SHIP EMISSION REDUCTION

AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

MODIFICATIONS

INTERNSHIP REPORT

Ossama Ali
Intern
SP & PL
PNSC
Introduction

IMO Standards

Ship Emission Reduction

Increasing Ship Energy OUTLINE

Efficiency

Conclusion
 Introduction
The shipping industry must comply with international standards to curb emissions
and achieve higher energy efficiencies due to the adverse effects of climate
change on marine habitat and the environment. This involves modifying marine
vessel engines and adopting emission control technologies to reduce GHG, SOx,
and NOx emissions. This presentation discusses global pollution prevention
standards, emission control technologies, and modifications for ship energy
efficiency, including reducing fuel consumption and increasing power system
efficiency. A comparison of technologies based on fuel savings and investment
costs is also provided.
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
Standards
 IMO Standards and Targets
1) For Ship Emission Reduction

Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention regulates the emission of CO2, SOx, and
NOx from ships.

IMO’s Target is to achieve 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 from 2008
levels.

The table below summarizes all major ship emissions and their causes, effects and
limits for each pollutant emission as set by IMO MARPOL 73/78
No. Pollutant Cause Effect IMO Regulations
1 SOx (SO2 main contaminant) Sulfur is inherently  Ozone Depletion  MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI
present in marine fuels.
Burning of fuel produces
SO2.  Acid Rain  For SECA Areas: sulfur content
in fuel < 0.1% wt.%
 Respiratory distress
in humans  For non- SECA Areas: sulfur
content in fuel < 0.5% wt.%
2 NOx (includes N2O, NO2, and HNO3) Cylinder temperatures  Acid Rain  MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI
above 1500 C result in
chemical reaction of
Nitrogen and Oxygen  Green House Gases  Applicable to engines having
gases present in (GHGs) participating power output >130 kW.
combustion air. in depletion of ozone Emission limiting value
layer. calculated as per NOx
Technical Code 2008 that
enlists tiers dependent on
engine rpm.
3 CO2 and CO Burning of fuel produces  Both CO2 and CO are  Long-term 50% (2050)
Carbon dioxide and its GHGs and harmful
incomplete combustion for the ozone layer  Mid-term 30% (2025)
produces CO. and are a source of
 Short-term 20% (2020)
Global Warming.
 IMO Standards and Targets
2) For Increasing Ship Energy Efficiency

The IMO has set standards for ship energy efficiency, including measures to
reduce ship resistance and improve power system efficiency.

The standards encourage the use of technology such as air lubrication systems
and propeller efficiency devices to reduce fuel consumption and emissions.

They also require ship-owners to conduct regular energy efficiency audits and
develop ship-specific energy efficiency plans.
 IMO Standards and Targets
2) For Increasing Ship Energy Efficiency

EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index) is a mandatory international standard

that sets minimum energy efficiency levels for new ships.

EEXI (Existing Ship Energy Efficiency Index) is a new, mandatory requirement

for existing ships to improve their energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.

Both EEDI and EEXI are part of the IMO's efforts to reduce emissions from the
shipping industry and combat climate change.
 IMO Standards and Targets
2) For Increasing Ship Energy Efficiency:

• EEDI is the Energy Efficiency Design Index of the reference new ship.

• f is a correction factor that reflects the technological and operational improvements

that have been made since the reference ship was built.

• c1 is a coefficient that depends on the ship's size, engine power, and propulsion system.

• c2 is a coefficient that depends on the ship's operational profile.

Ship Emission
Reduction
 Ship Emission Reduction
1) Using Alternative Fuels:

IMO’s Target is to achieve 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050.

Sr Alternative Fuel SO2 NOx CO2

No. Reduction Reduction Reduction
Potential Potential Potential
1 LNG 80% 80% 20%

2 Methanol 99% 80% 15%

3 Bio-methanol 99% 80% 90%

4 Hydrogen gas 100% 100% 100%

 Ship Emission Reduction
Comparison of well-to-wake emissions from conventional fuels and biofuels:

Engine Type Carbon-neutral (fossil as State Well-to-wake emission value

reference) (gCO2eq/MJ) available in
literature
  Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) fossil Liquid 99
  reference

Waste oils, fats Liquid 2

Diesel Hydro-treated oils and fats Liquid 14-17 (used oil)

Biomass to liquid fuels, bio oil from Liquid 5-20

pyrolysis
 Ship Emission Reduction

Challenges in utilizing Alternative Fuels:

• Limited availability of biofuels due to resource-intensive production and limited infrastructure.

• Biofuels are generally more expensive than traditional fossil fuels.

• Technical modifications to engines and equipment are required for the use of biofuels in
shipping.

• Sustainability concerns regarding biofuel production and land-use changes.

 Ship Emission Reduction (CO2)
2) Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):

It is a concept that is in its early stages of implementation in the shipping

industry.
Classification:
Sr Parameter Pre-combustion Oxyfuel Post-combustion
No. CCS combustion CCS CCS
Gasification of fossil Combustion with Capture of CO2
Process fuel, separating CO2 pure oxygen, from flue gas after
1 before combustion producing flue gas combustion
rich in CO2
2 Efficiency High Moderate Moderate to low

3 Cost High High Moderate to high

4 CO2 purity High High Low to moderate

Ship Emission Reduction (CO2)

Sr Parameter Pre-combustion Oxyfuel Post-combustion

No. CCS combustion CCS CCS
Gasifier, reformer, Boiler, air separation Absorption column,
5 Equipment scrubber, CO2 unit, CO2 solvent, scrubber,
compressor compressor CO2 compressor,
refrigeration
Not well-suited for Not well-suited for Suitable for
ships due to ships due to retrofitting on
6 Suitability significant significant existing ships and
modifications modifications new builds
required required
Higher energy Potential emissions
7 Environmental consumption due to of toxic chemicals
Lower emissions
impact air separation, NOx from solvents and
formation flue gas
 Ship Emission Reduction (CO2)
Challenges in using post-combustion CCS:

• Post-combustion CCS systems are bulky and heavy, making them challenging to install on
ships.

• Capturing CO2 from ship exhaust requires significant energy, which can reduce the ship's
efficiency and increase operating costs.

• Limited space on ships makes it difficult to install post-combustion CCS systems, which can
be large and require additional infrastructure.

• Post-combustion CCS systems require careful maintenance and operation to ensure that they
operate effectively and safely.

• The storage and disposal of captured CO2 can be challenging, particularly on ships, which
have limited space for storage and may be subject to strict regulations.
 Ship Emission Reduction (SOx)
1) Using Low Sulfur fuels produced by fuel pre-treatment:

Sr No. Potential SOx

Sulfur Content, Emissions SOx Reduction
Fuel Type % by wt (Kg/mt) Potential

1 180 HSFO 3.5 - 4.0 35 - 40 80 - 95%

2 380 HSFO 2.5 - 3.5 25 - 35 80 - 95%
3 VLSFO 0.5 - 0.1 5 - 10 90 - 98%
4 MGO < 0.1 <1 99.5%
5 MDO 0.1 - 1.5 1 - 15 80 - 95%
 Ship Emission Reduction (SOx)
2) Using Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (Scrubbers):

Scrubbers remove SOx from marine vessel exhaust by spraying an alkaline solution (such as
seawater or a specialized chemical) onto the exhaust gases, which reacts with the SOx to form
salts that can be separated from the scrubber system.

Challenges:

• Limited space availability makes installing scrubbers on ships challenging.

• The complexity of the installation process can lead to delays and unexpected costs.

• Compatibility issues between the scrubber system and existing ship equipment can pose
significant challenges.

• Securing necessary permits and approvals can add additional time and complexity to the
installation process
 CLASSIFICATION OF SCRUBBERS
Sr Type Working SOx Reduction Cost Energy Installation
No Efficiency % Consumption Space
.

These scrubbers
use seawater to
remove sulfur
1 dioxide (SO2)
Open Loop Scrubbers 50-70% Low Low Moderate
from the exhaust
gas, which is then
discharged back
into the sea.

These scrubbers
use a closed-loop
system, which
2 means that the
Closed Loop Scrubbers washwater used 90-95% High High High
to remove SO2
from the exhaust
gas is treated and
reused.

These scrubbers
can operate in
90-95% (closed
either closed loop
loop mode), 50-
3 Hybrid Scrubbers or open loop Moderate to High Moderate to High Moderate
70% (open loop
mode, depending
mode)
 Ship Emission Reduction (NOx)
1) Using Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR):

The SCR system in marine vessels reduces harmful nitrogen oxide emissions by injecting urea
solution into the exhaust stream and converting it into nitrogen and water through a catalytic
reaction.

2) Using Exhaust Gas Recirculation System (EGRS):

The EGRS (Exhaust Gas Recirculation System) in marine vessels reduces nitrogen oxide
emissions by redirecting a portion of the engine's exhaust gas back into the combustion chamber,
lowering the combustion temperature and reducing the formation of nitrogen oxides.

3) Using Direct Water Injection (DWI):

Direct water injection in marine vessel combustion chambers reduces engine exhaust
temperatures and lowers harmful nitrogen oxide emissions by injecting water into the combustion
chamber, which vaporizes and absorbs heat, thus reducing peak combustion temperatures.
 Ship Emission Reduction (NOx)
Sr Factor SCR EGRS DWI
No.
NOx
1 Up to 95% Up to 60% Up to 70%
reduction
efficiency %
2 Cost High Medium Low
3 Installation
Large Small Small
space
4 Energy Moderate to
consumptio Low to moderate Low
high
n
5 Ease in
Difficult Easy Easy
retrofitting
6 Fuel savings Up to 5% Up to 2% Up to 3%
7 Urea handling Backpressure on Corrosion and
Challenges
and storage the engine engine damage
Comparison of Ship Emission
Reduction Methods
Sr Alternative Target Pollutant Cost of Fuel Savings
Fuel/Modification/Technology Pollutants Reduction Ownership/ compared to
(%) Installation ($US HSFO
million)

CO2, SOx, NOx Retrofit cost varies

1 Biofuels Up to 80% 5-20%
from 0.1-10

CO2, SOx, NOx Retrofit cost varies

2 LNG Up to 30-40% 10-30%
from 10-25

CO2 None (can increase

3 Post-combustion CCS 85-90% 20-30 (estimated)
fuel usage)

None (can increase

4 Scrubbers SOx Up to 90% 6.15
fuel usage)

5 VLSFO (Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil) SOx, NOx Up to 80-90% None 2-8%

6 SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction) NOx Up to 70-95% 5.375 2-5%

EGRS (Exhaust Gas Recirculation

7 NOx 50-60% 0.7-1 1-3%
System)
Increasing Ship Energy
Efficiency
 Increasing Ship Energy Efficiency
1) By Reducing Ship Resistance:

Each 10 microgram of roughness adds 1% to the fuel consumption.

The frictional drag makes up for over 80% of overall drag that a tanker ship
experiences.

The Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) is a measure proposed by

IMO to evaluate the energy efficiency of existing ships, and it is calculated based
on the ship's Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), size, power, propulsion,
and operational profile.
 Increasing Ship Energy Efficiency
Methods Available for Reducing Ship Resistance:

1) Air Lubrication Method: Reduces frictional resistance by injecting air bubbles beneath
the ship's hull, creating a layer of air that reduces contact with water.

2) Bulbous Bow Retrofitting: Increases the effective waterline length, which reduces wave-
making resistance and increases speed.

3) Polymer Solutions: Coats the hull with a thin layer of polymer to reduce frictional
resistance and prevent bio-fouling.

4) Surfactant Solutions: Reduces the drag resistance of water by reducing surface tension
and creating a boundary layer that reduces friction.

5) Anti-fouling Coatings: Reduces the accumulation of marine organisms on the hull,

which reduces frictional resistance and increases fuel efficiency.
Sr Technology/Modification Classification Components/Composition/Examples

• Oil-free compressors
• Micro-bubble drag reduction ALS • Automation system
1 Air Lubrication System • Air layer drag reduction ALS • Piping
• Air cavity drag reduction ALS • Power cables
• Air Release Units (ARUs)

• ∆-Type (center of area in lower half,

volume concentration near base) Composition of Bulbous Bow:
2 Bulbous Bow Retrofitting • O-Type (center of area in middle) • Steel (strength and durability)
• ∇-Type (center of area in upper half, • Fiberglass (additional benefit: light-weight)
volume concentration near free surface)

• Water Solube Polymers • Polyethylene oxide and Polyacrylamide

3 Polymer Solutions
• Solvent Soluble Polymers • Polystyrene and Polymethyl methacrylate

• Sodium Lauryl Sulfate

• Anionic
• Cetyltrimethylammoinium Bromide
4 Surfactant Solutions • Cationic
• Triton X-100
• Non-ionic

• self-smoothing-copper-silyl-acrylate
copolymer
• Copper-based coatings
• self-polishing silyl methacrylate
• Self-polishing coatings
• blend of silyl methacrylate copolymer and
5 Anti-fouling Coatings • Hybrid coatings
silicone-hydrogel
• Silicone-based coatings
• silicone-hydrogel biocide
• Non-toxic coatings
• polyethylene glycol
Comparison of Cost, Fuel Savings and Payback Period of Ship Resistance Reduction Methods

Sr Technology/Modification Installation Cost Fuel Savings Payback Period

1 Air Lubrication System $860,000 5-8% 2-5 years

2 Bulbous Bow Retrofitting $350,000-$850,000 12-15% Less than 1 year

3 Polymer Solutions $1,000-$10,000+ 5-10% 1-2 years

4 Surfactant Solutions $1,500-$10,000+ 2-5% 2-4 years

5 Anti-fouling Coatings $2,000-$50,000+ 5-15% 3-5 years

 Increasing Ship Energy Efficiency
2) By Improving Power System Efficiency

i) Using Contra-Rotating Propeller (CRP)

A contra-rotating propeller improves ship energy efficiency by increasing power

system efficiency through its unique design of using two counter-rotating propellers,
which reduces wasted energy and increases propulsion power.

The working principle is simple and effective: the power is split in a forward and aft
propeller which through the different direction of rotation cancel out the rotational
energy losses behind the propeller
 Increasing Ship Energy Efficiency
Benefits of CRP

• Contra-rotating propellers (CRP) increase propulsive efficiency by reducing energy losses.

• CRP improves fuel efficiency and reduces emissions.

• CRP design enables ships to achieve higher speeds and better maneuverability.

• The use of contra-rotating propellers can reduce or eliminate cavitation, which reduces wear
and tear on the propellers and increases their lifespan.
 Cost of CRP system and effect on emissions and fuel consumption:

Sr Technology/Modification Installation Cost Fuel Savings Payback Period

1 CRP System $800,000-$1,000,000 6-12% 5 years

Sr Parameter % Reduction after installing CRP system

1 Fuel Consumption 15%

2 CO2 emissions 5%

3 SOx emissions 90%

4 NOx emissions 60%

Comparison of Methods for Increasing Ship
Energy Efficiency
Sr Technology/Modification Installation Cost Fuel Savings Payback Period

1 Air Lubrication System $860,000 5-8% 2-5 years

2 Bulbous Bow Retrofitting $350,000-$850,000 12-15% Less than 1 year

3 Polymer Solutions $1,000-$10,000+ 5-10% 1-2 years

4 Surfactant Solutions $1,500-$10,000+ 2-5% 2-4 years

5 Anti-fouling Coatings $2,000-$50,000+ 5-15% 3-5 years

6 CRP System $800,000-$1,000,000 6-12% 5 years

 Conclusion

To reduce global GHG emissions from the shipping industry, modifications in

existing ships are needed to meet stringent IMO regulations. Scrubbers and SCR
units can reduce SOx and NOx emissions by up to 90%, while carbon capture and
storage may reduce CO2 emissions by 85-90%. Standards of energy efficiency
have also been defined, and modifications like ALS, bulbous bow retrofitting, and
CRP systems can lead to fuel savings of up to 15%. By utilizing these
modifications, the shipping industry can significantly reduce their GHG
emissions and promote environmental sustainability.