimization
Strategy should be different for different ship types.
26
Strategy Example: VLCC (15kt) and Containership (22.5 kt)
(N. Sasaki, NMRI)
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
27
Hull form design to reduced added resistance
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
• Added resistance is a key parameter in power reduction in waves.• Optimum hull form design is needed in the viewpoint of added
resistance.
28
Ship Design Procedure based on EEDI Concept
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
29
Strategy of Operation (e.g. Lloyd’s Register)
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
30
Effects of Slow Steaming
Source: N. Sasaki (NMRI)
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
31
Containership case: H.O.H.Kristensen (2010)
N-1 SpeedEEDI ∝
Reduction of 3 knots will reduce about 20~30% of EEDI and 40~50% of FOC.
SpeedEEDI ∝ N-1 SpeedEEDI ∝Effects of Slow Steaming
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
32
Generation of Containerships
Generation Length TEU Category
1(1956~1970) ~200m ~800
2(~1980) ~215m ~2,500
3(~1988) ~290m ~4,000 Panamax Class
4(~2000) ~305m ~5,000 Post Panamax Class
5(~2005) ~335m ~8,000 Post Panmax Plus Class
6(~2010) ~400m ~14,500 New Panamax
7(2011~) ~440m ? ~20,000? Ultra Large
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
33
Trend of Ship Size
260
290
320
350
380
020406080
100120140160180
LOA (m)
Ships
Breadth (m)
Delivered in 2000~2008 (2003 is missed)
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
34
Containership Orderbook
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
2006
/05/
10
2006
/07/
10
2006
/09/
10
2006
/11/
10
2007
/01/
10
2007
/03/
10
2007
/05/
10
2007
/07/
10
2007
/09/
10
2007
/11/
10
2008
/01/
10
2008
/03/
10
2008
/05/
10
2008
/07/
10
2008
/09/
10
2008
/11/
10
2009
/01/
10
2009
/03/
10
2009
/05/
10
2009
/07/
10
2009
/09/
10
2009
/11/
10
2010
/01/
10
2010
/03/
10
2010
/05/
10
2010
/07/
10
2010
/09/
10
2010
/11/
10
2011
/01/
10
2011
/03/
10
TEU
Contract Date
Capacity w.r.t. Contract Date?
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship#cite_note-unctad56-45
Maersk Line ordered a series of ten 18,000 TEU vessels to Daewoo Shipbuilding in February 2011.
A New Breakthrough of Capacity
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
36
Youtube:Maersk Line Triple-E Smarter design, with room for 18,000 containers
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
37
EEDI evaluation
Green Ship EEDI Reduce Plan: Example of DSME
Deadweight
EED
I
EEDI Reference Line (IMO)Dimension ( Lbp x B x D x Td x Ts x Cb )320 x 60 x 30.5 x 21 x 22.5 x 0.82
DWT (Ts) : 319,600 MT
Vs (Serv.) : 16.2 15.9 Kts
DFOC : 101.6 94.9 MT/day
Case 3) LFS design to be developed further
Parameter Base Design Improved (Case 1) Improved (Case 2) Improved (Case 3)
Applied Econologies
7S80MC-C8.2 7S80ME-C8.2-GI
N/A(derated) 10 % derated 10 % derated 10 % Derated
PSS PSS PSS + WHRS(1200kW) PSS + LFS*
Prop Dia. 10.0 m
MCR (kW) x RPM 29,260 kW x 78.0 26,330 kW x 75.3
EEDI speed (knots) 15.9 15.5
SFOC at 75% MCR (g/kWh) 168.1 166.1 168.1 141.2
CO2 Emission (g/h) 12,075,373 10,757,969 10,166,380 8,182,817
EEDI (g/ton-mile) 2.515 2.241 2.115 1.646
EEDI/Reference line (%) 112 % 99.4 % 94.0 % 73.0 %
Base Design (112 %)
Case 1 (99.4 %)Case 2 (94.0 %)
Case 3 (73.0 %)
2.254
VLCC
Parameter Base Design Improved (Case 1) Improved (Case 2) Improved (Case 3)
* LFS ; LNG Fueled Ship
Green Ship Design Based on EEDI Evaluation
38
39
Energy Saving Devices
Pre-Swirl Stator (PSS)Ducted PSS 3~6%Rudder Bulb Fin
Waste Heat Recovery System (WHRS) 3~4%
Air Cavity System, Micro Bubble 7~10%
Shaft Generator 1% Choice is dependent on ship type, cost, available space, etc.
Performance is dependent on ship type, operation condition, device type, etc.
Higher FOC Performance, but Higher Ship Cost
40
Shaft Generator
Energy Saving Devices
Shaft generator and WHRS of Siemens
WHRS
41
Micro Bubble Injection
Energy Saving Devices
• Producing thin layer of bubbles• Drag reduction by air bubbles • The film of air generated by air
injection on ship surface covered with very water repellent layer
Reduction of viscous frictional drag
42
Air Cavity System
Energy Saving Devices
Potential up to 15 % CO2 reduction • Pressured air injection on
ship bottom• Air pressure injection
requires some additional power (1~3%), but significant drag reduction is expected.
• Pay-back time 2-4 years
ACS by DK Group
43
Contra/Counter Rotating Propeller (CRP)
Energy Saving Devices
© KAMOME PROPELLER © Mitsubishi Heavy Industry
• Recovery of rotating energy loss originated by a propeller through the use of a contra rotating propeller
• Improves propulsion efficiency by10% to15%
• Reduces cavitation• Benefits mainly at
cruising speeds• Complicated design
and higher costs
44
Hull appendages
Energy Saving Devices
• Typical concepts to increase propulsion efficiency- Making uniform stern flow - Reducing rotating energy loss - Generating more thrust by appendage
• Improves propulsion efficiency by 3% to 5%
Pre-Swirl Stator (Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering)
SAVER Fin (Samsung Heavy Industry)
45
Hull appendages
Energy Saving Devices
Sumitomo’s Fin IHI’s Fin
Thrust fin (Hyundai Heavy Industry)
46
Duct Propeller
Energy Saving Devices
• Thrust gain by duct• Increase propeller efficiency by making
stern flow uniform• Many variations in application• Improves propulsion efficiency by 3% to
8%
SSD(Super Stream Duct)
SDS(Semi-circular Duct
System)
SILD (Sumitomo Integrated Lammeneren Duct)
Mewis duct
47
Typical Energy Saving Devices: Their Efficiency
Energy Saving Devices
Source :N. Sasaki (NMRI)
48
Energy Saving Devices
Ship with Skysails
Clean Energy Devices: Skysail
• Kite operated in 100~500m height• Expect 10~30% fuel reduction
49
Energy Saving Devices
NYK Ship with solar cell
Clean Energy Devices: Solar Power
Concept design of AquaSailor with solar sail
50
Energy Saving Devices
Strategy: e.g. Lloyd’s Register
51
Alternative Fuel/Energy for Ships: LNG as fuel
Energy Saving Devices
• Strong candidate for future propulsion engine
• Duel fuel: Diesel + LNG (ME-GI)
• Relatively cheap cost• 15~25% Reduction of CO2• Dramatic reduction of Nox,
Sox, and air dust pollution• e.g. 14,000TEU containership
=> 14M$/year reduction of fuel cost (DSME)
52
Alternative Fuel/Energy for Ships: Electric & Nuclear
Energy Saving Devices
• Hybrid electric-diesel system, fuel cell, pod propulsion system
• Excellent performance for noise and vibration
• Good performance for constant thrust power and controllability
• Flexible arrangement• Heavy machinery system• Lower shaft transmission
efficiency (about 7~8% less than other system)
• No air pollution• 3-4 year operation with one supply• Low fuel cost
( 1g uranium = 2 ton crude oil)• No heavy duct system or large
space for fuel• Critical environmental problem in
failure case• Heavy safety system• Very high ship cost• Complicated system and many
operators
53
More Emerging Technology
Energy Saving Devices
• Hull Painting and Ultrasonic Hull-Surface Coating
• Bio-diesel
• FOC Reduction by Path Optimization
• Fuel Machinery System Optimization
• Structural Material
• Optimum Ship Structural Design
…… (many more)
54
55
Ship price Operation Cost
Which will be more ?
Future Issue
5656
Green Enhanced Design
Fuel(= CO2) Saving Max. (EEDI)
Efficient Operation (EEOI)
Emission Reduction
Less Maintenance
High Performance Ship Design
Optimum Dimensions
Excellent Speed Performance
Maximum Capacity (DWT, VOL)
Competitive FOC
Safety
Conventional Design GoalsNew Requirements of
Environmental Associations& Shipping Industry
Econology = Ecology + Economy + TechnologyHigh Performance Ship Design Green Enhanced Design
Hi-Performance & Environment Friendly ShipHi-Hi-Hi Performance & Environment Friendly Ship
DSME Econology Plan
57
APL’s Concept for Environmental Friendly Ship
APL’s Concept
Source :Poh (MTEC 2011)
58
Super Eco Ship by Japan
Super Eco Ship 2030 (NYK, Japan)
We need to consider all the aspects for green ship.
59
Global Maritime Activity for GHS Reduction
Source : Svensen (MTEC 2011)
60
Through Green Ship Technologies
Environment Friendly
Economical Operation
61
Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine EngineeringKorean Ministry of Knowledge and Economy
Acknowledgment for presentation materials
References• S. Hirdaris, Lloyd’s Register Strategic Research in short and long term technologies, 2011• H.O.H. Kristensen, Model for Environmental Assessment of Container Ship Transport, 2010• O.Y. Kwon, DSME GreenShip 18,000TEU Container Carrier, 2011• N.B. Mortensen, Reduction of Green House Gas Emissions from Ships, Tripartite Meeting,2007• SIMENS, Solutions for Green Ship Operation, Asia Pacific Maritime, March 2010• G. T. Poh, Global Approach towards Green Shipping: Strategies and Perspectives of a Shipping Line,
MTEC 2011• N. Sasaki, An application of GHG emission reduction technologies in the future: The concept of GHG
technologies road map , 2009• C. Schack, Green Ship of the Future, 2009• T.E. Svensen, Trends of Green Issues and Impact on Shipping and Ports, MTEC 2011