soxen nox - mid-nl.org frank dames.pdf0,5%s 0,1%s seca north sea and english channel 1,5% sulphur...

1

1 © Wärtsilä 18 March 2008 FJM Dames

SOx en NOx abatementToday s technologies

Frank DamesWärtsilä Nederland

2008 03 17


SOx and NOx reduction methodsCH4CO2

HC

CO PMSOx

NOx

2


Increasing focus on gaseous emissions

Past Future

SOxNOx

PM

CO VOC

THC

HC

CO2

PM2.5 PM1

HC = individual hydrocarbon compounds (e.g. formaldehyde) or group of hydrocarbons (e.g. PAH)

THC = total hydrocarbons CO2 = carbon dioxidePM = particulate matterSOx = oxides of sulphur

NOX = oxides of Nitrogen

CO = carbon monoxidePM10 = particulate matter, diameter < 10 micrometer.

VOC = volatile organic compounds, typically means non-ethane or non-methane hydrocarbons

Imp

ort

an

ce

PM10

IntertankoIMO Marpol VIWB / IFC

EPA/Tier

CCR/Rhine


SOx and NOx reduction methods

SOx Reduction MethodesFresh Water scrubber

NOx Reduction MethodesPrimary methods

Dry methodsLow-NOx combustion

Miller timingEGRCommon rail

Wet methodsDWIHumidification of combustion airWater fuel emulsion

Secondary methodsSelective catalytic reduction

3


SOX ; IMO & EU

20082006 2007 20102005 20092004

Ratification ofIMO Annex VI

19 May 2004

0,5%S

0,1%S

SECA North Seaand English Channel1,5% Sulphur max.or exhaust cleaningto 6 g/kWh

11 August 2007

0,1% Sulphur max.On all marine fuelin EU ports and inlandvesselsAlternatively exhaustcleaning to 0.4 g/kWh

01 January 2010

Entry into force ofIMO Annex VIGlobal limit 4,5%S

19 May 2005

EU Parliament passesSulphur Directive1999/32/EC

14 April 2005

Publication ofSulphur Directive2005/33/EC

22 July 2005

1,5%S

EU directive entersinto force:

- 1,5%S max in Baltic- 1.5%S max for

passenger ship andEU territorial seas inregular service to orfrom EU ports

- Alternatively exhaustcleaning to 6 g/kWk

11 August 2006

SECA Baltic sea1,5% Sulphur max.or exhaust cleaning to 6 g/kWh

19 May 2006

1,5%S

SECA North Seaand English Channel1,5% Sulphur max.or exhaust cleaningto 6 g/kWh

22 Nov. 2007

EU review on furtherproposal for:- new SECAs- 0,5%S max.- alternative measures

including trading

in 2008

possibly

SECA next sulphur

step ?

?


Ease of compliance to SOX abatement

Balance emissionBalance emission between equipment so that the ship is globally compliant.

ConvenientLower operatingcost then MDO

High operating costReal time basissulphur monitoring

Running 1,5%SChange over to 1,5%S fuel or MDO in SECA areas

FlexibleSmall investment

High operating costFuel change overFuel availabilityBN management

Gas scrubbingInstall an exhaust gas cleaning system onboard

Lowest costUse everywhereEasy operationWorks with high %S

ROI depends onLSHFO fuel price

Emission trading could have been a solution but it is not yet in place for SOx.

Cold ironing by definition is only proposed at berth, and consequently can not be considered as a solution for SOx abatement at sea.

Running MDORun full time on MDO Convenient

No change overHigh operating costTank size

MDO = 1,85 x IFO380

4


Scrubber

pH

pH

NaOH unit

Fresh water

Water Treatment

Cooling

ExhaustGas

Seawater

pH

Closed loop works with freshwater, to which NaOHis added for the neutralization of SOx.

General outlook of Marine Scrubber System

CLOSED LOOP=

Zero dischargein enclosed area

Process tank

Holdingtank


Scrubber

pH

pH

NaOH unit

Fresh water

Water Treatment

Cooling

ExhaustGas

Seawater

pH

Figures 20 MW engine

General outlook of Marine Scrubber System

NAOH

100 - 400 per ton

Process tank

Holdingtank

0.11 m3/hour4.0 m3/hour

2.4 m3/hour400 m3/hour

0.1 m3/hour

Sludge

1.6 m3/hour

Investment60 100 /kW

5


Expected change in NOx limitations for Marine and Power applications

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

NO

x [g

/kW

h]

W46 IMO [g/kWh] World Bank [g/kWh]

W46 IMO, probable WB, probable

710 vol-ppm

360 vol-ppm

IMO -20%

550 vol-ppm

IMO -45%

NOx limitations

2-stage TC DPP

2-stage TC Marine


NOx reduction methods

Primary methodsDry methods

Low-NOx combustionMiller timing

EGRCommon rail

Wet methodsDWIHumidification of combustion airWater fuel emulsion


6


NOx reduction methods; Low NOx combustion

IMPLEMENTED


Principles of Functioning

Miller Timing Standard Timing

NOx reduction methods; Miller timing

Miller closes before BDC

Expansion aspirated air

Lower temperature

Lower NOx level

Lower fuel consumption

7


In part load thermal load high

Smoke.

Variable Inlet Closing (VIC)

Miller Timing/Full load

Standard Timing/Part load

NOx reduction methods; Miller timing

Delay in Inlet Valve Closing

Increase on air quantity and compression

pressure

Better combustion

process = LESS SMOKE


NOx reduction methods2- Stage Turbo

Tests on W20

SFC 2-3%

NOx 50%

Thermal Load at full load

Smoke

Start up

Thermal load at part load

Load acceptance

8


NOx reduction methods; EGR / Common Rail

Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR)EGR can only be applied when using no-Sulphur fuels Not (yet) applicable for sea transportation.

Common RailReduces smoke in part loadCan reduce NOx

Can increase efficiencyCan (over) compensate increased smoke level of emission reduction methods


NOx reduction methods; Wetpac H (Humidification)

Strengths

Only marginal increase of SFOC

Less complicated/expensive system compared to DWI

Flexible system control of water flow rate and switch off/on

Weaknesses

Lower NOx reduction (20-40%) compared to DWI (50%)

High water consumption compared to DWI

Very clean water is required in order to avoid fouling/corrosion

By-pass is required (anti-surge device)

Increased smoke formation especially at low loadsRemedy: switch off or less water at low loads

Limited long term experienceUnacceptable corrosion in air duct system including CAC with high sulphur fuel (3%)Encouraging lab and field experiences with low sulphur fueland low NOx reduction levels (about 30%)

Evaporised water is partly re-condensingin the charge air cooler

Compressor

Heat from cooling wateris reducing re-condensing

Water injection 130-135 bar

Saturated air40 70°C

Injected water mist is evaporated and hot air after compressor is cooled tosaturation point

Unevaporised watercaptured in WMC and re-circulated

Standard Wetpac H unit

AVAILABLE

9


NOx reduction methods; Wetpac DWI (Direct Water Injection)

Strengths

High NOx reduction level achievable: 50%

Low water consumption

Water quality is less crucial

Air duct system can be left unaffected no risk for corrosion

Flexible system control of water flow rate, timing, duration andswitch off/on

Good long term experiences with low sulphur fuels (<1.5%)

Weaknesses

High fuel consumption penalty

Increased smoke formation especially at low loads

More complicated/expensive system compared to Humidification

Challenges in terms of piston top and injector corrosion withhigh sulphur fuels (>1.5%)

AVAILABLE

Water

Water Pressure200 - 400 bar

Fuel Pressure1200 - 1800 bar

Fuel



ExperienceAVAILABLE

RoRo paper carries, ferries, (cruiseliners, tankers).

Originially installed 450 cylinders, operational 150 + No legislation pressure

High sulphur

Caribbean fuel

No commercial need

early nozzles 50 800 hours

final 3000 hrs. with 1.5%S

10



ExperienceAVAILABLE

Cylinder heads after 3,000 hrs.Side injector instead of twin injector

Corrosion PistonCoated Piston after 8,000 hrs.


NOx reduction methods: Wetpac E (water-fuel Emulsions)

Strengths

Only marginal increase of SFOC

Reduced smoke formation especially at low load

Low water consumption

Water quality is less crucial

Weaknesses

Low NOx reduction potential (15-20%)

Limited flexibilityIncreased smoke formation and poor engine performancedue to too large nozzles in case of switching off the systemIncreased mechanical stress on the fuel injection systemin case standard nozzles are used

Limited long term experience400h endurance test showed extreme turbine nozzle ring fouling

Water droplets inside fuel droplet

Fuel Oil droplet

11


NOx reduction methods; Selective catalytic reductionAVAILABLE

Strengths

Potential: 85% - 90% NOx reduction

No fuel penalty.

Good feedback with moderate sulphur fuel.

Weaknesses

Urea in exhaust gas forms ammonia.

Catalyser converts to N2 and H2O

Bulky system

High investment + operating costs.


NOx reduction methods; Selective catalytic reductionAVAILABLE

Strengths

Potential: 85% - 90% NOx reduction

No fuel penalty.

Good feedback with moderate sulphur fuel.

Weaknesses

Urea in exhaust gas forms ammonia.

Catalyser converts to N2 and H2O

Bulky system

High investment + operating costs.

Figures 20 MW engine

2 m3 /h, (10 bar)

150 m3 (14 days)

* UREA40 % solution

300 per ton

UREA 0.45 m3 /h*

Investment 40-60 /kW

12


0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Wetpac NOx reduction potentials andtypical fuel consumption penalties

DWI

Emulsion

Incr

ease

of

Sp

ecif

icF

uel

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n(%

)

NOx reduction (%)

Humidification

Achievable withWetpac H

Achievable withWetpac DWIAchievable

withWetpac E


SOx and NOx reduction methods

SOx Reduction Methodes

NOx Reduction MethodesPrimary methods

Dry methodsWet methods


13


Thank Youfor Your Attention!


Emission Control Technologies

Dry Low NOx TechnologiesEngine optimization without exhaust cleaningShort term potential (within 2-3 years)

NOx: 15-20% below the current IMO levelLong term potential

Higher NOx reduction up to 40%with 2-stage turbocharging

Wet Low NOx TechnologiesAddition of water without exhaust cleaningNOx: 20-50% below the IMO level

SCR catalystExhaust cleaning with SCR catalyst NOx: 85-90% below the IMO level

Common RailNon-visible smoke conditions can be achieved

Change to Gas EngineTypically 90% lower NOx emissions compared to liquid fuel operated diesel enginesSOx, Particulate and smoke emissions are very low

14


Wet Low NOx Technologies for 4-stroke Engines

Wetpac H (Humidification):Humidification of the combustion air by injecting (and evaporating) water after the turbocharger compressorNOx reduction potential: 40%Water-to-Fuel ratio typically: 1.3 - 2Flexible system control of water flow rateTwo field installations in operation

Wetpac DWI (Direct Water Injection):Injection of water directly into the combustion chamberNOx reduction potential: 40% sometimes up to 50%Water-to-Fuel ratio typically: 0.7Flexible system control of water flow rate and injection timingSeveral field installation

Wetpac E (Emulsion):Water-in-Fuel emulsionNOx reduction potential typically: up to 20%Water-to-Fuel ratio typically: 0.3Reduced smoke formation especially at low loadLaboratory tested technology but no field installation (=> no long term experience)


Smoke abatement Methods

Common-rail fuel injection system

High injection pressure at low load

Full electronic control of injection timing.

Non visible smoke conditions can be achieved at all loads and speeds.

Available for new engine types;

When required, can be made available for installed base.

15


Common-rail fuel injection system.


Emissions

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

HFO DF

CO2 NOX SOX

CO2 -30%

NOX -85%

SOX -99.9%

soxen nox - mid-nl.org frank dames.pdf0,5%s 0,1%s seca north sea and english channel 1,5% sulphur...

Documents