DNV GL Complete-Alt-Fuels Guidance Paper 2018-04 Web

Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies DNV GL – Maritime 1
MARITIME
ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED
ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND
TECHNOLOGIES
SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

2 DNV GL – Maritime Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 SUMMARY 3
2 BACKGROUND 3
3 INTRODUCTION TO ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND TECHNOLOGIES 4

3.1 Which fuels are alternatives? 8
3.2 CO2 Emissions 9
3.3 NOX 9
3.4 Overall Emission behaviour 10
3.5 Some thoughts on fuel pricing 11
3.6 Fuel availability 12
3.7 Concluding remarks 13
Alternative fuels 14
Alternative technologies 15
4 INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS AND CLASS RULES 16
5 ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND TECHNOLOGIES – A BRIEF OVERVIEW 17

5.1 Principles 17
5.2 Reference fuels – HFO and MGO 18
5.3 LNG 20
5.4 LPG 22
5.5 Methanol 24
5.6 Biofuels 26
5.7 Hydrogen 28
5.8 Wind-assisted propulsion 32
5.9 Batteries 35
5.10 Fuel cells 38
6 WE SUPPORT YOU TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION 40
7 DNV GL CLASS SERVICES 42

1 SUMMARY 2 BACKGROUND
The shipping industry is under increasing pressure to Marine fuel currently contributes approximately
act upon the Paris Agreement and reduce green- 3 per cent to global man-made CO2 emissions. Most
house gas (GHG) emissions. The substantial emission seagoing ships are still using heavy fuel oil (HFO) or
reductions which must be achieved over the next marine gas oil (MGO), with a maximum sulphur limit
decades are expected to drive technology develop- of 3.5 per cent (mass) in force for HFO and 0.1 per
ment and, in particular, the introduction of low- cent (mass) for low-sulphur MGO.
carbon fuels. Furthermore, authorities are increasingly
paying attention to the consequences of hazardous Looking at the future with the IMO 2020 low-sulphur
NOX, SOX and particle emissions at the local level. standards and upcoming CO2 emission regulation
Around the world, air pollution is causing serious regime in mind, the share of conventional oil-based
health problems and premature death1, and local ship fuels will drop and the share of alternative fuels
air pollution will be subject to tougher regulations will grow.
over the coming years.
Prerequisites for introducing a new fuel include
Reducing emissions to air and introducing new availability of sufficient production and distribution
propulsion technologies are key challenges for the facilities as well as an adequate bunkering infrastruc-
worldwide transport sector, including shipping. The ture. In addition, new fuels in many cases require
world’s future fleet will have to rely on a broader extensive on-board modifications and a reversal to
range of fuels, propulsion solutions and energy a conventional system is complex and costly. This
efficiency measures. guidance paper intends to provide decision support
to customers when selecting a fuel for the ships they
All alternative fuel options are accompanied by order today and in coming years.
benefits and challenges. This guidance paper
provides an introduction to alternative fuels and
technology solutions. It includes an overview of
selected alternative ship fuels – LNG, LPG, methanol,
biofuel and hydrogen – as well as emerging tech-
nologies such as batteries, fuel cell systems and
wind-assisted propulsion.
The objective of this guidance paper is to provide

decision support for investments in ships over the
coming 5 to 10-year period. The paper focuses
on technical parameters and limitations without
accounting for local market conditions, considerations
and incentive schemes which may have a significant
impact on competitiveness and the uptake of alter-
native fuels and technologies.
3 INTRODUCTION TO ALTERNATIVE FUELS
International initiatives towards reducing CO2 In particular, the decision of the International
and other emissions are driving the research into Maritime Organization (IMO) to limit the sulphur
alternatives to conventional petroleum-based content of ship fuel, effective 1 January 2020, to 0.5
ship fuels. A wide range of alternative fuels are per cent worldwide has the potential to become a
being discussed, and technologies such as fuel game changer. As illustrated in Figure 2, the com-
cell systems and Combined Gas Turbine and bined amount of heavy fuel oil (HFO) and marine gas
Steam Turbine Integrated Electric Drive Systems oil (MGO) consumed by ships accounts for no more
(COGES), which can only be applied efficiently in than 25 per cent of the global diesel fuel and petrol
conjunction with cleaner fuels, have appeared on production (2016 figures).
the agenda. An impressive number of restrictions
aiming to improve the environmental footprint of This is roughly equivalent to the amount of energy
shipping are in force or under preparation (refer consumed using liquefied natural gas (LNG)
to Figure 1). (24 per cent); however, LNG represents only a small
FIGURE 1: SHIPPING BECOMES GREENER AND MORE COMPLEX
Selected items from regulatory timeline towards 2030
Key ports in
All ports in Chinese Chinese area –
Chinese area –
area – 0.5% sulphur 0.5% sulphur
0.5% sulphur
EU CO2 monitoring,
Global fuel consumption
IGF Code in force reporting and
data collection system
verification
2017 2018 2019
California sulphur
regulations to lapse ?
IMO GHG
strategy ?
Adopted
In the pipeline, or possible

AND TECHNOLOGIES
portion (approximately 10 per cent) of the overall fuel. Latest estimates assume only 1,000 to 1,500
gas market. scrubber installations available in 2020. This raises
the question whether high-sulphur fuel will even be
Provided that the IMO regulations are enforced as of available any more if only 4,000 or even less ships
2020, up to 48 million tonnes of ship fuel containing can use it. The next question is at what price HFO will
0.1 per cent or less of sulphur will be consumed be available.
annually from that time onwards. Most of the fuel
consumed (70 to 88 per cent) will have a sulphur These practical challenges related to sulphur reduc-
content between 0.1 and 0.5 per cent. This means tion are knocking at the door. At the same time there
that low-sulphur fuel may take the role of today’s is an accelerating worldwide trend towards pushing
high-sulphur fuel. Assuming an installed base of down CO2, NOX and particle emissions. All of these
about 4,000 scrubbers at that time, no more than factors are reason enough to intensify the search for
11 per cent of ship fuel usage will be high-sulphur fuels and technologies that can help the industry
meet the challenges ahead.
0.5% global
sulphur cap
EEDI phase 2 Baltic/North Sea NECA EEDI phase 3
2020 2021–2024 2025+
Operational
Chinese ECA(s)
application ? requirements to ? EEDI phase 4 ?
CO2 emissions
EU ETS includes
shipping ?
LNG-powered vessels2 have been in operation since ■■ Deep-sea shipping: This includes large, ocean-
2000. As of 1 March 2018, 121 LNG-fuelled ships going vessels covering long routes, often without
were in operation and 127 newbuilding orders were a regular schedule. These vessels require fuel that
confirmed. Biofuels (including renewables) and is globally available. The energy source carried on
methanol[1],[2] are available at certain ports, and fully board must have a sufficiently high energy density
electrical/hybrid ships are emerging in the short sea, to maximize the available cargo space. For these
offshore and passenger segments. Based on current vessels, LNG can be a viable option once an ade-
technology, a distinction between short-sea and quate bunkering infrastructure is available globally.
deep-sea shipping should be made with regards to Sustainable biofuels, methanol and LPG can also be
applicability of various fuels: a choice, provided that they can be made available
in the required quantities and at an adequate
■■ Short-sea shipping: Vessels typically operating quality level.
in limited geographical areas on relatively short
routes with frequent port calls. Due to their rela- Based on current technology, batteries are viewed
tively low energy demand, these vessels are often as impractical as a source of main propulsion energy
ideal candidates for testing new fuels marked by for these vessels in the foreseeable future. Nuclear
high energy or fuel storage costs. The Norwegian propulsion is technically feasible for large vessels,
ferry sector is in the process of being electrified, but there are political, societal and regulatory
with about 50 battery-electric ferries to be phased barriers to consider. Various sail arrangements
in over the next few years. The use of hydrogen is (e.g. sail, kite, fixed-wing, Flettner rotors) have been
also technically feasible, and the Norwegian national tried on merchant vessels over the years. A new
road authorities, supported by DNV GL, are working Delft study concludes that there is significant saving
on the development of hydrogen applications and potential in wind-assisted propulsion on large
intend to put a new hydrogen-powered ferry into tankers and bulk carriers (Delft, 2017).
service by 2021[3].
FIGURE 2: SHIP FUEL CONSUMPTION IS MUCH LOWER THAN DIESEL AND

GAS OIL CONSUMPTION
Yearly energy consumption in relation to diesel and gas oil consumption

.
Crude oil 3.05

HFO
0.21
(marine)
MGO
0.04
(marine)
Share in consumption
Biogasoline
0.04 Total consumption
(ethanol)
FAME
0.02
(biodiesel)
LPG 0.23
Natural gas
2.43
(total)
Gas 2.19
Yearly diesel and
LNG 0.24 gas oil consumption
1.0
Figures represent 2016 statistics.
2) Not including the approx. 450 LNG carriers which also run on LNG.
[1] Stena Germanica bunkering in Gothenburg is the only present example of a ship bunkering methanol:
http://www.bunkerindex.com/news/article.php?article_id=18047
[2] Seven 50,000 tonne deadweight vessels are being built with the first-of-its-kind MAN B&W ME-LGI two-stroke
dual-fuel engine that can run on methanol, fuel oil, marine diesel oil, or gas oil:
https://www.methanex.com/about-methanol/methanol-marine-fuel#sthash.oW84bYPp.dpuf
[3] Breaking new ground in hydrogen ferry project:
https://www.sjofartsdir.no/en/news/news-from-the-nma/breaking-new-ground-in-hydrogen-ferry-project/
3.1 WHICH FUELS ARE ALTERNATIVES?
Among the proposed alternative fuels for shipping, however, on most seagoing ships their role is limited
DNV GL has identified LNG, LPG, methanol, biofuel to efficiency and flexibility enhancement. Batteries
and hydrogen as the most promising solutions. Among cannot store the huge amounts of energy needed
the new technologies we believe battery systems, fuel to power a large ship. Finally, wind-assisted propul-
cell systems and wind-assisted propulsion to harbour sion, while not a new technology, will require some
reasonable potential for ship applications. As has been development work to make a meaningful difference
demonstrated by our PERFECt Ship concept study for modern vessels.
(refer to PERFECt Ship video available on YouTube),
the well-known combined cycle gas and steam turbine The greatest challenges are related to environmental
technology has potential for ships in the power range benefits, fuel compatibility, the availability of sufficient
above 30 MW, provided that low-sulphur fuels are fuel for the requirements of shipping, fuel costs and
widely used in the shipping sector and/or high- the international rule setting by the IGF Code.
sulphur fuels are required to undergo extensive
treatment. The IMO continues its work on the IGF Code for
methanol and low-flashpoint diesel and the rules for
Fuel cell (FC) systems for ships are under develop- fuel cell systems. The other fuels named above are not
ment, but it will take time for them to reach a degree on the current agenda for the IGF Code. This should
of maturity sufficient for substituting main engines. be taken into consideration by owners contemplating
Battery systems are finding their way into shipping; LPG or hydrogen applications in the near future.
FIGURE 3: CO2 EMISSIONS OF FUEL ALTERNATIVES IN SHIPPING
Oil fuel (HFO)

Oil fuel (MGO) TTP – Tank to propeller
WTT – Well to tank
LNG (from Qatar used in Europe)
LNG (from Qatar used in Qatar)
LPG
Methanol (from CH4)
Methanol (from black liquor)
Biodiesel
Biogas (97% methane – liquefied)
Hydrogen (liquid – from CH4)
Hydrogen (liquid – from water)
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO2 emissions; g/MJ
3.2 CO2 EMISSIONS
Figure 3 illustrates the CO2 footprint of various fuels. fuel production, most likely in the form of methane
or diesel-like fuels produced in a Sabatier, Fischer-
Green House Gas emissions (GHE) are measured Tropsch process.
as CO2- equivalent emissions. Of all relevant fossil
fuels, LNG produces the lowest CO2 emissions
as can be seen from Fig. However, the release of 3.3 NOX
unburned methane (so-called methane slip) could
annihilate the benefit over HFO and MGO because Figure 4 illustrates the influence of various ship engine
methane (CH4) has 25 to 30 times the green house technologies and fuels on NOX emissions. The value for
gas effaced compared to CO2. Nevertheless, engine HFO-fuelled Tier II diesel engines is used as a baseline
manufacturers claim that the Tank-to-Propeller (TTP) (100 per cent). The values are only comparable when
CO2-equivalent emissions of Otto-cycle dual-fuel (DF) assuming the same rotational speed.
and pure gas engines are 10 to 20 percent below
the emissions of oil-fuelled engines. Diesel-cycle The bars on the right-hand side of the diagram
gas DF engines have very low methane slip, and represent the potential emission reduction through
their TTP emissions are very close to those in the switching from Tier II to Tier III (NOX%).
illustration. This is also the case for COGES system
as proposed by the PERFECt Ship concept. It is obvious that for all fuels given in the below figure,
diesel-cycle engines must be equipped with exhaust
The comparison between the CO2 emissions from gas treatment systems to comply with the IMO Tier III
LNG used in Qatar, close to the production site, limits. Only Otto-cycle engines burning LNG or
versus LNG used in Europe reveals that the required hydrogen have the potential to remain within the
transport of LNG does not increase the carbon foot- Tier III limits without requiring exhaust gas treatment.
print significantly. This means that in most cases a switch of fuel is not
sufficient to comply with the Tier III NOX limits.
The carbon footprints of methanol and hydrogen
produced from natural gas are larger than those of FIGURE 4: NOX EMISSIONS OF
HFO and MGO. ALTERNATIVE FUELS
The key benefit of fuels produced using regenerative
120
energy is clearly a small carbon footprint. Among these NO X% (diesel-cycle, Tier II engine)
NO X% (Otto-cycle, Tier II engine)
fuels, first-generation biodiesel has a relatively low
CO2 reduction potential. However, liquefied methane 100
produced from biomass (biogas) has extremely high
CO2 reduction potential. It should be noted that the 80
% (100% = HFO)
main component of LNG is also methane, therefore

both liquefied gases are equivalent.
60
The cleanest fuel is hydrogen produced using

regenerative energy. Liquefied hydrogen could be 40
used in future shipping applications. Because of its

very low energy density, its storage volume is large. 20
This may prevent hydrogen from being used directly
in international deep-sea shipping. In a sustainable
0
energy world where the entire energy demand is G) en ls
H F O M GO LNG LPG m N ydro g f ue %
NO X r II
covered by regenerative, CO2-free energy sources, l (f ro H Bio e
n o / T i
t ha r III
hydrogen and CO2 will be the basic ingredients for Me T ie
3.4 OVERALL EMISSION BEHAVIOUR
Ship propulsion concepts differ in their principal 5. The COGES concept used in the PERFECt Ship
emission behaviour. This is illustrated in Figure 5 project is illustrated for comparison. It should be noted
below for diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle engines as well that it can only achieve efficiency improvements and
as the gas steam turbine concept as applied in the a CO2 emission reduction similar to piston engines
PERFECt Ship project. if the power demand is high enough (30 to 35 MW
as an approximate lower limit). If this condition is
1. Diesel cycle: HFO met, Tier III NOX compliance can be achieved with
The IMO rules can be fulfilled when applying internal means (dry low NOX burner) when operating
additional technical means, but at the cost of added on oil or gas. Methane slip does not occur. All things
fuel consumption and increased CO2 emissions considered, the emissions of COGES systems as
caused by the scrubber and exhaust gas recirculation proposed in the PERFECt Ship project meet all
(EGR) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) foreseeable IMO limits. No external exhaust gas
equipment. cleaning is needed.
2. Diesel cycle: LSHFO/MGO It is obvious that all propulsion concepts have their
SOX compliance is ensured by the low SOX content pros and cons and that all of them are principally able
of the fuel. EGR/SCR equipment is required for Tier III to reach the emission limits with all fuel alternatives.
compliance. SCR increases the CO2 emissions. The best concept for a given application needs to be
determined on a case-by-case basis; it also depends
3. Diesel cycle: LNG on the owner’s preferences. DNV GL is prepared to
LNG is sulphur-free so there are no SOX emissions. assist customers in the decision-making process.
The effort required to achieve Tier III compliance is
lower than for oil fuel, but EGR/SCR equipment is
still needed.
4. Otto cycle: LNG

Otto-cycle medium and low-speed engines can meet
Tier III requirements without additional exhaust gas
treatment. Methane slip compromises the benefit
in terms of CO2 reduction, so the maximum 28 to
30 per cent improvement cannot be achieved. Engine
manufacturers indicate potential CO2 reduction
values of 10 to 20 per cent over similar oil-fuelled
engines.
FIGURE 5: OVERVIEW: FUEL – ENGINE SYSTEM – EMISSION
HFO LSHFO/MGO LNG
SOx Scrubber Compliance Future-proof

Diesel NOx Tier III: EGR/SCR Tier III: EGR/SCR Tier III: EGR/SCR
CO2 High carbon High carbon Low carbon
SOx Future-proof
Otto NOx Future-proof
CO2 Compliance (but CH4 slip)
SOx Compliance with 0.1 MGO Future-proof

PERFECt
NOx Future-proof Future-proof
(COGES)
CO2 High carbon Future-proof (no CH4 slip)
3.5 SOME THOUGHTS ON FUEL PRICING

In most cases, the engine technology investment In Europe, LNG competes directly with the price of
is not the dominant factor for the business case. pipeline gas. LNG that is fed into the grid cannot be
The price of fuel over the lifetime of the ship, or the more expensive than pipeline gas. The calculations
desired return on investment over a given period, is for the diagram use the gas price on the European
often the most relevant factor. Fuel pricing depends spot market as a basis for LNG price predictions. The
on a number of factors, including market conditions, natural gas price in Japan is always an LNG price
which are difficult or impossible to predict. For inter- because the country imports all of its natural gas
national shipping it should be noted that subsidies as LNG. Today, the gas prices in Japan and Europe
for preferred fuels do not exist because ship fuels are are gradually aligning. The European and Japanese
tax-fee already. It remains to be seen whether this will LNG price can be regarded as an indicator for the
change, for example through the introduction of a worldwide LNG prices regardless of major local
CO2 fee scheme. deviations. It should be noted that these diagrams
do not account for LNG distribution costs.
The restrictions illustrated in Figure 6 reveal a quali-
tative trend based on price history. Most LPG is an oil refinery product. This is one of the
reasons for LPG prices to align with the oil price. The
The bars indicate the average minimum and maximum diagram is based on the US LPG prices from 2005
price differences to Brent crude oil. The value 1.0 and 2016 and the European LPG prices between
represents the Brent baseline. Various internal and 2008 and 2015.
external sources were used to estimate the average
pricing from 2005 to 2015/2016 for the different Today, methanol is mainly produced from natural
fuels. One of the main external sources is the BP gas. For this reason the methanol price is typically
Statistical Review of World Energy. above the gas price. The lower price in the diagram
refers to methanol produced from gas, while the
Hydrogen is not included. When hydrogen is pro- upper price reflects methanol produced from bio-
duced using renewable energy, it can be assumed mass. Biofuels are produced from biomass. While
to be much more expensive than Brent crude oil. It dependant upon the type of biofuel and the price of
would only be competitive under the assumption of the biomass, the price is typically above that of Brent
massive subsidies, or of heavy taxes on conventional crude oil.
fuels. Today, nearly all hydrogen is produced from
natural gas and therefore more expensive than The diagram demonstrates that only LNG and, to
natural gas. some extend, LPG can currently compete with HFO
in terms of market price. Methanol and biofuels may
Historically, MGO has always been more expensive eventually be able to compete with MGO to some
and HFO much cheaper than Brent crude oil. extent. Hydrogen is not price-competitive.
FIGURE 6: ARE ALTERNATIVE FUELS TOO EXPENSIVE?

Qualitative price range of possible ship fuels
1.6
(reference: Brent crude oil)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
Brent crude oil
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Brent crude oil MGO HFO LNG LPG Methanol Biofuel
(Europe) (USA)
min. 1 1.1 0.65 0.6 0.85 0.9 1.1

max. 1 1.25 0.75 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.5
3.6 FUEL AVAILABILITY
Apart from its price, a future fuel must be available to The energy consumption of the global fleet serves
the market in sufficient quantity. All fuel alternatives as the 100 per cent baseline.
discussed here could meet the requirements of the
shipping industry for the next ten years, assuming This comparison shows that for all alternative fuels,
only minor growth in shipping applications. The with the exception of LNG, a rapid rise in demand
question is what would happen if a fuel alternative would require massive investments in production
were to become so attractive that a large number capacity. In theory, a switchover of the entire global
of operators would want to adopt it for their ships fleet to LNG would be possible today since the
within a short period of time. current LNG production is higher than the shipping
industry’s energy requirement, and the share of LNG
Figure 7 gives an indication based on a comparison in the total gas market is only 10 per cent. Further-
of the energy content of the worldwide production more, LPG could likewise cover the energy need of
of specific alternative fuels with the energy need of the global fleet; however, in this case no LPG would
the shipping industry. be left for other users.
FIGURE 7: PRODUCTION OF POSSIBLE SHIP FUELS

PER YEAR (RELATIVE ENERGY CONTENT)
% of today’s ship fuel (100%= energy content ship fuel)

160
140
Approx. 10% of
natural gas market
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
HFO/MGO LPG LNG CH3OH FAME H2
3.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Environmental and price challenges are driving the ships running on short distances and can be used
interest in alternative ship fuels, but the number of to boost the efficiency of the propulsion system in
realistic candidates is small. DNV GL believes LNG, any ship. However, in deep-sea shipping batteries
LPG, methanol, biofuel and hydrogen to be the alone cannot substitute fuel. With low-sulphur and
most promising candidates. Among them, LNG has alternative fuels becoming more widely available,
already overcome the hurdles related to international the well-known gas and steam turbine combined
legislation, and methanol and biofuels will follow suit cycle technology represents a viable alternative
very soon. It will be a while before LPG and hydrogen for high-power ship propulsion systems.
are covered by appropriate new regulations within
the IMO IGF Code, as well. All fuel alternatives discussed here could meet the
foreseeable volume requirements for shipping over
The existing and upcoming environmental restrictions the coming years. A major increase in consumption
can be met by all alternative fuels using existing tech- would require an appropriate increase in production
nology. Fuel cells can use all available alternative fuels capacity; the only exception is LNG, which is available
and achieve efficiencies comparable to, or better in sufficient quantities today to meet the potential
than those of current propulsion systems. However, requirement of the shipping industry for many years.
fuel cell technology for ships is still in its infancy. The
most advanced developments to date have been Without taxation or subsidies, renewable fuels will
achieved by the projects running under the umbrella find it difficult to compete with the prices of con-
of the e4ships lighthouse project in Germany, with ventional fossil fuels. LNG and LPG are the only
Meyer Werft and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems fossil fuels capable of achieving a reasonable CO2
heading the projects for seagoing ships. Wind-assisted reduction. CO2-neutral shipping seems possible only
propulsion could potentially reduce fuel consumption, with fuels produced from regenerative sources. If the
especially when used for slow ships, but the business shipping sector resorts to synthetic fuels produced
case remains difficult. Batteries as a means to store from hydrogen and CO2 using regenerative energy,
energy can be considered as an alternative fuel source the available alternatives will be liquefied methane
in the widest sense. They have major potential for (which is very similar to LNG) and diesel-like fuels.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
1. he IMO decision to limit the sulphur content of

T
ship fuel worldwide as of 1 January 2020 to 0.5
per cent has the potential to be a game changer.
6. he major challenges for alternative fuels are
T
related to environmental benefits, fuel availability
in the quantities needed for shipping, fuel costs
and the international rules within the IGF Code.
2. here is an accelerating worldwide trend towards

T
lower emissions of CO2, NOX and particles.
7. f all fossil fuels, LNG produces the lowest CO2
O
emissions.
3. NV GL identified LNG, LPG, methanol, biofuel

D
and hydrogen as the most promising alternative
fuels for shipping. 8. In a sustainable energy world where all energy is
produced by regenerative CO2-neutral sources,
hydrogen and CO2 will be the basis for fuel
4. NV GL believes battery systems, fuel cell systems

D
and wind-assisted propulsion have reasonable
production.
potential for ship applications.

9. ll propulsion concepts are capable of meeting
A
the emission limits using any of the fuel
5. s has been demonstrated by the DNV GL

A
PERFECt Ship concept study (refer to PERFECt
alternatives.
Ship video available on YouTube), the well-known

combined cycle gas and steam turbine technology
has good potential for ships in the power range
10. or international shipping, it should be noted
F
that subsidies financed by taxes on fuel for
preferred fuels do not exist because there is
above 30 MW, provided that low-sulphur fuels no taxation on ship fuels.
are widely used in shipping
ALTERNATIVE FUELS
Methanol molecule Methane molecule
Biofuels Methanol LNG

Biofuels are derived from primary With its chemical structure CH3OH, Liquefied natural gas (LNG) has more
biomass or biomass residues that are methanol is the simplest alcohol with or less the same composition as natural
converted into liquid or gaseous fuels. the lowest carbon content and highest gas used for households and power
A large variety of processes exist for the hydrogen content of any liquid fuel. generation, and in the industry. Its main
production of conventional (first-gen- Methanol is a basic building block for component is methane (CH4), the hydro-
eration) and advanced (second and hundreds of essential chemical com- carbon fuel with the lowest carbon
third-generation) biofuels, involving a modities and is also used as a fuel for content.
variety of feedstocks and conversions. transport. It can be produced from a
The most promising biofuels for ships number of different feedstock resources
are biodiesel (e.g. HVO – hydrotreated like natural gas or coal, or from renew-
vegetable oil, BTL – biomass-to-liquids, able resources such as biomass or
FAME – fatty acid methyl ester) and CO2 and hydrogen.
LBG (liquid biogas, which primarily
consist of methane).
Biodiesel is most suitable for replacing

MDO/MGO, LBG for replacing fossil
LNG, and SVO (straight vegetable oil)
for replacing HFO.
Hydrogen molecule Propane molecule Butane molecule
Hydrogen LPG
Hydrogen (H2) can be produced in Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is by definition any mixture of propane and butane
several different ways, for example by in liquid form. For instance, in the USA, the term LPG is generally associated with
electrolysis of renewable matter or by propane. Mixing butane and propane enables specific saturation pressure and
reforming natural gas. The production temperature characteristics.
of hydrogen through electrolysis could
be combined with the growing renew-
able energy sector which delivers, by
its nature, intermittent power only.
Conversion to hydrogen could facilitate
storage and transport of this renewable
energy.
Hydrogen is used in a variety of indus-

trial processes and is currently being
considered as a potential fuel for land-
based transport, in particular in cars,
buses, trucks and trains.
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Batteries
Batteries provide the ability to directly store electrical
energy for propulsion, opening up many other oppor-
tunities to optimize the power system. Recent advance-
ments in battery technology and falling costs thanks to
the growing worldwide demand for batteries make this
technology attractive to shipping.
Battery stack
Fuel cell systems

Fuel cells convert the chemical energy contained in a
fuel directly into electrical and thermal energy through
electrochemical oxidation. This direct conversion process
enables electrical efficiencies of up to 60 per cent,
depending on the type of fuel cell and fuel used. It also
minimizes vibration and noise emissions, a major setback
of combustion engines.
Functional principle of a fuel cell
Wind-assisted propulsion
For thousands of years wind was the primary energy
source used to propel ships, apart from human muscles.
Today, wind-assisted propulsion is understood to be a
potential method of reducing the fossil energy consump-
tion of ships. Wind is an inexhaustible source of energy.
Sail propulsion
4 INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS
AND CLASS RULES
Shipping is an international industry, and international point fuels will need to individually demonstrate that
environmental and safety standards for shipping are their design meets the IGF Code’s general require-
developed by the International Maritime Organization ments. Their alternative design has to be submitted
(IMO), a United Nations specialized agency. The according to IMO 1455 (guidelines for the approval
International Code of Safety for Ships using Gases of alternatives and equivalence as provided for in
or other Low-Flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code) is the man- various IMO instruments) and accepted by the flag
datory IMO instrument that applies to all gaseous administration of the vessel. This individual, and in
and other low-flashpoint fuels in shipping, and to all some cases complex process will likely have a slowing
gas-powered ships other than gas carriers. The latter, effect on the introduction of alternative fuels not yet
and their use of low-flashpoint fuels, are covered explicitly covered by the IGF Code.
by the International Code for the Construction and
Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in DNV GL rules addressing the requirements of the
Bulk (IMO IGC Code). IGF Code include:
■■ Mandatory Class Notation “GAS FUELLED”: Rules
The IGF Code was adopted by the IMO in June 2015 for classification of ships, Part 6, Chapter 2, Section 5,
(MSC.391[95]) and went into force on 1 January Gas fuelled ship installations – Gas fuelled
2017. It is compulsory for all gaseous and other ■■ DNV GL also developed rules for gas-ready ships
low-flashpoint-fuel ships and currently (2017) covers as well as for ships using low-flashpoint liquid fuels
natural gas in liquid or compressed form (LNG, (e.g. methanol)
CNG). Regulations for methanol and low-flashpoint ■■ Voluntary Class Notation “GAS READY”: Rules for
diesel fuels as well as for maritime fuel cells are classification of ships, Part 6, Chapter 2, Section 8,
under development. Gas ready ships – Gas ready.
■■ Mandatory Class Notation “LFL FUELLED”´: Rules
The IGF Code contains obligatory provisions for the for classification of ships, Part 6, Chapter 2, Section 6,
arrangement, installation, control and monitoring of Low flashpoint liquid fuelled engines – LFL fuelled
machinery, equipment and systems using low-flash- ■■ Mandatory Class Notation “FC(Power)” or “FC(Safety):
point fuels, initially focusing on LNG. It addresses Rules for classification of ships, Part 6, Chapter 2,
all areas that need special consideration for the Section 3, Fuel cell installations – FC
usage of low-flashpoint fuels, taking a goal-based ■■ In addition, DNV GL was the first classification
approach, with goals and functional requirements society to develop rules for lithium-ion battery
specified for each section to provide a basis for the installations on board ships
design, construction and operation of ships using ■■ Mandatory Class Notation(s) “BATTERY (SAFETY)”
this type of fuel. and “BATTERY (POWER)”: Rules for classification of
ships, Part 6, Chapter 2, Section 1, Battery power
Technical provisions for other low-flashpoint fuels ■■ For further information regarding applicable rules
and other energy arrangements such as fuel cell for the alternative fuels and technologies covered in
systems will eventually be added to the code as this guidance paper, please refer to the correspond-
new chapters. For the time being, ships installing ing subsection of chapter 5. Further details can
fuel systems to operate on other types of low-flash- also be found in a recent DNV GL report for EMSA .
5 ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND

TECHNOLOGIES – A BRIEF OVERVIEW
5.1 PRINCIPLES
To assess all fuels or technologies in a comparable

manner, the information is categorized as follows: 5. Environmental impact: CO2, NOX, SOX,
particulate matter (PM) and others
1. Price: Accounts for production process, raw
materials, market price and the reasoning behind it,
current/foreseeable (five years) price/expected price 6. Technology: Availability of current/future
(beyond five years) technology, foreseeable changes
2. Infrastructure: Current/future distribution 7. CAPEX: Engines, storage, processing, retrofitting

network, bunkering, availability
8. OPEX: Exhaust cleaning, scrubber, additional

3. Regulation: Existing/expected regulations, costs for fuel change
consequences
Please note that the following gives a brief overview
only. For additional information, please refer to our
4. Availability: Current / possible future Web platform on alternative fuels, which will be
production as related to the requirement in shipping launched later this year.
5.2 REFERENCE FUELS – HFO AND MGO
5.2.1 General
The shipping industry currently uses heavy fuel oil The Delft study also estimates that MGO with a
(HFO) and marine gas oil (MGO) as fuels; HFO has a maximum sulphur content of 0.1 per cent will
maximum sulphur limit of 3.5 per cent (mass), while account for approximately 14 per cent of the fuel
low-sulphur MGO contains 0.1 per cent (mass) or mix by 2020, and that most of the fuel (80 per cent)
less. Ship fuel currently contributes approximately will have a sulphur content between 0.1 and 0.5 per
3 per cent to global man-made CO2 emissions. The cent. In practical terms, these fuels can be assumed
energy demand of the shipping sector is projected to be blends of HFO and MGO. If these predictions
to be approximately 314 million tonnes per year turn out to be accurate, the low-sulphur blend with
in 2020 (base case, MEPC 70-5.3, p. 26). With the up to 0.5 per cent sulphur will in essence replace the
year 2012 fuel mix, this would equate to 245 million current high-sulphur HFO.
tonnes of HFO (78 per cent) with an average sulphur
content of 2.5 per cent (m/m; MEPC 70-5.3, Tab 5) 5.2.2 Details on specific subjects
and 69 million tonnes of MGO (22 per cent).
Price
When the decision of IMO MEPC 70 to limit the sulphur For decades, the HFO price has been below the
content in ship fuel to 0.5 per cent takes effect in crude oil price and the MGO price has been above
2020, only vessels equipped with SOX scrubbers will that level, as Figure 8 below shows. As global demand
be allowed to consume HFO (>0.5 per cent sulphur for HFO will drop significantly after 2020, its price is
content). This will significantly reduce the global assumed to fall as well. However, there might be local
demand for high-sulphur HFO. variations depending on the actual HFO availability
in certain geographical locations. Since the majority
The fuel availability study prepared by the independent of vessels will run on a sulphur-cap-compliant fuel,
research and consultancy organization CE Delft, which some ports and bunker suppliers might actually
served as a basis for the IMO decision, estimates consider charging a premium price for continuing
that by 2020 around 4,000 vessels will operate with to deliver HFO.
scrubbers installed. If this assumption is correct,
only 6 per cent of the fuel mix will be HFO once
the sulphur cap takes effect. However, as per March Infrastructure
2018 only approx. 420 vessels with scrubbers where At present, there is a well-developed worldwide
known to be in operation or on order. This could MGO and HFO supply infrastructure in place. Ships
mean that the actual percentage of HFO in the fuel are supplied by bunker barges when in port, in most
mix by 2020 might be even lower than assumed by cases during cargo operations. The International
the Delft study, unless scrubber installations increase Maritime Organization (IMO) expects oil-based,
substantially in the meantime. fuel-cap-compliant fuels to be available worldwide
FIGURE 8: YEARLY AVERAGE OIL AND GAS PRICES RELATIVE TO THE PRICE OF BRENT
CRUDE OIL (SAME ENERGY CONTENT)
1.4
1.2
1.0
USD/USD
0.8
0.6
0.4
IFO 380/Brent MGO/Brent
0.2 Gas: Henry Hub/Brent Gas: EU/Brent
Gas: Japan/Brent Brent/Brent
0
1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
as of 2020, a notion challenged by other parties. It is reduction (SCR), NOX emissions will also be higher, and
uncertain whether and to what extent high-sulphur CO2 emissions will be higher than those of most of
HFO will still be provided by bunker suppliers at all the alternative fuels discussed here. For a quantitative
geographical locations beyond 2020. comparison, please refer to chapter 3.
Regulations Technology
The IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee All ships intended to operate on high-sulphur fuel from
(MEPC) limited the sulphur content of ship fuel to 2020 onward will be required to clean their exhaust
0.5 per cent from 2020 onward. This regulation gases by using scrubbers. Scrubber technology is
applies worldwide. readily available. Even if the low expectations of IMO
MEPC 70-5.3 regarding high-sulphur HFO consumption
Emission control areas (ECAs) for SOX were introduced turn out to be true, thousands of scrubbers will have
along the North American coasts as well as in the to be installed by 2020. In ECAs, the NOX emission
North Sea and Baltic Sea in 2015. In these areas, the limits will require SCRs or exhaust gas recirculation
sulphur content of fuel is limited to 0.1 per cent. In (EGR) systems, in addition to scrubbers (depending
the North and Baltic Seas, it is permissible to continue on the keel-laying date). This technology is likewise
burning HFO and use scrubbers to clean the exhaust readily available.
gas to achieve an equivalent level of sulphur emissions.
In 2016, the North American coastlines were addi- CAPEX

tionally declared NOX-restricted areas. This means Depending on the size of the engine, the investment
that ships keel-laid after 31 December 2015 must costs for scrubbers range between 650 USD/kW
comply with Tier III NOX requirements. The same (5,000 kW engine) and 150 to 100 USD/kW
restrictions will apply in the North Sea and Baltic (40,000 kW and larger engines).
Sea from 2021 onward.
Notably, the sulphur limit for automotive diesel is OPEX

much lower than that for ship fuel. Across Europe, it An exhaust gas cleaning system requires energy to
is at 0.001 per cent, 100 to 500 times below the 2020 operate the pumps and scrubbing units to remove the
limit for shipping. Therefore it is likely that the shipping SOX from the exhaust gas. This energy use is estimated
industry will continue to be under legislative pressure to be approximately 1 to 2 per cent of the power used
regarding the sulphur content of its fuel. by the engine(s) installed on the ship. This electrical
energy is generated by auxiliary diesel generator
sets burning either MDO/MGO or HFO (IMO MEPC
Availability 70–INF.9, Sec 3.6.1). The OPEX without maintenance
While there have been different views across the and spare parts is approximately equivalent to 0.6
industry regarding the expected availability of to 0.7 per cent of the hypothetical fuel costs without
sulphur-cap-compliant fuel by 2020, the IMO based the presence of scrubber technology (according to
its decision to implement the sulphur cap as of 2020 MEPC 70-INF.9). The operational costs of scrubbers
on an availability study performed by CE Delft. are composed of the cost of maintenance and energy
However, the reality about the availability of compliant consumption. According to IMO MEPC 70/5/3, these
fuels and its potential impact on prices will not be amount to approximately 0.7 per cent of the total fuel
known until the industry starts consuming compliant costs (ships with more than 25 MW of shaft power).
fuel once the sulphur cap takes effect.
Environmental impact
Oil-based ship fuel has a greater environmental impact
than the alternative fuels discussed in this guidance
paper. The sulphur content of low-sulphur ship fuel
is much higher than that of the other fuel types. Even
low-sulphur fuel will produce higher particle emissions
than alternative fuels. Without selective catalytic
5.3 LNG
5.3.1 General From 2020, high-sulphur HFO will not be permitted

The main component of liquefied natural gas (LNG) without a scrubber system installed, and the price
is methane (CH4), the hydrocarbon fuel with the lowest of the new LSFO reference fuel is expected to be
carbon content and therefore with the highest poten- higher than HFO. Furthermore, the price of LNG is
tial to reduce CO2 emissions (maximum reduction: expected to be competitive with low-sulphur HFO.
roughly 26 per cent compared to HFO). LNG has LNG also has the potential to compete with high-
more or less the same composition as natural gas sulphur HFO and scrubbers.
used in households, for power generation and by
the industry. The production process of LNG ensures
that it is practically sulphur-free. Therefore using LNG Infrastructure
as fuel does not produce any SOX emissions. Since While still limited, the dedicated LNG bunkering
the boiling point of LNG is approximately –163°C at infrastructure for ships is improving quite rapidly. A
1 bar of absolute pressure, LNG must be stored in large share of LNG bunkering as well as LNG distri-
insulated tanks. bution to bunkering locations is still taking place by
road. Delivery by rail would also be possible but is
The energy density per mass (LHV in MJ/kg) is currently not practised. In 2017, several LNG bunker
approximately 18 per cent higher than that of HFO, vessels where delivered for operation in key locations
but the volumetric density is only 43 per cent of HFO such as the Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp (ARA)
(kg/m³). This results in roughly twice the volume region, the North Sea, the Baltic Sea and at the coast
compared to the same energy stored in the form of of Florida. Bunker vessels for other key locations
HFO. Factoring in the shape-related space require- such as the Western Mediterranean, the Gulf of Mexico,
ments, cylindrical LNG tanks typically occupy three the Middle East, Singapore, China, South Korea and
times the volume of an equivalent amount of energy Japan are under development and will likely materialize
stored in the form of fuel oil. in parallel with significant orders for LNG-fuelled
deep-sea ships within the next years.
5.3.2 Details on specific subjects
For information on LNG bunkering infrastructure,
Price please see DNV GL’s online LNGi portal
Natural gas hub prices worldwide (except in certain (dnvgl.com/lngi), which gives detailed and contin-
parts of East Asia) have been below the price of crude uously updated information on all LNG bunkering
oil and HFO for the last ten years. The delivered points in existence or under development. LNG is
price of LNG fuel to ships must also account for the in principle available worldwide (import and export
liquefaction or break bulk cost, distribution cost terminals), and investments are underway in many
and applicable profit margins. Compared to other places to make LNG available to ships. We expect to
alternative fuels, LNG seems to have reached the see a focus on developing LNG bunker vessels for
most competitive feedstock price level historically refuelling seagoing ships in the near future. Bunker-
among all alternatives fuels. Currently, the price level ing by truck and permanent local depots will also
is competitive with MGO, but direct competition with continue to grow for certain trades and segments.
HFO may be difficult (refer to chapter 3, Figure 6) Dual-fuel engine technology may also offer some
and Figure 9. flexibility and redundancy as the LNG bunkering
network for the deep-sea fleet evolves.
FIGURE 9: FUEL PRICES

21.7
20
Fuel prices (USD/mmBTU, LHV)
17.0 Begin October 2014

Begin February 2016 15.0 15.3
15
Mid of January 2018
10.3
10 9.0 9.3
8.7 8.0 8.0
5 4.5 4.6 4.4

3.6
2.4
0
Japan gas EU gas US gas IFO 380 0.1 MGO BW
(Henry Hub)
Regulations Technology
The IMO IGF Code for LNG and CNG came into force Gas engines, gas turbines and LNG storage and
on 1 January 2017, establishing an international processing systems have been available for land
regulatory basis for the design and construction of installations for decades. LNG sea transport by LNG
LNG-fuelled ships. carrier also has a history going back to the middle
of the last century. Developments to use LNG fuel in
Other aspects, such as bunkering of LNG-fuelled general shipping began early in the current century.
ships, are subject to national regulations and therefore Today, the technology required for using LNG as ship
need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For fuel is readily available. Piston engines and gas
example, only a limited number of ports have estab- turbines, several LNG storage tank types as well as
lished local rules for LNG bunkering. In addition, process equipment are also commercially available.
some LNG bunkering requirements and guidelines
have also been developed by SGMF, IACS and ISO.
CAPEX
LNG as ship fuel is rapidly approaching the status of a
Availability fully developed technology, with various technology
For the foreseeable future, there are no principal suppliers active in the market. As applications increase
limitations to production capacities that could limit and competition between suppliers heats up, we
the availability of LNG as ship fuel. LNG has a share can observe the CAPEX decreasing. CAPEX costs for
of approximately 10 per cent in the overall natural gas LNG systems are and will continue to be higher than
market. LNG production capacity is set to increase the expenditures associated with using a scrubber
significantly over the next five years. In 2016, the system with HFO.
global LNG production capacity was approximately
320 m t/a. This figure will increase by almost 40 per
cent to about 450 m t/a by 2020 (2017 World LNG OPEX
report; International Gas Union [IGU]). The OPEX costs for LNG systems on board ships are
comparable with the operational costs of oil-fuelled
systems without scrubber technology or an SCR.
Environmental impact Gas-fuelled engine systems have about the same
Natural gas from LNG is the cleanest fossil fuel avail- efficiency as conventionally-fuelled systems. For this
able today. There are no SOX emissions related to it, reason, the energy consumption of an LNG-fuelled
particle emissions are very low, the NOX emissions ship is roughly the same as that of an oil-fuelled
are lower than those of MGO or HFO, and other ship. Maintenance of a gas-burning engine may be
emissions such as HC, CO or formaldehyde from gas less expensive thanks to cleaner fuel. Currently,
engines are low and can be mitigated by exhaust gas the maintenance intervals of conventional and
after-treatment if necessary. Nevertheless, methane gas-fuelled engines are typically the same, but with
release (slip) must be considered when evaluating more operational experience to draw on, they may
the CO2 reduction potential of LNG as ship fuel be extended for gas engines. The maintenance
(maximum value is roughly 26 per cent compared to costs for the high-pressure gas supply system on
HFO). Low-pressure Otto-cycle gas engines burning board ships with high-pressure engines should be
LNG comply with the IMO Tier III NOX limit without considered. A number of ports offer discounts to
requiring exhaust gas treatment. LNG-fuelled ships.
FIGURE 10: LNGI HEAT

MAP, BASED ON THE
LNG-FUELLED FLEET’S
AIS POSITIONS
(FROM 15 TO 25 MAY 2017)
5.4 LPG
5.4.1 General Infrastructure

Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is by definition any Figure 12 shows the extensive network of LPG import
mixture of propane and butane in liquid form. In and export terminals in Europe. It is relatively easy
the USA, the term LPG is generally associated with to develop bunkering infrastructure at existing LPG
propane. Specific mixtures of butane and propane storage locations or terminals by simply adding
are used to achieve desired saturation, pressure and distribution installations. Distribution to ships can
temperature characteristics. occur either from dedicated facilities or from special
bunker vessels.
Propane is gaseous under ambient conditions, with a
boiling point of –42°C. It can be handled as a liquid FIGURE 12: OVERVIEW OF EUROPEAN IMPORT
by applying moderate pressure (8.4 bar at 20°C). AND EXPORT LPG TERMINALS
Butane can be found in two forms: n-butane or
iso-butane, which have a boiling point of –0.5°C and
–12°C, respectively. Since both isomers have higher
boiling points than propane, they can be liquefied at
lower pressure. Regarding land-based storage, pro-
pane tanks are equipped with safety valves to keep
the pressure below 25 bar. LPG fuel tanks are larger
than oil tanks due to the lower density of LPG.
There are two main sources of LPG: it occurs as

a by-product of oil and gas production or as a
by-product of oil refinery. It is also possible to pro-
duce LPG from renewable sources, for example as
a by-product of renewable diesel production.

Regulations
Price The IMO IGF Code is mandatory for all gas and other
Up until 2010, propane prices in the USA were very low-flashpoint-fuel ships (see above). LPG is currently
close to those of Brent crude oil, as shown in Figure not included and is not on the agenda for the near
11. Since 2011, prices have decoupled due to future.
increased LPG production as a by-product of shale
oil and shale gas. The USA became a net exporter of Technical provisions will be needed to cover particular
LPG in 2012. Currently, LPG is more expensive than aspects of LPG fuel. The main safety concern that must
LNG but cheaper than low-sulphur oil. be covered is related to the density of LPG vapours,
FIGURE 11: PROPANE PRICES

25
20
Fuel price (USD/GJ, LHV)
15
10
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Time (year)
Brent oil Propane price (Mont Belvieu) Natural gas (Henry Hub)
which are heavier than air. Therefore leak detectors engine would have to be equipped with EGR or
and special ventilation systems should be used. SCR systems. Both solutions are commercially
available.
The transport of LPG by sea is covered by the IMO
IGC Code, which also permits the use of LPG as fuel
for gas carriers. Technology
There are three main options for using LPG as
ship fuel: in a two-stroke diesel-cycle engine; in an
Availability four-stroke, lean-burn Otto-cycle engine; or in a gas
According to the World LPG Association, global turbine. Currently, only a single two-stroke diesel
LPG production in 2015 was 284 million tonnes, or engine model is commercially available, the MAN
310 million tonnes of oil equivalent. This is slightly ME-LGI series. In 2017, a Wärtsilä four-stroke engine
higher than the global demand for marine fuel. was commissioned for stationary power generation
Production has been increasing by approximately (34SG series). This engine had to be derated to main-
2 per cent annually over the last decade. tain a safe knock margin. An alternative technology
offered by Wärtsilä consists in the installation of a
The production increase has been most profound gas reformer to turn LPG and steam into methane by
in North America and the Middle East. Only 9 per mixing them with CO2 and hydrogen. This mixture
cent of LPG is used as transportation fuel for road can then be used in a regular gas or dual-fuel engine
vehicles, half of it in South Korea. Other uses of LPG without derating.
include homes (cooking and heating), the chemical
and other industries, and refineries. LPG can be stored under pressure or refrigerated. It
will not always be available in the temperature and
In regional terms, Asia accounts for the largest share pressure range a ship can handle. Therefore the
of LPG consumption. It is expected that at the current bunkering vessel and the ship to be bunkered must
production level, the demand for shipping can be carry the necessary equipment and installations for
safely covered until 2030, provided that demand for safe bunkering. A pressurized LPG fuel tank is the
LPG as ship fuel will grow slowly initially and remain preferred solution due to its simplicity, and because
at a moderate level. the vessel can bunker more easily using either
pressurized tanks or semi-refrigerated tanks without
major modifications.
LPG combustion results in CO2 emissions that are
approximately 16 per cent lower than those of CAPEX
HFO. When accounting for the complete life cycle, The cost of installing LPG systems on board a vessel
including fuel production, the CO2 savings amount (e.g. internal combustion engine, fuel tanks, process
to roughly 17 per cent. system) is roughly half that of an LNG system if
pressurized type C tanks are used in both cases. This
The global warming potential of propane and butane is because there is no need for special materials that
as greenhouse gases is three to four times higher than are able to handle cryogenic temperatures.
that of CO2. This has to be taken into consideration
when addressing the issue of unburned LPG poten- On large ships, the cost difference between LNG
tially escaping into the atmosphere (LPG slip). At the and LPG systems is lower if the LPG is stored in
same time, using LPG virtually eliminates sulphur pressurized type C tanks, which are more expensive
emissions. LPG is also expected to reduce particulate than large prismatic tanks. Alternatively, LPG can be
matter (PM) emissions significantly. The reduction of stored at low temperatures in low-pressure tanks,
NOX emissions depends on the technology applied. which require thermal insulation.
For a two-stroke diesel engine, the NOX emissions

can be expected to be reduced by 10 to 20 per cent OPEX
compared to HFO, whereas for a four-stroke Otto-cycle The operational costs for LPG systems are expected
engine, the expected reduction is more significant to be comparable with those of oil-fuelled vessels
and may be below Tier III NOX limits. To comply without a scrubber system. Practical experiences are
with these standards, a two-stroke diesel-cycle currently not available.

5.5 METHANOL
5.5.1 General renewable energy makes it a green ship fuel. The

Methanol, with the chemical structure CH3OH, is the costs are currently higher than the costs of methanol
simplest alcohol with the lowest carbon content and synthesis from methane.
highest hydrogen content of any liquid fuel. Methanol
is a liquid between 176 and 338 Kelvin (–93°C to
+65°C) at atmospheric pressure. Infrastructure
Distribution to ships can be accomplished either by
It is a basic building block for hundreds of essential truck or by bunker vessel. In the port of Gothenburg,
chemical commodities that contribute to our daily Stena Lines has created a dedicated area for bunker-
lives, such as building materials, plastic packaging, ing the vessel Stena Germanica, which includes a
paints and coatings. It is also a transport fuel and a few simple safety barriers to avoid problems in case
hydrogen carrier for fuel cells. of a leak.
Methanol can be produced from several different In Germany, the first methanol infrastructure chain,
feedstock resources, mainly natural gas or coal, but from production using renewable energy to trucking
also from renewable resources like black liquor from and ship bunkering through to consumption in a fuel
pulp and paper mills, forest thinning or agricultural cell system on board the inland passenger vessel
waste, and even directly from CO2 that is captured MS Innogy, was launched in August 2017.
from power plants.
When produced from natural gas, a combination Regulations

of steam reforming and partial oxidation is typically For shipping, the main applicable guideline is the
applied, with an energy efficiency up to about IGF Code, which is compulsory for all gas and other
70 per cent (defined as energy stored in the methanol low-flashpoint-fuel ships. The chapter for methanol
versus energy provided by natural gas). is currently under development. However, the IGF
Code provides a means to approve a methanol fuel
Methanol produced from gasification of coal relies system by following the alternative-design approach.
on a cheap, widely available resource, but the In addition, DNV GL has published rules for low-
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are about twice as flashpoint fuels that address methanol.
high as from natural gas. Due to its density and lower
heating value (19.5 MJ/kg), methanol fuel tanks have
a size approximately 2.5 larger than oil tanks for the Availability
same energy content. Methanol has a flashpoint of The global methanol demand was approximately
11°C to 12°C and is considered a low-flashpoint fuel. 80 million tonnes in 2016, twice the 2006 amount.
It can also be converted to dimethyl ether (DME), The production capacity is more than 110 million
which can be used as a fuel for diesel engines. tonnes. The energy content of these 110 million
tonnes is equal to approximately 55 million tonnes
5.5.2 Details on specific subjects of oil. Most of the methanol is currently consumed
in Asia (more than 60 per cent of global demand),
Price where demand has been increasing for the last few
From 2010 to 2013, methanol prices per unit of energy years.
content were between European HFO and MGO
prices. Since then, methanol prices have slightly Approximately 30 per cent is used in North America,
increased (and are now back to 2013 levels) and, Western Europe and the Middle East, and this figure
at the same time, the drop in oil prices has made has been largely stable over the past decade. It is
methanol more expensive than distillate marine fuels. expected that the current production can safely
cover the demand for shipping until 2030, assuming
Since methanol is typically produced from natural gas, that the demand for methanol as ship fuel will grow
its price per mass unit is usually coupled to natural slowly initially and remain at a moderate level.
gas prices and is higher in relation to energy content.
Producing methanol from coal may bring the price Environmental impact
down, but it increases GHG emissions drastically. Methanol combustion in an internal combustion
Methanol is easy to produce from hydrogen and engine reduces CO2 emissions (tank-to-propeller [TTP]
CO2. Therefore the production of methanol from value) by approximately 10 per cent compared to oil.
The exact value may differ depending on whether Similar to LPG, only a single two-stroke diesel engine
methanol is compared with HFO or distillate fuel. is currently commercially available, the MAN ME-LGI
When considering the complete life cycle (well- series, which is now in operation on methanol tankers.
to-tank [WTT] and TTP) including the production Wärtsilä four-stroke engines are in operation on
of the fuel from natural gas, the total CO2 emissions board the passenger ferry Stena Germanica. Another
are equivalent to or slightly higher (in the order of possibility would be to use methanol in fuel cells (see
5 per cent) than the corresponding emissions of section 5.10 on fuel cells). A test installation has been
oil-based fuels. running on the Viking Line ferry MS Mariella since 2017.
The WTT emissions of methanol from renewable Methanol is a liquid fuel and can be stored in standard
sources (biomass) are significantly lower compared fuel tanks for liquid fuels, with certain modifications
to production from natural gas. Using methanol to accommodate its low-flashpoint properties and
virtually eliminates sulphur emissions and meets the the requirements currently under development for
sulphur emission cap. the IGF Code at the IMO. Fuel tanks should be pro-
vided with an arrangement for safe inert gas purging
It is also expected that particulate matter (PM) emis- and gas freeing.
sions will be significantly lower. The reduction of NOX
emissions depends on the technology used. In the
case of a two-stroke diesel engine, the NOX emissions CAPEX
can be expected to be approximately 30 per cent lower The additional costs of installing methanol systems on
than those of HFO, whereas in the case of a four-stroke board a vessel (e.g. internal combustion engine, fuel
Otto-cycle engine, the expected reduction is in the tanks, piping) is roughly one third that of the additional
order of 60 per cent, but not below Tier III NOX limits. costs associated with LNG systems. This is because
To comply with these standards, EGR or SCR systems there is no need for special materials able to handle
should be used. Both solutions are commercially cryogenic temperatures or for pressurized fuel tanks.
available.
OPEX
Technology The operational costs for methanol systems are
There are two main options for using methanol as expected to be comparable with those for oil-fuelled
fuel in conventional ship engines: in a two-stroke vessels without scrubber technology. Due to the
diesel-cycle engine or in a four-stroke, lean-burn small number of ships running on methanol, practical
Otto-cycle engine. experiences are limited.
Source: Westfal-Larsen Management AS
Methanol tanker Lindanger

5.6 BIOFUELS
5.6.1 General lower. There are no sulphur emissions. Third-generation

Biofuels are derived from primary biomass or algae-based biofuels are still at the research and
biomass residues that are converted into liquid or development stage but were tested in 2011 on the
gaseous fuels. A large variety of processes exist for container ship Maersk Kalmar. The US navy has also
the production of conventional (first-generation) and carried out some testing.
advanced (second and third-generation) biofuels,
involving a variety of feedstocks and conversions. 5.6.2 Details on specific subjects
The production of biofuel is commonly categorized Price

based on the carbon source: In most cases advanced biofuels will be more
expensive than fossil fuels. The potential for reduc-
1. First-generation biofuels: sources include sugar, ing production costs is expected to be higher for
starch or lipid directly extracted from plants second-generation biofuels compared to the first
2. S econd-generation biofuels: derived from generation where a major portion of the potential
woody crops, purpose-grown non-food is already being realized. Prices and production
feedstock, and wastes/residues volumes are the main barriers to widespread use
3. Third-generation biofuels: derived from aquatic in shipping.
autotrophic organisms (e.g. algae)
The competition with food production is frequently Infrastructure

cited as an obstacle for biofuels. This is only an There is a lack of global infrastructure and bunkering
issue in the case of first-generation fuels. Advanced facilities. Biodiesel could potentially be used as a
biofuels are considered more sustainable since they drop-in fuel. If biofuel is available, it can be distributed
do not compete with food crops. using the existing distribution systems for MGO and
HFO.
The characteristics of biofuels vary and cannot be
summarized in brief. However, conventional biofuels Liquefied methane produced from biomass (LBG)
typically have lower energy content and lower uses the same infrastructure as LNG, which is
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than conventional expanding. Biofuel is available in certain ports, for
marine fuels. NOX emissions may be higher. example in the Netherlands or Norway. Algae-based
fuel production could occur close to ports and coastal
The most promising biofuels for ships are biodiesel areas in future.
(e.g. hydrotreated vegetable oil [HVO], biomass-
to-liquids [BTL], fatty acid methyl ester [FAME]) and
liquefied biogas (LBG). Biodiesel is most suitable for Regulations
replacing MDO/MGO, LBG is the best replacement Annex A of the ISO 8217:2017 fuel standard addresses
of fossil LNG, and straight vegetable oil (SVO) can bio-derived products, EN 14214 and ASTM D6751
substitute HFO. provide biodiesel standards, while the EN 590 diesel
standard is relevant for high-quality diesel for auto-
Since 2006, several demonstration projects have motive use.
tested the technical feasibility of various FAME
biodiesel blends in shipping. Challenges reported The International Council on Combustion Engines
for FAME biofuels include fuel instability, corrosion, (CIMAC) provides a guideline for ship owners and
susceptibility to microbial growth, and poor cold-flow operators on managing marine distillate fuels
properties. Recently, ferries operating in Norway containing up to 7 per cent v/v of FAME (biodiesel).
have started to use HVO biodiesel. Biofuels may eventually be covered by the IGF
Code’s new chapter on low-flashpoint diesel fuels,
Renewable HVO biodiesel is a high-quality fuel in which is on the current agenda.
which the oxygen has been removed using hydrogen,
which results in long-term stability. It is compatible Looking at the sustainability of biofuels, the EU
with existing infrastructure and can be used in existing Renewable Energy Directive includes sustainability
engines, subject to approval by the manufacturer. criteria for biofuels. ISO 13065 specifies principles,
The GHG emissions from a life-cycle perspective are criteria and indicators for the bioenergy supply chain
about 50 per cent lower than for diesel, and the NOX to facilitate the assessment of environmental, social
and particulate matter (PM) emissions are likewise and economic sustainability aspects.
The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) Technology

addressed the many sustainability questions associ- Biofuels are used as drop-in fuels substituting
ated with growing crops for liquid fuel production. conventional fossil fuels and are compatible with
The Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) defines existing infrastructure and engine systems. In some
sustainability indicators for bioenergy, specifying cases, they require modification of infrastructure
three pillars: environmental, social and economic. and engine systems.
Overall, there is a lack of globally accepted,
maritime-specific standards for biofuels. Liquefied biogas (LBG) consists mainly of methane
and can utilize the same technology as conventional
LNG.
Availability
Global production data indicate that 32 million
tonnes of biodiesel and 170 million tonnes of CAPEX
straight vegetable oil (SVO) are produced per year. Additional costs related to modifications of ship
engines and infrastructure for running on conven-
tional biofuel are estimated by engine manufacturers
Environmental impact to be less than 5 per cent of engine cost. There is no
The emission reduction potential of biofuels varies additional cost reported when running on advanced
widely, depending on the specific feedstock, the HVO.
biofuel generation, the engine type/model, and the
supply chain. CO2 reductions of up to 80 to 90 per Overall, the CAPEX for LBG would be the same as for
cent for certain types of biofuels are possible, based LNG.
on life-cycle assessments. The highest reduction
potential is reported for advanced biofuels.
OPEX
In general, biofuels have very low SOX emissions, but The operational costs for biofuel systems are expected
there are concerns about the overall sustainability to be comparable with those for oil-fuelled vessels
of biofuels. These include both environmental and without scrubber technology. However, since biofuels
socio-economic issues. It is also debated to what extent and especially advanced biofuels will be more
biofuels lead to greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction. expensive than fossil fuels, the associated OPEX
Several standards and initiatives address these aspects. costs are expected to be higher. Additional costs
A number of studies point to sustainable biofuels may be caused by monitoring, operational practice,
as one of only a few options available for deep-sea and staff training. This needs to be investigated
shipping to achieve CO2 emission levels consistent further and will depend on the generation and type
with the 2°C climate goal. of biofuel.
5.7 HYDROGEN
5.7.1 General When used in combination with marine fuel cells, the
Hydrogen (H2) is a colourless, odourless and non-toxic emissions associated with other marine fuels could be
gas. For use on ships, it can either be stored as a minimized or eliminated entirely. If H2 is generated
cryogenic liquid, as compressed gas, or chemically using renewable energy, nuclear power or natural
bound. gas with carbon capture and storage, zero-emission
ships are possible.
The boiling point of hydrogen is very low: 20 Kelvin
(–253°C) at 1 bar. It is possible to liquefy hydrogen at 5.7.2 Details on specific subjects
temperatures up to 33 Kelvin (–240°C) by increasing
the pressure towards the “critical pressure” for Price
hydrogen, which is 13 bar. The energy density per The cost of H2 depends to a large extent on the price
mass (LHV of 120 MJ/kg) is approximately three times of electricity (in the case of electrolysis) or gas (in the
the energy density of HFO. The volumetric density of case of reformation), as well as on the scale of the
liquefied H2 (LH2) (71 kg/m3) is only 7 per cent that of production plant.
HFO. This results in approximately five times the volume
compared to the same energy stored in the form of Cost estimates from relevant literature for H2 pro-
HFO. When stored as a compressed gas, it’s volume duced from electrolysis as reviewed by DNV GL
is roughly ten to 15 times (depending on the pressure range between 3.5 and 8.3 USD/kg (1,170 to
[700 to 300 bar]) the volume of the same amount of 2,770 USD/t crude oil equivalent), averaging around
energy when stored as HFO. 5.3 USD/kg (1,770 USD/t crude oil equivalent).
Hydrogen is an energy carrier and a widely used The cost of hydrogen produced through natural gas
chemical commodity. It can be produced from various or biogas reformation ranges from 2.4 to 6.5 USD/kg,
energy sources, such as by electrolysis of renewables, (800 to 2,170 USD/t fuel oil equivalent), averaging
or by reforming natural gas. Today, nearly all hydrogen around 4.1 USD/kg (1,370 USD/t crude oil equivalent).
is produced from natural gas. These cost estimates include production, compression,
storage and transport.
For applications in the transport sector, production
by reforming from natural gas is currently the most As a reference: a price of 70 USD per Barrel is
common method. If the resulting CO2 would be approximately 510 USD/t fuel oil equivalent.
captured, this could result in a zero-emission value
chain for shipping. According to forecasts, the price of electrolysers
will fall in the near future, reducing the CAPEX and
Together with CO2, hydrogen can be used to produce consequently the production cost of hydrogen. The
methane, which can be used similar to LNG or synthetic location of production facilities may also play a role
liquid fuels which can be used as substitutes for diesel in the cost of H2. For example, electrolysis in areas in
or gasoline. Production of hydrogen by electrolysis is Norway with low electricity prices has the potential to
viewed as an opportunity to store and transport surplus drive the production costs down to between 3.5 and
renewable energy, thereby stabilizing the energy 4.1 USD/kg by 2020 (1,170 to 1,370 USD/t crude oil
output of solar or wind power plants. equivalent).
FIGURE 13: EXAMPLE OF HYDROGEN COST AT REFUELLING NOZZLE AS A FUNCTION OF THE

ELECTRICITY PRICE FOR A HYDROGEN REFUELLING STATION WITH A CAPACITY OF 6,000 KG H2 / D
Hydrogen cost (at nozzle) (EUR/kg H2)
14
CAPEX HRS
12 OPEX maintenance
OPEX electricity for electrolysis and compression
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Electricity price (EUR cents/kWh)
(EC “Guidance document on large scale hydrogen bus refuelling”, March 2017)
Infrastructure Other regulations, such as the DNV GL class rules for

Today, most hydrogen is produced from natural gas fuel cell (FC) installations (DNV GL Rules for classifica-
using a related, mainly industrial, land-based tion of ships Part 6, Chapter 2, Section 3), cover design
infrastructure. Since there is currently no demand principles, material requirements, arrangement and
for H2 fuel, there is no distribution or bunkering system design, safety systems and other aspects.
infrastructure for ships. Liquefied hydrogen (LH)
could be distributed in a similar manner as LNG. Regarding the use of hydrogen, the ISO/TR 15961
“Basic considerations for the safety of hydrogen
Standard 40-foot containers for LH with a typical tank systems” provide an overview of safety-relevant
capacity of around 3,600 kg of hydrogen per tank are considerations for H2.
available in the market, and a liquid tank can be filled
up to approximately 94 per cent of its total volume. The IGC and IGF Codes cover the storage of lique-
Due to the very low boiling point of hydrogen, super- fied gas on board ships, and the C-tank rules will in
insulated pressure vessels are used for storage in principle cover liquid hydrogen, but additional con-
liquid (cryogenic) form. Boil-off is unavoidable, and siderations will be necessary due to the properties of
the boil-off rate, which depends on the relationship hydrogen and its very low storage temperature.
between tank surface area and volume, can be 0.3 to
0.5 per cent per day depending on technology and Bunkering of hydrogen-fuelled ships is subject
conditions. For stationary use, the capacity range of to national regulations and therefore needs to be
current LH tanks is about 400 to 6,700 kg. evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Bunkering and
port regulations for bunkering H2 fuel do not exist at
Once LH storage technology for liquid hydrogen this time. However, several ports do have LNG rules,
tankers (under development at Kawasaki12) is available, and bunkering is subject to SGMF guidelines and
it will be possible to store up to 88,500 kg of hydro- ISO/TS 18683. It is assumed that there will be a sig-
gen per tank. A demonstration tank system will be nificant overlap with future standards for hydrogen.
commissioned in 2020.
Hydrogen production from electrolysis is a known Availability

and available technology that can be applied locally More than 50 million tonnes of H2 are produced
in port as long as an adequate supply of electrical per year globally. This is about equal to the energy
power is available for the production process, which content of 150 million tonnes of ship fuel. Nearly all
would eliminate the need for a long-distance distri- hydrogen is produced from natural gas. As hydrogen
bution infrastructure. In future, LH might be trans- can be produced from water using electrolysis, there
ported to ports from storage sites where hydrogen is are no principal limitations to production capacity
produced using surplus renewable energy, such as that could restrict the amount of available H2 to the
wind power, whenever energy production exceeds shipping industry.
grid demand. The hydrogen produced could be
stored in compressed – not liquefied – form in salt
caverns and at other suitable sites. Transport would Environmental impact
occur by road and/or pipeline depending on volume There are energy losses associated with H2 production
and distance. and possible compression or liquefaction. When H2
is generated from renewable or nuclear power using
an efficient supply chain, it can be a low-emission
Regulations alternative fuel for shipping. Current development
Hydrogen is a low-flashpoint fuel subject to the initiatives explore hydrogen production from natural
International Code for Safety of Ships using Gases or gas while safely capturing and storing the resulting
Other Low-flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code). The current CO2 (CCS).
edition of the IGF Code does not cover hydrogen
storage. Rules for the use of hydrogen in fuel cells Hydrogen used in fuel cells as energy converters does
are under development and will be included in a not produce any CO2 emissions and could eliminate
future amendment to the IGF Code. For the time NOX, SOX and particulate matter (PM) emissions from
being, hydrogen storage and use must follow the ships. Hydrogen-fuelled internal combustion engines
alternative design approach in accordance with for marine applications could also minimize green-
SOLAS Regulation II-1/55 to demonstrate an equivalent house gas (GHG) emissions, while NOX emissions
level of safety. cannot be avoided when using combustion engines.
Technology cations than LNG. All other equipment (e.g. piping,

Power generation systems based on H2 may even- ventilation, heat exchangers, pumps) will have similar
tually be an alternative to today’s fossil-fuel-based costs as in LNG systems.
systems. While fuel cells are considered the key
technology for hydrogen, other applications are also
under consideration, including gas turbines or internal OPEX
combustion engines in stand-alone operation or in Conventional systems like piston engines or turbines
arrangements incorporating fuel cells. running on hydrogen will have comparable OPEX to
those for oil-fuelled systems. The price of H2 varies
Hydrogen-fuelled internal combustion engines for because the current market for hydrogen is part of the
marine applications are said to be less efficient than industrial gases market where individual contracts
diesel engines. Possibly larger-scale industrial and apply.
maritime applications combined with waste heat
recovery solutions might be better suited for high- Fuel prices might depend on energy prices for H2
temperature technologies such as solid oxide fuel production and logistics costs (see above). Logistics
cells (SOFC) or even industrial systems using molten costs might be considerably higher than for LNG
carbonate fuel cells. or other gases. This might change when hydrogen
production using surplus intermittent renewable
Fuel cells combined with batteries (and possibly energy is stepped up.
super capacitors) adding peak-shaving effects are a
promising option. Even proton exchange membrane When hydrogen is produced locally by electrolysis,
fuel cells (PEMFC), thanks to their flexible materials, the distribution costs are marginal. The lifetime of
could improve fuel cell lifetime significantly when pro- energy converters (e.g. fuel cells) is shorter than that
tected against the harshest load gradients. SOFC must of piston engines or turbines and depends on fuel
be applied in a hybrid environment using peak-shaving quality and system operation management. The
technology to be a realistic alternative for shipping. expected crew training requirements could be
comparable to those of LNG/CNG.
CAPEX Others
Conventional energy converters like piston engines One thing batteries and hydrogen have in common
will have similar added CAPEX costs as LNG-fuelled is that they represent potential game changers that
engines. Storage tanks for LH2 will be significantly become increasingly relevant when the cost of pollu-
more expensive due to lower storage temperatures, tion (GHG or local pollutants) rises significantly and/
higher insulation quality and fewer maritime appli- or where strict emission limits apply.
In such a situation, the key parameters for fuel com- In both cases, conversion of the original energy
parison might change. This has been experienced source to hydrogen will mean that some energy is
in the case of battery-powered ferries in Norway, lost.
for example, which can be very price competitive
(OPEX) with conventional fuels. At the same time, In an energy environment marked by a growing
they require a very different infrastructure, which is renewable energy sector, hydrogen and batteries
typically associated with innovative, fast-charging complement each other. Batteries are a suitable
technology at every stop and conventional charging means to store relatively small amounts of energy
when the ferry is not in use (e.g. overnight). for a shorter duration, whereas energy conversion
to hydrogen is better for long-term (e.g. seasonal)
The energy chain perspective is important. Two main storage of larger volumes of energy (e.g. using
production paths can be assumed for hydrogen: underground caverns).
■■ Hydrogen produced from natural gas, the most
common production method today (in future
possibly combined with CCS)
■■ Hydrogen produced by electrolysis using
renewable energy
5.8 WIND-ASSISTED PROPULSION
5.8.1 General 5.8.2 Details on specific subjects

Wind-assisted propulsion is today considered a means
to reduce a ship’s consumption of fossil energy. Price
There are obviously no direct fuel costs involved
From the time man began travelling across large in using wind to propel a ship. Most wind-assisted
bodies of water until the advent of fossil fuels, sails propulsion systems require a secondary source of
were the primary means of ship propulsion. Today, energy to be operated:
the entire worldwide maritime trade relies on fossil ■■ Flettner rotors need to be started up by motors to
fuels. As efforts to curb pollution and climate change develop their aerodynamic thrust forces.
intensify, the commercial shipping world is looking ■■ Soft and solid sail systems require a certain amount
at wind as an inexhaustible power source, at least in of energy for hoisting and dropping as well as
a supporting role, with renewed interest. for position adjustments to achieve the optimum
angle of attack.
Some of the sail technologies available today are the ■■ Kites need to be launched, inflated, controlled and
result of long-term development, driven in part by retracted by external means.
competitive racing such as the America’s Cup (rigid
wing sails), or by the need for short-handed automated In all of these cases, the amount of energy required
sailing (DynaRig). Other, older developments were for operation is very small in relation to the propulsion
all but forgotten until rediscovered by the merchant power these devices generate.
shipping industry recently (Flettner rotor). Innovative
approaches have been developed specifically for For calculating the business case, the availability of
modern commercial ships (kites). wind and therefore the operation area of wind-assisted
vessels is the most relevant factor (see “Availability”
Practical experience exists with two of these methods, to the right).
which are currently in use: kites, and the Flettner rotor.
The DynaRig principle is being used by some large
sailing yachts.
Flettner rotor Wing sails
ECOLINER, design Dykstra Naval Architects
DynaRig Kites
Infrastructure Availability
There is no infrastructure required to make use of wind The availability of wind as a power source is unlimited.
as an energy source. Specialized knowledge may be However, the quantity and quality of this energy
required for maintenance and repair work, most of source is not constant. As a meteorological phenom-
which may not be possible on board. Depending on enon, the strength and direction of wind is subject to
the size of an installed wind propulsion system, there frequent change. Global trade routes with relatively
may be restrictions for passing under bridges. constant, high wind conditions are best suited for
profitable use of this energy source, especially when
In addition, certain types of wind assistance systems combined with weather routing based on global
may impede ship loading and unloading. weather patterns and local forecasts.
FIGURE 14: HEATMAP OF VESSEL VOYAGES

Regulations AUGUST 2015–2016 AND TRADE WINDS
The SOLAS Convention does not exclude the use of
wind as a power source, provided a ship does not
solely rely on it. In today’s economic environment,
cross-oceanic trade must adhere to strict schedules.
Exclusive dependence on wind would not be feasible.
Therefore a propulsion engine is required to compen-
sate for or buffer time losses when wind conditions
are inadequate.
Any evaluation of a potential wind application must

account for the implications regarding the safety of
seafarers and compliance with current international
standards. Current energy efficiency regulations are
not prescriptive.
The way the EEDI Index is determined leaves room

for new technology developments and for the choice
of means to achieve specific targets or objectives.
This includes the potential use of wind as a power
source, either in the form of wind propulsion systems Environmental impact
or in hybrid systems. A wind propulsion system can reduce fuel consump-
tion. The energy savings achieved are directly pro-
There is no international rule for the design and portionate to the reduction of fuel-related CO2, NOX,
construction of sail propulsion systems. However, SOX, particulate matter (PM) and other emissions.
DNV GL has issued Design Guidelines for Certification
and Classification Procedures associated with:
Technology
■■ Flettner rotors (document MCADE0452-001) After an absence of about 100 years, the rediscovery
■■ Wing rigs (document MCADE0452-003) of wind propulsion for seagoing ships is tantamount
installed on seagoing ships to a relaunch of a forgotten technology.
A similar guideline for DynaRig systems is currently Various technologies are currently in some kind of
under development. project or trial stage; some solutions are commercially
available and can even be retrofitted. The following
These technical standards may additionally serve as choice of technologies does not intend to exclude
a means to satisfy statutory regulations and require- other, innovative or further developed approaches
ments, which may not necessarily in all aspects be and does not claim to be comprehensive.
prepared for wind-assisted propulsion.
■■ The Flettner rotor, also called Flettner sail or rotor
DNV GL class notations for sail assistance systems on sail, is named after its German inventor Anton
seagoing ships are in preparation. Flettner who developed the concept in the 1920s.
Its physical principle consists in the generation of CAPEX

aerodynamic thrust using a rotating cylinder Wind propulsion systems utilize renewable energy
(Magnus effect). The technology is well developed, to assist primary propulsion units and save fossil
and Flettner rotors have been installed on eight fuel. The multitude of technologies and their varying
ships since the time of their invention. dominance in connection with the drive to reduce
■■ Based on a design concept by German engineer energy consumption is too varied for this paper
Wilhelm Prölls in the 1960s, the DynaRig employs to provide detailed guidance regarding the costs
automated soft sails. It can serve as a ship’s primary involved, or a comparison thereof.
propulsion system when weather conditions allow,
provided that the purpose and design of the ship When conceptualizing a particular system, including
are optimized accordingly. DynaRigs are currently all its parameters, ideally geared towards a pre-
commercially available for mega sailing yachts selected choice of trade routes, it is possible to
(Maltese Falcon, Oceanco Y172), and there are estimate or determine investment expenditures as
projects to develop a DynaRig for seagoing ships. well as operational costs in addition to the fuel-
■■ The rigid wing sail technology is based on the con- saving potential.
cept of using vertically-arranged, fixed symmetrical
aerofoils on a ship to generate aerodynamic thrust.
There have been numerous initiatives pursuing OPEX
this concept but no full-scale installation on a OPEX are related to the maintenance of the wind-
commercial vessel. assisted propulsion system and the replacement of
■■ Kites use aerodynamic forces generated by pro- components at the end of their lifetime. Energy costs
ducing an apparent wind speed higher than that related to operation are small but need to be figured
experienced at a stationary position on board a in nevertheless.
sailing vessel, by causing the kite to enter a state of
dynamic movement. Employment and deployment
of a kite can be automated. The technology has
been commercially available since the early 2010s.
5.9 BATTERIES
5.9.1 General trajectories for full maritime systems (AC, including

Batteries and hybrid power plants represent a trans- power electronics).
formation in the way energy is used and distributed on
board vessels. Electric power systems using batteries Carmakers have set a price goal of 100 USD/kWh
are more controllable, and easier to optimize in terms for lithium-ion cells by 2020, and based on market
of performance, safety and fuel efficiency. As ship predictions this goal might be achieved. This develop-
power systems become increasingly electrified, and ment may correlate to maritime system costs as low
as battery technology improves and becomes more as 200 USD/kWh, although additional cost margins
affordable, new opportunities emerge. may remain in place in this market segment.
One primary objective for battery storage systems
Fully electric ships represent a leap forward in power will be to further increase energy density for new
system design, but at present they are only feasible applications, followed by a continued downward
in limited applications such as ferries and short-sea trend of prices, if at a lower rate.
shipping. The feasibility of all-electric operation for
other vessels is typically limited either by the size of Lithium-ion will likely remain the leading technology
the required battery system or its cost. Unsurprisingly, for many years. Other technologies may reach market
the same limitations apply to many other uses of maturity and supersede lithium-ion technology if they
battery systems, as well. Further research and develop- prove to be price competitive.
ment work is urgently needed to achieve significant
improvements to this technology. In terms of future price development, a closer look at
the raw materials is instructive:
5.9.2 Details on specific subjects ■■ Graphite is a widely-used material, with 70 to 80 per
cent currently coming from China. Facing stricter
Price environmental regulation, this may result in a price
Battery prices are decreasing rapidly – almost too increase and the development of new mines.
fast for accurate characterization – while significant ■■ The cobalt market was previously small but is now
performance improvements can be observed at growing rapidly. Over 50 per cent of the global
least in some market areas. These cost reductions cobalt supply currently comes from the Congo in
are primarily driven by demand in the automotive Africa, with companies seeking more humanely-
and consumer electronics industries. Prices of market- acquired alternatives.
leading lithium-ion battery cells have dropped by ■■ For lithium, large amounts exist but only one-third
more than 50 per cent over the course of 2016, but is considered economically accessible, primarily
prices continue to range widely, dependent upon from salty, briny lakes, and the evaporation process
performance, technology and application. Total can be lengthy. Still, based on total availability and
battery system prices for large installations, such as underutilized sources in Chile, China and Australia,
in shipping, comprise both the lithium-ion battery lithium supplies appear reliable for the long term.
cells themselves and the cost of system integration, ■■ Nickel is a relatively expensive component in
including module construction, battery control lithium-ion manufacture. It is a valuable metal used
hardware and software, power electronics, thermal widely as a component of stainless steel. New
management, and testing. The figure below indicates demand from innovative technologies can cause
trends in battery cell pricing as well as potential price spikes, while an oversupply will cause prices
to drop. Overall, the market is well-developed.
FIGURE 15: BATTERY PRICES

Cell cost – auto market leaders 2016
1600 Cell cost – previous auto market predictions
Cell cost – new market predictions
1400
Cell cost – automotive segment leaders
System cost – marinized battery system
Battery price (USD/kWh)
1200
System cost – marinized battery cost predictions
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Infrastructure the maritime sector additionally points to a more

Given the absence of consumption costs, batteries than adequate manufacturing infrastructure.
do not face the same type of supply or infrastructure
requirements as other, more traditional energy sources.
The infrastructure required for battery systems on Environmental impact
board ships mainly consists in providing an adequate Batteries produce zero emissions during operation,
charging grid. Depending on the application, the but as with every production process, the manufacture
battery size and required charging times can increase of batteries is energy-intensive. Several studies have
power demand. For instance, charging 1,000 kWh investigated the CO2-equivalent emissions of both
(approximately equivalent to 100 litres of oil-based conventional and battery system life cycles. For the
fuel) in 30 minutes requires 2,000 kW of power; maritime case, as summarized below, the environ-
charging the same amount of energy in 10 minutes mental benefit of batteries is overwhelming. In a
requires 6,000 kW of shore power. This often puts a study for the Norwegian NOX fund, the environmental
considerable load on the local electrical network and payback period compared to a traditional drive
may require additional resources. configuration was calculated for a hybrid platform
supply vessel (PSV) and an electric ferry.
In general, the existing on-shore power supply infra-
structure can be used to supply electricity to ships. For the hybrid PSV, the environmental payback period
Another key aspect is that a battery system is essentially for global warming potential (GWP) and NOX is
a device that stores DC electricity and interfaces to the 1.5 and 0.3 months, respectively. For the fully electric
power grid with standardized power electronics hard- ferry, the environmental payback period for GWP and
ware. This means that once the electrical system has NOX is 1.4 and 0.3 months, respectively, when using
been established for a given installation, it is nominally the Norwegian electricity mix. For the EU electricity
a straightforward process to replace the batteries with mix, the GWP payback time increased to 2.5 months,
a new, updated or replacement technology. Therefore and for a global electricity mix to just under one
the electrical infrastructure for battery systems is easily year.
reused and the nature of the technology enables a
high degree of interchangeability. In addition, lithium-ion battery recycling has proven
to be feasible, with several companies providing this
service. The current focus is on aluminium and copper
Regulations recovery, as this provides the greatest revenue
The primary focus of relevant regulations is the safety stream, with the low price of mined lithium proving
of battery systems and installations. DNV GL was the to be highly competitive. The full potential of such
first classification society to develop such rules and is processes is limited primarily by the current low
actively engaged in research programmes to continue inflow of recycled, used or decommissioned batteries
refining and developing these requirements. Other – refurbishment is presently a more common end-of-
classification societies have since developed rules life service resulting in an even better environmental
of their own, but nothing noteworthy has been footprint.
achieved at the IMO level so far. The year 2016 saw a
significant increase in maritime-specific regulations.
These requirements have resulted in higher develop- Technology
ment (testing, approval) costs, which have significantly Developments during the past five years have
increased system safety levels. It is likely that more occurred primarily as a result of improved manu-
economical ways of producing the same capabilities facturing processes and quality control, as well as
may be available in the future. Shore connections for incremental improvements in existing (cathode)
charging are predominantly governed by regulations chemistries and combinations. Iron phosphate (LFP)
and requirements established for the electric grid. and nickel cobalt manganese (NCM) have proven
to lead the market. These developments have been
paralleled with continually improving knowledge
Availability regarding the complex electrochemical processes of
The automotive industry is driving battery manufacture batteries, leading to optimized design and utilization.
and cell development. As a result, the infrastructure Additionally, new developments have now entered
catering to these demands is improving and can the market representing developments on the anode
be regarded as ready to meet a significant demand side – the use of silicon or titanium – representing
increase from the maritime sector, as well. The the opposing objectives of more affordable energy
existence of many companies specifically serving density and high performance, respectively.
The stringent requirements of the maritime industry CAPEX

have greatly advanced the level of safety that lithium- System integration costs for battery systems are often
ion battery systems can provide, particularly with significant and should be taken into account at an
regard to propagation and off-gas handling. Solid early stage of adoption. Beyond the storage system
electrolyte technologies are among the most promis- purchase price (including power electronics), the total
ing, pending advancements, and may present signif- cost includes: purchase changes (PMS/IAS/DP), instal-
icant advantages with regard to safety. Although this lation at yard (including electrical), FMEA, switchboard
advancement will need to prove capable of living up modification, commissioning and testing. All these
to the tough maritime performance requirements, collateral aspects combined can sum up to equal the
the improved level of safety they may provide would cost of the full battery system itself. The lifetime of bat-
certainly be an asset to the maritime industry. teries is highly dependent on the duty cycle for which
they are used, relative to the size of the battery.
Maritime applications are often much more demanding
on lithium-ion battery performance than other indus- For instance, a smaller battery will have reduced
tries such as consumer electronics or stationary/grid CAPEX but for a given application, will not last as long
support. These needs depend on the application, but as a larger battery. Thus, sizing is a key aspect of battery
many maritime systems require much higher power system procurement. DNV GL has performed testing
levels and much longer life cycles than may be and modelling using a verification tool called Battery
acceptable for other lithium-ion battery systems. These XT to assess these complex interrelated aspects. The
requirements represent a need in maritime systems life cycle additionally depends on battery chemistry –
that is a diversion from the pressure to improve cost there are many different types of lithium-ion batteries –
and energy density, which drives much of the current and also varies significantly based on manufacturer
technology development. or vendor. Systems are most typically engineered
and warrantied for ten years of operational life.
New technologies which may represent a large or
disruptive change in the market may be as much as
ten years away. The most evident technological OPEX
advancements are expected to be the result of Beyond efficiency, the OPEX costs are driven by
continued incremental improvements in terms of electricity prices, which vary significantly from region
cost and performance of existing battery types. to region. Norway prices are typically around
Furthermore, many of the technologies that appear 0.12 USD/kWh, while EU prices range from
to be on the horizon are likely to struggle with the 0.09 to 0.30 USD/kWh. Compared to marine diesel,
maritime environment and application requirements, assuming 11,800 kWh/t, and an average of
pushing their penetration of this market back further 600 USD/t, the cost is 0.05 USD/kWh. However, the
than others. efficiency of using this energy in a battery-driven ship
is significantly higher than that of a conventionally-
FIGURE 16: LIFETIME OF BATTERIES DEPENDS propelled ship, causing lower energy consumption
ON THE DEPTH OF DISCHARGE and cost. As a result, the OPEX of an electric ship can
200 be lower than its conventionally-powered equivalent.
NCM high The efficiency of an electrical propulsion system will
180 be approximately 76 to 85 per cent of the electrical
NCM low
Titanate LTO energy provided from shore. A typical diesel generator
160
set will have a fuel efficiency of 40 to 45 per cent,
Cycles to 80% capacity (thousands)
140 so the battery system is about twice as efficient as a

diesel generator.
120
100 The efficiency of battery systems ranges from 85

to 95 per cent (round trip), while power electronics
80 often have a 95 per cent efficiency. Power taken from
60
the shore will likely see losses of 15 to 24 per cent by
the time it reaches the propulsion motors, depending
40 on the associated components and operation. By
comparison, diesel propulsion systems rarely have
20
an efficiency exceeding 50 per cent, especially in
0 consideration of the redundancy requirements and
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 low loading.
Cycle size (depth of discharge, %)
5.10 FUEL CELLS
5.10.1 General costs will reach a competitive level after fuel cell
Fuel cells offer high electrical efficiencies of up to durability reaches the same level as the longevity of
60 per cent, as well as lower noise and vibration combustion engines.
emissions than conventional engines. The main
components of a fuel cell power system are the fuel
cells which convert the chemical energy stored in Infrastructure
the fuel directly into electrical and thermal energy Currently, relevant services are provided by the fuel
by electrochemical oxidation. This direct conversion cell manufacturers. With the exception of fuel cell
enables electrical efficiencies of up to 60 per cent, systems for military submarines, all present fuel cell
depending on the fuel cell type and fuel used. systems in shipping are non-commercial prototype
installations. The most advanced projects regarding
There are several different fuel cell technologies, future commercial application are those of the
including alkaline fuel cells (AFC), proton exchange e4ships lighthouse project. Commercialization will
membrane fuel cells (PEMFC), high-temperature include guarantee and lifetime technical support. A
PEMFCs (HT-PEMFC), direct methanol fuel cells service network similar to that for diesel engines has
(DMFC), phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFC), molten yet to be established, but infrastructure development
carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) and solid oxide fuel is expected to start at the time of the prospective
cells (SOFC). The three most promising fuel cell market launch beyond 2022.
technologies for maritime use are SOFC, PEMFC
and HT-PEMFC.
Regulations
Fuel reformers convert the original fuel into hydrogen- The international rule base for the design and con-
rich fuel for use in the fuel cells. In addition to pure struction of maritime fuel cell applications is currently
hydrogen, fuel reformers enable the use of fuels such under development at the IMO as part of the Inter-
as natural gas, methanol and low-flashpoint diesel. national Code of Safety for Ships using Gases or
other Low-flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code). Existing class
The fuel cell is working in a combustion-free electro- rules form the basis of special permits. The current
chemical process. Only a reforming process might in- international regulatory framework is geared towards
volve a small amount of fuel combustion. Consequently, combustion engines. Apart from some class rules,
cell technology can reduce emissions to air dramatically. there is no binding international regulatory frame-
work for maritime fuel cell applications.
The requirements for fuel cell installations which are
Price under development at the IMO might be integrated
Mass production, which is expected to occur beyond into the IGF Code within the scope of its first revision
2022, should allow production costs to reach a com- in 2020 at the earliest. Fuel storage and fuel supply
petitive level, as shown in Figure 17 below. Develop- systems must comply with the related chapters of the
ment projects are underway, and the most promising IGF Code, which currently covers LNG and com-
project for maritime fuel cells, e4ships, is aiming for pressed natural gas (CNG). Regulations for methanol
a market launch in 2022. With increased production, and low-flashpoint diesel are likewise under develop-
the impact of material costs will become a dominant ment and may be included in the 2020 revision of
factor in fuel cell prices. Maintenance and operational the IGF Code, as well.
FIGURE 17: POTENTIAL SCALE EFFECTS OF MASS PRODUCTION ON FUEL CELL STACK COSTS
100
Percentage of cost decrease (%)
Source: Proton Motors (2014)
90
80
70
60
50
Long-term marginal costs (projection)
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Today’s status Factor on today’s margin of produced cells

Availability Fuel cells combined with batteries (and possibly

Fuel cell systems are currently available in small super capacitors) adding peak-shaving effects are a
numbers from several manufacturers. promising option. Even proton exchange membrane
fuel cells (PEMFC), thanks to their flexible materials,
While the availability situation for materials for fuel could improve fuel cell lifetime significantly when
cells themselves is not critical, the availability of protected against the harshest load gradients. Solid
suitable fuels in larger amounts will be essential for oxide fuel cells (SOFC) must be applied in a hybrid
the technology to be adopted widely. environment using peak-shaving technology to be
a realistic alternative for shipping.
The fuels typically used in fuel cells eliminate NOX, CAPEX
SOX and particulate matter (PM) emissions nearly Fuel cell technology is still under development.
to zero. Due to the high efficiency of fuel cells, a Current installation costs are between 3,000 and
reduction of CO2 emissions by 30 per cent is possible. 4,500 USD/kW of installed electrical power. Ongoing
An example is shown in Figure 18. When using pure developments are aiming to reduce installation costs
hydrogen as a fuel, tank-to-propeller (TTP) emissions by up to 1,000 USD/kW of installed electrical power
of CO2, NOX, SOX and PM are zero. by 2022 to be competitive with modern diesel engine
installations. The reason PEM cells are dramatically
cheaper than other fuel cell types is the automotive
Technology industry’s massive investments in this technology over
Only small maritime fuel cell applications with an the past 15 to 20 years. While still too expensive for
electrical power output of up to 100 kW are currently the car market, the cost of PEM fuel cells has dropped
in operation. Current research and development work to a level that is attractive for ship applications.
aims to make maritime fuel cell systems marketable
and scalable from 2022. It should be noted that the The expected cost of automotive PEM fuel cell sys-
lifetime of fuel cell systems and reformer units has not tems based on current technology is approximately
yet been shown to be satisfactory. Since 2016, a meth- 280 USD/kW when manufactured at a volume of
anol fuel cell system has been in operation on board 20,000 units/year. This number reflects the cost of
the passenger ferry MS Mariella which is operated by the complete fuel cell system. To build a complete
Viking Line between Helsinki and Stockholm. ship system that meets regulatory requirements it
will be necessary to integrate additional safety and
Another methanol fuel cell system is installed on interface components. Similar strategic goals are
board MS Innogy, an inland passenger vessels oper- being pursued in Europe: in its 2016 annual work
ated by the White Fleet Baldeneysee and Innogy. plan and budget, the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint
Proton exchange membrane (PEM) technology in Undertaking (FCH JU) aims to achieve a fuel cell
particular has reached a development level compa- system production cost of 100 USD/kW at an annual
rable with the dimension of automotive engines and production output of 50,000 units.
capable of handling ship load changes well.
FIGURE 18: ENERGY AND EMISSION OPEX

REDUCTION POTENTIAL OF A TYPICAL The overall efficiency from fuel to propeller will be
CRUISE SHIP USING FUEL CELLS slightly higher for fuel cells than for combustion
Assumption: HT-PEMFC with methanol as fuel; exhaust gas
engines. The operational costs will be competitive
energy of fuel cell used for processes on board when:
100%
■■ fuel cells reach about the same durability as com-
bustion engines until requiring a general overhaul,
75% ■■ the cost and time of a fuel cell exchange is equal to
those of a general engine overhaul, and
50% ■■ the primary fuel prices will be competitive with MGO.
25% It should be noted that fuel cells may require less

maintenance than conventional combustion engines
0% and turbines.
Energy CO2 SOX NOX PM
6 WE SUPPORT YOU TO MAKE THE RIGHT
ADVISORY SERVICES
DNV GL Advisory can support customers in a support you in making the best business decisions
variety of services of services for assisting with the on environmental technology, and help turn environ-
upcoming the upcoming fuel shift. For optimized mental performance into a marketing advantage.
compliance, we provide low sulphur decision-making
support tailored to your specific conditions, operation As a designated technical advisor for various gov-
and requirements. ernmental initiatives to reduce ship emissions, we
have deep knowledge of the regulatory policies and
To comply with stricter environmental regulations technical solutions.
and limit costs, shipowners need to evaluate alterna-
tives to traditional fuels and technologies. But which If incidents damage the fuel systems and other related
option is best for a ship’s actual operational setting? systems, we can help alleviate the problem.
We have a wide range of experience with trouble-
As marine and industrial engineers, economists and shooting, both on a design level and on board the
environmental specialists, DNV GL has the deep ship. DNV GL engineers can help customers to find
knowledge across multiple disciplines to offer reliable root causes for the problem and recommend mod-
solutions. ifications to reduce future damage in terms of costs
and/or even off-hire.
We advise the maritime sector on environmental
regulations and compliance options, we measure For more information, please contact
and benchmark your environmental performance, environmentadvisory@dnvgl.com
Our services in environmental technology and alternative fuels include:
Fuel changeover calculator (FCO) Feasibility studies

DNV GL’s ship-specific FCO plots a complex numerical The evaluation of the technical feasibility and financial
simulation of the fuel changeover process from attractiveness of environmental technologies or fuels,
conventional HFO to ultra-low sulphur fuel oil, which such as LNG (LNG Ready), scrubbers, biofuel, battery
is typically marine gas oil (MGO). It promises a very systems, hydrogen, ballast water, VOC management,
accurate calculation and potential cost savings com- waste and waste water technologies.
pared to a linear model, and also takes into account
recommended maximum temperature change per Technology qualification
minute. The FCO also offers a comprehensive package Determination of whether a solution is fit for its given
to account for documentation requirements. Receive purpose. Risk identification and risk reduction through
more information at: www.dnvgl.com/maritime/ failure mode, effect and criticality study (FMECA),
advisory/Fuel-change-over-calculator.html hazard identification study (HAZID) or hazard and
operability study (HAZOP).
ECA support
We offer strategic advice on solutions for ECA Triple-E
compliance, including assistance in choosing and im- Triple-E is an environmental and energy efficiency
plementing technologies for reducing emissions and rating scheme for ships. As an independent verification
remaining in compliance in a cost-effective manner. tool, it measures a vessel’s environmental performance,
covering management, operation and design.
Emission analyses and assessments
We conduct tailor-made studies on fuels, technologies, Control system software testing
regulations, emissions and environmental accounting, The verification and testing of control system software
policy instruments and activity-based ship data (AIS). using Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) technology will
result in safer and more reliable automation systems
LNG intelligence portal (LNGi) and shorter commissioning times due to less software
Through our LNG intelligence portal, we offer com- issues. Any control system can be tested, e.g. EGCS/
prehensive insights into worldwide LNG bunkering scrubber, SCR, LNG as fuel, energy management
availability and market data on LNG as fuel for ships. system, ballast water treatment system.
DECISION
Advisory services provided by DNV GL
INITIATION OPERATION
Business case Contract Basic Detailed Installation Inspection Commission- Operation

concept design design sign-off ing
development
Emission
compliance HAZID for Automation
option installation testing (HIL)
Technology Special risk

qualification workshops
DNV GL ACADEMY
The DNV GL Academy offers a training course Gas as ship fuel

designed to help overcome the challenges the The course will give participants an overview about
challenges of fuel switching in ECAs by discussing the current developments in the field of gas as ship
the issues related to the change-over in detail. fuel.
Air pollution from ships in practice SOx Exhaust Gas Cleaning (EGCS) – in practice
The course objective is to gain advanced knowledge Become familiar with different SOx EGCs technologies
about exhaust emission legislation, abatement tech- available on the market, and understand applicable
nology and alternative fuels. requirements regarding SOx EGCs according to
MARPOL Annex VI & MEPC.259(68).
Low sulphur fuel – basics and experience
Participants will gain detailed knowledge for managing
the international requirements regarding sulphur For more information, please visit our training web
reduction for ship newbuildings and ships in service. page: www.dnvgl.com/maritime-academy
7 DNV GL CLASS SERVICES
Based on years of experience, DNV GL has devel-

oped several class notations to support the switch
to low sulphur fuels, preparing shipowners for lower
sulphur limits and more. The notations are briefly
described below.
Gas Ready notation Scrubber Ready

LNG as ship fuel is spreading rapidly through the DNV GL has created a class notation to help ship-
maritime world. To be more flexible and competitive, owners prepare their newbuildings for the instal-
you need to ensure your newbuilding is ready for lation of a scrubber. It ensures that the necessary
future LNG conversions. Based on the experience we preparations are in place for a smooth and cost-
have gained from our LNG Ready Service, as well as efficient scrubber retrofit at a later stage. The nota-
the 50 LNG-fuelled vessels we already have in class tion can be awarded to ships that have planned and
with our Gas fuelled notation, we have developed partly prepared for the installation of an exhaust
the new Gas Ready notation. This notation enables gas cleaning system (EGCS) for the removal of SOx
you to ensure that a future LNG-fuelled version of at a later date. The notation identifies the general
your vessel complies with the relevant safety and type and category of scrubber systems that can be
operational requirements. It also helps you specify installed on the vessel. It also details the level of
and quantify the level of investment you are making scrubber readiness, with the minimum scope attest-
at the newbuilding stage. ing that the space available and future installation
arrangement meet class and statutory requirements.
The basic notation – with nominators D and MEc – This can be expanded to include more extensive
GAS READY (D, MEc) – verifies that the vessel is in preparations, through to a complete review of the
compliance with the relevant rules in terms of its scrubber documentation according to main class
overall design for future LNG fuel operations, and rules, including the certification and installation of
that the main engine can be converted or operate piping and subsystems. For shipyards, working with
on gas fuel. the Scrubber ready standard gives an easy frame-
work within which to offer future-ready ship designs
You can also choose to add extra optional levels to to the market.
the newbuilding under the notation – putting the
vessel further along the LNG track and thereby
speeding up and simplifying a later conversion.
Gas Fuelled notation Low Flashpoint Liquid (LFL) fuelled

The Gas Fuelled notation’s requirements cover all Methanol is a low flashpoint liquid (LFL) fuel that is
aspects of the gas-fuel installation, from the ship’s gaining interest in the market because it does not
gas-fuel bunkering connection all the way up to and contain sulphur and is therefore suitable for meet-
including all gas consumers. The rules are applica- ing the existing 0.1% SOx Emission Control Area
ble to installations where natural gas is used as fuel. requirements. Methanol has a flashpoint of about 12
Other gases are subject to special consideration. degrees Celsius, and vessels will be assigned the
The class notation is mandatory for any newbuilding additional notation LFL FUELLED to demonstrate
being built with gas as fuel, either with gas-only or their compliance with the safety requirements set
dual-fuel concepts. out in the industry-first rules published by DNV GL
in June 2013.
DNV GL was the first classification society to publish

LFL rules and sees methanol as part of the future
energy mix for shipping. As well as having low SOx
and NOx emissions, a methanol fuel system is easy to
retrofit on a ship.
DNV GL has been involved in newbuilding projects

from the early design stage, working together with
the shipowner, engine maker and yard to ensure an
equivalent level of safety to that of a conventional
fuel oil system. DNV GL has made use of its long
experience with LFL cargo handling on chemical
tankers and offshore supply vessels designed to
transport low flashpoint cargo and its experience
with alternative fuels from 15 years of working with
gas-fuelled ship installations. This is a mandatory
class notation for ships using methyl alcohol or
ethyl alcohol as fuel.
SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER
Regional Maritime offices

Americas Greater China North Europe South East Europe
1400 Ravello Dr. 1591 Hong Qiao Road Johan Berentsens vei 109–111 & Middle East
Katy, TX 77449 House No.9 Postbox 7400 5, Aitolikou Street
USA 200336 Shanghai, China 5020 Bergen, Norway 18545 Piraeus, Greece
Phone: +1 2813961000 Phone: +86 21 3208 4518 Phone: +47 55943600 Phone: +30 210 4100200
houston.maritime@dnvgl.com marketing.rgc@dnvgl.com bergen.maritime@dnvgl.com piraeus@dnvgl.com
West Europe incl. Germany Korea & Japan South East Asia & India
Brooktorkai 18 7th/8th Floor, Haeundae I-Park C1 Unit, 16 Science Park Drive
20457 Hamburg 38, Marine city 2-ro, Haeundae-Gu 118227 Singapore
Germany 48120 Busan, Republic of Korea Singapore
Phone: +49 40 361495609 Phone: +82 51 6107700 Phone: +65 65 083750
region.west-europe@dnvgl.com busan.maritime.region@dnvgl.com sng.fis@dnvgl.com
DNV GL AS DNV GL
NO-1322 Høvik, Norway DNV GL is a global quality assurance and risk management company. Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property
Phone: +47 67 579900 and the environment, we enable our customers to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. Operating in more
www.dnvgl.com than 100 countries, our professionals are dedicated to helping customers in the maritime, oil & gas, power and renewables
and other industries to make the world safer, smarter and greener.
DNV GL – Maritime
Brooktorkai 18 DNV GL is the world’s leading classification society and a recognized advisor for the maritime industry. We enhance safety,
20457 Hamburg, Germany quality, energy efficiency and environmental performance of the global shipping industry – across all vessel types and offshore
Phone: +49 40 361490 structures. We invest heavily in research and development to find solutions, together with the industry, that address strategic,
www.dnvgl.com/maritime operational or regulatory challenges.
The trademarks DNV GL and the Horizon Graphic are the property of DNV GL AS. All rights reserved.
©DNV GL 04/2018 ID 1765300

DNV GL Complete-Alt-Fuels Guidance Paper 2018-04 Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DNV GL Complete-Alt-Fuels Guidance Paper 2018-04 Web

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DNV GL Complete-Alt-Fuels Guidance Paper 2018-04 Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies DNV GL – Maritime 1

SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

3 INTRODUCTION TO ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND TECHNOLOGIES 4

4 INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS AND CLASS RULES 16

5 ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND TECHNOLOGIES – A BRIEF OVERVIEW 17

6 WE SUPPORT YOU TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION 40

7 DNV GL CLASS SERVICES 42

The objective of this guidance paper is to provide

3 INTRODUCTION TO ALTERNATIVE FUELS

FIGURE 1: SHIPPING BECOMES GREENER AND MORE COMPLEX

Selected items from regulatory timeline towards 2030

2017 2018 2019

In the pipeline, or possible

EEDI phase 2 Baltic/North Sea NECA EEDI phase 3

2020 2021–2024 2025+

FIGURE 2: SHIP FUEL CONSUMPTION IS MUCH LOWER THAN DIESEL AND

Yearly energy consumption in relation to diesel and gas oil consumption

Crude oil 3.05

Figures represent 2016 statistics.

3.1 WHICH FUELS ARE ALTERNATIVES?

FIGURE 3: CO2 EMISSIONS OF FUEL ALTERNATIVES IN SHIPPING

Oil fuel (HFO)

3.2 CO2 EMISSIONS

main component of LNG is also methane, therefore

The cleanest fuel is hydrogen produced using

used in future shipping applications. Because of its

3.4 OVERALL EMISSION BEHAVIOUR

4. Otto cycle: LNG

FIGURE 5: OVERVIEW: FUEL – ENGINE SYSTEM – EMISSION

HFO LSHFO/MGO LNG

SOx Scrubber Compliance Future-proof

SOx Compliance with 0.1 MGO Future-proof

3.5 SOME THOUGHTS ON FUEL PRICING

FIGURE 6: ARE ALTERNATIVE FUELS TOO EXPENSIVE?

min. 1 1.1 0.65 0.6 0.85 0.9 1.1

3.6 FUEL AVAILABILITY

FIGURE 7: PRODUCTION OF POSSIBLE SHIP FUELS

% of today’s ship fuel (100%= energy content ship fuel)

3.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

1.  he IMO decision to limit the sulphur content of

2.  here is an accelerating worldwide trend towards

3.  NV GL identified LNG, LPG, methanol, biofuel

4.  NV GL believes battery systems, fuel cell systems

potential for ship applications.

5.  s has been demonstrated by the DNV GL

Ship video available on YouTube), the well-known

Methanol molecule Methane molecule

Biofuels Methanol LNG

Biodiesel is most suitable for replacing

Hydrogen molecule Propane molecule Butane molecule

Hydrogen is used in a variety of indus-

Fuel cell systems

5 ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND

To assess all fuels or technologies in a comparable

2. Infrastructure: Current/future distribution 7. CAPEX: Engines, storage, processing, retrofitting

8. OPEX: Exhaust cleaning, scrubber, additional

5.2 REFERENCE FUELS – HFO AND MGO

In 2016, the North American coastlines were addi- CAPEX

Notably, the sulphur limit for automotive diesel is OPEX

1. he IMO decision to limit the sulphur content of

2. here is an accelerating worldwide trend towards

3. NV GL identified LNG, LPG, methanol, biofuel

4. NV GL believes battery systems, fuel cell systems

5. s has been demonstrated by the DNV GL

5 ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND

5.2 REFERENCE FUELS – HFO AND MGO