best fuel and lube purchase practices – energy

Report
A PRESENTATION TO GREEK SHIPPING
COMMUNITY
Best Fuel Purchase Practices, Energy Management and
Asset Protection – An attempt to quantify benefits
MARPOL ANNEXE VI – AN UPDATE
BEST FUEL AND LUBE PURCHASE PRACTICES –
ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND ASSET PROTECTIONAN ATTEMPT TO QUANTIFY THE BENEFITS
1. Bunker Industry Overview and Potential for savings
2. Quantification of savings through Bunker Quantity Surveys,
ROB Surveys and Sludge Surveys
3. Holistic View of Bunker Fuel Performance including Bunker
Purchase Efficiency - Saving Millions
4. Algorithms to Identify Problem Fuels saving marine
machinery from major breakdown expenses
5. Spending less $ through best Fuel and Lube management –
Energy Efficiency and Asset Protection
6. Total Lube Management – Quantifying $ Benefits
7. Scrubbers – A new simplified low cost regulations compliant
design
INTRODUCTION TO BUNKER INDUSTRY GLOBAL AND IN SINGAPORE
GLOBAL BUNKERING – 230 MILLION MT HFO AND 70
MILLION MDO
VALUE - $240 BILLION ((HFO $700/MT, MDO $1200/MT,
AVERAGE TAKEN AS $800/MT)
SINGAPORE
QUANTITY BUNKERED IN SINGAPORE > 40 MILLION MT
THE EFFECT OF WATER
WATER CONTENT IS 0.16% AGAINST 0.06% IN JAPAN
0.1% OF WATER = 40,000 MT = $32 MILLION !
INTRODUCTION TO BUNKER INDUSTRY GLOBAL AND IN SINGAPORE
THE EFFECT OF DENSITY DIFFERENCE
EVEN FOR DENSITY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BDN (SAY 990)
AND LAB DENSITY (980), IT IS 10 MT PER 1,000 MT. IN
SINGAPORE, THIS COMES TO 400,000 MT = $320 MILLION
THE EFFECT OF QUANTITY SURVEY SHORTAGE
ASSUMING 40,000 BUNKERINGS AT 1,000 MT EACH
AND 10 MT LOST PER BUNKERING = 400,000 MT LOST DUE
TO QUANTITY SUPPLY SHORTAGE = $320 MILLION !!
ADD UP THESE LOSES AND IN SINGAPORE ALONE THE
LOSS IS NEARLY $672 MILLION
HOW TO REDUCE THESE LOSSES?
QUANTIFICATION OF SAVINGS FOR
BQS, ROB AND SLUDGE SURVEYS
#
SERVICE
NATURE OF PROBLEM
1
BQS - Quantity Shortage
30 MT
2
BQS - Density Differential 3000 X (0.990 - 0.980) = 30 MT
3
BQS - Water Differential
4 Remaining on Board (ROB)
5
Sludge Survey (SS)
COST @ $700/MT COST OF SERVICE
$21,000
$1,000
$21,000
included in #1
3000 X (0.2-0.1) = 3 MT
$2,100
included in #1
30 days X 2 MT/day = 60 MT
$42,000
$1,000
3000 X 0.5% = 15 MT
$10,500
$1,000
Savable Loss in 30 day voyage
$96,600
Total Cost of Service
about $3,000
Assumptions: 1 Bunkering Stem = 3,000 MT of HFO used up in a 30 day voyage.
WHY BQS?
• Disputes on bunker quantity are about 8 times that
of disputes on quality.
• Lot of scope for errors & manipulations
• Well known that quantities and their measurements
are manipulated by some suppliers through
sounding tape, temperature, water addition, ship
staff corruption, Cappuccino etc.
• Quantity surveys do not eliminate, but reduce
losses considerably
WHY DO BQS WITH VISWA?
Viswa Lab is the one of few labs to be accredited to ISO
17020 by Singapore Accreditation Council for the
Bunker Quantity Survey Activity
Highly Experienced, Highly paid and mature surveyors
familiar with
•
•
•
•
Cappuccino and Line blending
Calibration table and barge track record
Proper sampling and dealing with barge captains
7 Exclusive employees surveyors in Singapore/Malaysia
area, 3 in mainland China/Hong Kong area and many
more in US and Europe
WHY ROB SURVEY?
WHY ROB SURVEY
- To capture unaccounted and hidden bunker fuels on ships
- Sounding all tanks and hidden spaces for the above
- Helps in keeping ship staff and supply barge stay above
temptation
- Helps shore operations to calculate exact fuel
consumption
- Helps shore operations to order the correct bunker fuel
quantity
- Savings can be 2 MT/day or $42,000 in a 30 day voyage
WHY SLUDGE SURVEY?
HISTORY
- Some sludge is always produced on a ship; this is stored in the
sludge tank. It contains some fuel which has value
PRACTICE
The sludge generation can be increased through unethical
practices such as
- Forced de sludging of heavy oil purifier
- Excessive draining of heavy oil settling and service tank
- Forced purifier malfunctioning to extract more sludge
- Excess sludge so produced stored in sludge tank and smaller
quantity declared. The excess sludge commands premium
and payments in some ports
WHY SLUDGE SURVEY?
Viswa Solutions
-
-
Viswa surveyors will carry out comprehensive sludge survey,
calculate the sludge discharge, study the oil record book and
identify and quantify malpractices
Savings affected = 0.5% or 15 MT/3000 MT= $10,500 per 30 day
voyage
BUNKER PURCHASE EFFICIENCY (BPE)
VL uses three clear parameters to study Bunker Purchase Efficiency (BPE)
1. Density differential,
2. Water content differential
3. EFN (Engine Friendliness Number)
The study reveals that avoiding bunkering in a certain port will improve BPE
considerably. Similarly, avoiding purchasing from a certain supplier can show
dramatic improvements in BPE.
See below Singapore example
#
SUPPLIER
1
2
3
4
5
SUPPLIER A
SUPPLIER B
SUPPLIER C
SUPPLIER D
SUPPLIER E
DENSITY
DIFFERENCE
PER 1000 MT *
0
0.7
5.6
20.7
22.8
WATER PER
1000 MT **
EFN
USEFUL FUEL
RECEIVED/1000 MT
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.4
2.5
59
60
54
53
52
998.8
998
992.3
976.9
974.7
* There is a difference in the supplier BDN density and the lab determined density. Fuel buyer can claim
this difference.
** There is a difference supplier BDN water content and the lab determined water content. Fuel buyer
can also claim.
BUNKER PURCHASE EFFICIENCY (BPE)
COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE ON QUALITY
SINGAPORE PORT - 4/2010 TO 4/2011
Category
Customer
Sample #
Total Qty
O,M
O,M
O,M
O,M
O,M
M
O,M
M
O,M
M
O,M
ABCD
BBBB
CCCC
DDDD
EEEE
FFFF
GGGG
HHHH
JJJJ
LLLL
MMMM
102
48
485
459
47
603
156
385
70
176
3
277,972
118,184
1,122,273
363,783
68,455
706,002
81,186
415,716
73,776
152,996
2,140
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Density Diff
% Den Diff
Tonnes
-0.456
-0.02
-2.947
-0.11
-3.860
-0.15
-0.451
-0.11
-0.843
-0.06
-0.862
-0.07
-0.439
-0.07
-0.843
-0.08
-0.749
-0.07
-0.788
-0.10
-0.676
-0.12
DEN
H2O
Al+Si
V
EFN
995.9
998.4
999.3
989.3
1001.3
989.3
988.3
989.2
988.2
988.4
987.8
0.13
0.16
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.23
0.18
0.19
0.21
0.21
0.28
12.42
32.04
34.17
25.44
34.40
25.74
29.01
27.70
29.01
28.46
28.73
96.62
126.11
122.84
128.74
137.93
136.29
122.40
130.26
135.37
136.76
183.31
61
57
56
55
55
55
55
55
54
54
53
ABCD had lowest losses due to density differential (- 0.02%)
ABCD purchased fuel with lowest water content (0.13%)
Catfines in fuel purchased by ABCD was lowest at 12.42 ppm
Vanadium in fuel purchased by ABCD was lowest at 96.62 ppm
ABCD purchased fuel had best EFN at 61
Quantity loss per 1000 MT by ABCD due to density difference and water content
was lowest at 1.43 MT/1000 MT (worst performer lost 3.78 MT/1000 MT). This
means that ABCD saved over 2.35 MT/1000 MT or $1.65 per MT over the poorest
bunker purchase buyer.
BUNKER PURCHASE – SHOWING BENEFITS OF FUEL QUALITY
INCLUDING IGNITION AND COMBUSTION PROPERTIES
TRUE WORTH INDEX – TABLE 1
CALCULATING TWI (EFN common as 50) - TABLE 1
QUANTITY
CONSIDERED FOR AVERAGE
CALCULATION
WATER (%)
(KG)
KG
AVERAGE
AVAILABLE
WATER (Kg)
FOR
COMBUSTION
BUNKER
PORT
AVERAGE
LIFT (MT)
AVERAGE
DENSITY
(Kg/m3)
ROTTERDAM
1000
987.7
1000
0.14
14
986
SINGAPORE
1000
988.1
1000
0.16
16
984
JEDDAH
1000
968.6
1000
0.1
10
990
TOKYO
1000
983
1000
0.06
6
994
HOUSTON
1000
988.6
1000
0.16
16
984
UAE
1000
979.7
1000
0.09
9
991
BUNKER PURCHASE – SHOWING BENEFITS OF FUEL QUALITY
INCLUDING IGNITION AND COMBUSTION PROPERTIES
TRUE WORTH INDEX – TABLE 2
A
BUNKER
PORT
CALCULATING TWI with EFN common as 50 (continued)
B
C
D
E
KG
AVG
AVAILABLE
MJ in 1000 kg
CALORIFIC
FOR
(A X B)
VALUE (MJ/Kg)
COMBUSTION
ROTTERDAM
SINGAPORE
JEDDAH
TOKYO
HOUSTON
UAE
986
984
990
994
984
991
40.38
39.57
40.93
41.23
40.25
40.3
39814.7
38936.9
40520.7
40982.6
39606
39937.3
BEST PORT
Jeddah
0.0284 $/MJ or
35.16 MJ/$
F
TWI (NO EFN)
MJ available for
(expressed as
HFO 380 cost
work (C X D)
%)
44
47
61
60
42
50
17518.468
18300.343
24717.627
24589.56
16634.52
19968.65
$644
$680
$703
$707
$662
$677
G
H
$/MJ
(F/E)
MJ/$
(E/F)
0.0368
0.0372
0.0284
0.0288
0.0398
0.0339
27.20
26.91
35.16
34.78
25.13
29.50
TRUE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL FROM JEDDAH
ROTTERDAM
22.80%
SINGAPORE
23.70%
TOKYO
1.40%
HOUSTON
28.60%
UAE
16.20%
(0.0368-0.0284)/0.0368
Though Rotterdam price appears to be cheaper at $644 per MT, if you take into account the quality of the
fuel, Jeddah fuel is 22.8% less expensive even though the Jeddah fuel costs $703 per MT.
FUEL RELATED
MACHINERY PROBLEMS – P&I FINDINGS
GARD - AN INTERNATIONAL P&I COMPANY REPORTED:
• MAIN AND AUXILARY ENGINE REPORTED CLAIMS - 31%
OF TOTAL HULL AND MACHINERY CLAIMS
• INDUSTRY STATISTICS INDICATE 80% OF ALL ENGINE
BREAKDOWNS ARE RELATED TO FUEL OIL OF LUBE OIL.
• CIMAC USER GROUP IN VIENNA COMPLAINED THAT
40% OF THE VESSELS DEVELOPED MACHINERY
PROBLEMS WITHIN THE WARRANTY PERIOD.
• ENGINE BREAKDOWNS, BLACKOUTS, DRIFTING SHIPS
CONSTITUTE MAJOR DANGERS
FINDINGS OF A SURVEY CONDUCTED ON
BUNKER FUELS
- Asked if they had encountered "any serious offspecification fuel deliveries" last year, 52% said no,
while 44% said yes. 4% did not reply. Off spec
included items covered by para 5.1 of ISO 8217:2005
- 64% reported filter clogging, 48% experienced
sludging, 40% said they had fuel pump
sticking/seizures, and 19% had piston ring breakages.
- 77% said they had no regulatory problems in emission
control areas (ECAs), while 22% said they did.
MACHINERY PROBLEMS AND ISO 8217
• WITH THE REGULATIONS DRIVEN NEED TO
DROP SULPHUR CONTENT, MORE AND MORE
REFINERY PROCESS CHANGES BEING
EMPLOYED – MORE CONTAMINANTS ARE
FINDING THEIR WAY INTO THE FUEL
• COMPLIANCE WITH ISO 8217 NO GUARANTEE
THAT CONTAMINANTS WILL NOT BE PRESENT
• IN OVER 99% OF MACHINERY PROBLEMS,
FUEL CONFORMED TO THE ISO 8217 SPECS!!
17
SOME QUESTIONS
A)Can we identify problem fuels using comprehensive testing and
before they cause machinery damage?
Yes, thereby you can save machinery from poor performance
and fuel related damage.
B) Can a problem fuel be treated on board to mitigate damage?
Yes. Performance of Purifier/Filters have to be monitored closely.
Asset protection of high order can be achieved through proper
monitoring of onboard treatment
C) Can the performance of the fuel be maximized using mechanical
and chemical manipulations?
Yes. Through TFM and TLM, substantial savings can be achieved
18
HOLISTIC VIEW OF BUNKER FUEL
Using the Magic of Algorithms to identify
problem fuels and saving millions
Algorithms
Definition
Of
Algorithm
A formula or a set
of rules to solve a
problem
In Layman's terms, play with numbers (data),
find patterns and empirical rules.
Viswa Lab Algorithms
#
ALGORITHM
ACRONYM
1
ENGINE FRIENDLINESS NUMBER
EFN
2
PURIFIER EFFICIENCY FRIENDLINESS NUMBER
PEFN
3
PROBLEM FUEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
PFIN
4
TRUE WORTH INDEX
TWI
5
NEW EQUIVALENT CETANE NUMBER
NECN
6
FILTER BLOCKING TENDENCY NUMBER
FBTN
7
CONTAMINANT PRESENCE INDICATOR
CPI
8
FAMES DETECTION INDICATOR
FDI
Beautification Algorithm
Beautification Algorithm
uses mathematical
formula to alter original
form into more attractive
version
Israeli Software takes into
account 234 facial
parameters. These
parameters were arrived
at based on likes and
dislikes of 68 people who
expressed their preference
in beauty.
Algorithms In Bunker Fuel
 Typically a fuel test yields 29 data points
 With additional tests, this can be up to 40
 Yes, we can use data, statistical analysis, pattern
recognition studies to identify most of the problem
fuels
 The secret to identifying problem fuels is using
appropriate Algorithms
 Viswa Lab deeply into Algorithms and can claim
success in >85%
ALGORITHM PFIN (Problem Fuel Identification Number)
PISTON RING BREAKAGE
PROBLEM – SEVERE M.E PISTON RING BREAKAGE
PROBLEM PORTS – SINGAPORE, GREECE, GIBRALTAR,
SPAIN, PANAMA, HOUSTON
PROBLEM PERIOD – OVER 3 YEARS
NUMBER OF REPORTED CASES - OVER 100
BROKEN PISTON RINGS
WHAT IS PFIN?
(Problem Fuel Identification Number)
• Fuels with high MCR(11.5%), high asphaltene (> 10.5%) and
high CCAI (>849) were found to cause main engine piston ring
breakage. However, in a few cases even this combination did
not cause piston rings to break
• The need for finding other parameters which, in addition to
the three above can effectively pin down the problem fuels was
clear.
• VL was able to identify Xylene Equivalent number and Reserve
Stability Number as two other parameters which in
combination with the three listed above, clearly flagged fuels
likely to cause piston ring breakage with over 85% certainty
using an algorithm developed for this purpose. Further study
continuing.
PFIN GLOBAL COVERAGE
PORTS PFIN TESTS REQUIRED
PORTS PFIN TESTS NOT REQUIRED
Singapore
Hong Kong
Malta
Brazil
Gibraltar
Africa
Panama
Argentina
Houston
Australia
Spain
Russia
ARA
Japan
China
Korea
UAE
Saudi Arabia
Quantification of Fuel Quality-EFN
• Engine Friendliness Number (EFN) - Already famous
Benchmark of fuel quality.
• Quantification helps evaluation of engine
maintenance cost.
18 years, hundred’s of thousands of samples after
 EFN < 35
Fuel usually has problem
 EFN > 60
generally there is no problem
TRUE WORTH INDEX OF BUNKER FUEL –TWI
(PUBLISHED AT BUNKERWORLD.COM)
The Selection of Bunker fuel – Importance of TWI
True worth of a fuel is the energy transformable to
useful work with minimal machinery wear
What constitutes the True Worth of a Fuel?
 Calorific Value (CV) – the energy content
 Engine Friendliness Number (EFN)
 Equivalent Cetane Number (ECN) or the ability of
the fuel to combust on time to maximize fuel energy
usage
Determination FBT
Of Problem Fuel Oils
Procedure
 Fuel oil is pumped with target viscosity of 35 cst at
flow rate (20mL/min) through 10µm mesh filter
paper using a piston type metering pump.
 Back pressure of filter is recorded continuously.
 Test is designed to record pressure until 100kPa or
the volume of the oil pumped reaches 300 mL.
 FBT is pressure differential/volume pumped
Determination Of FBTN Of Problem Fuel Oils
Test parameters of fuel oil
Sample ID
AAA
BBB
CCC
DDD
Vessel Name
Morning
Express
ANTWERPEN
CARDONIA
AU ARIES
Density (kg/m3)
987.8
974.3
942.3
988.1
Viscosity @ 50°C
(cst)
330.3
310.3
407.1
330
Temperature to
attain 15 cst
viscosity ( °C)
124.5
129.7
125.7
Al+Si (ppm)
143
58
43
TSP (%,mass)
0.02
0.06
0.03
Iron (ppm)
10
36
22
Water (%,vol)
0.10
0.10
0.70
0.20
FBT number
(obtained by ASTM
formula)
1.04
15.09
2.02
3.53
Energy Management
Energy Management – Not only
saves energy…
(ENERGY = FUEL = $$)
but also reduces emissions
VISWA ENERGY INITIATIVES
Energy and Emission improvements – Driven by
regulations
VISWA Contributes through :
 TOTAL LUBE MANAGEMENT
 TOTAL FUEL MANAGEMENT
 CHOOSING THE FUELS WITH BEST VALUE (TWI) –
SAVINGS IN COST, EMISSIONS AND ENERGY
 ENERGY MONITORING – SEEMP & EEOI
 SCRUBBERS
VISWA LAB TOTAL LUBE MANAGEMENT
LUBE SELECTION BASED ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY
• Lubricants provide a barrier between rubbing surfaces and
prevent metallic wear
• Lubricants consume 5% to 15% of the energy transmitted
in order to provide this lubrication. This energy loss is used
for overcoming churning losses and friction losses which
are load, viscosity and chemistry dependent.
• Viscosity behavior under high temperature and high shear
mainly determines oil energy efficiency.
• Many base oils to meet many viscosity requirement.
VISWA LAB TOTAL LUBE MANAGEMENT
LUBE SELECTION BASED ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY
• In selecting the right lubricant for the right function, energy
aspect has not received due weightage. Energy efficiency
can be improved by selecting the right viscosity (lower the
better but must avoid boundary conditions)
• Energy efficiency can also be improved by right selection
and quantity of the additives.
• The savings in energy far outweighs the cost of the lubricant
itself.
VISWA LAB TOTAL LUBE MANAGEMENT
LUBE SELECTION BASED ON ASSET PROTECTION
• Asset protection simply means reduced wear and tear in
the machinery. Wear and tear can be reduced by correct
selection of additives and their quantity
• Wear and tear can be reduced by monitoring the oil
condition and taking preventive action
• Wear and tear reduced by the correct filtration, particle
count, temperature and every operational aspect of the oil
• Asset protection should extend even to the surface finish
condition of the rubbing parts.
• The machinery life can be extended 3-4 times by investing
in the above points
VISWA LAB TOTAL LUBE MANAGEMENT
LUBE CONDITION MONITORING INCLUDING
AFTERMARKET ADDITIVES.
• Detergents to keep spaces clean which will have the effect
of clean combustion which could add to the fuel efficiency.
• Detergents prevent scale formation which impedes heat
transfer (0.1 mm layer of soot/sludge can affect heat
transfer to the effect of 50 to 100 degC). Higher the temp of
the piston, greater the wear on the liner and piston ring.
• Identifying and purchasing After Market Additives - This is
based on knowledge and functionality and how the
additives work. This can provide valuable asset protection,
higher energy efficiency, lower wear and particles
generation and longer life for the lubricating oil.
VISWA LAB TOTAL LUBE MANAGEMENT
LUBE AND MACHINERY DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
WEAR DEBRIS ANALYSIS
Viswa Total Fuel Management
A concept in fuel management introduced by Viswa in 2001
 How to get the best out of the fuel – Maximize Thermal Efficiency
 Obtain the ignition and combustion characteristics.
 Carry out complete analysis and forensic studies to identify chemical
contaminants.
 Based on analysis results and EFN and TWI values of the fuel, mechanical
manipulation of machinery controls to obtain maximum thermal
efficiency
 Also chemical manipulation by using additives or lighter fractions such as
distillate fuels
TFM Benefit – As Computed For APL/NOL SHIPPING
Calculations Over Several Voyages
Location
Hong Kong
San Pedro
San Pedro
Hong Kong
Singapore
Quantity (MT)
3200
3307.2
3600
4290.03
5600
Viscosity
324.8
295.8
491
302.6
444.7
Consumption before TFM
(MT/day)
210.84
217.47
206.4
204.62
207.66
Percentage Fuel Savings
per day after TFM
2.80%
1.98%
4.79%
1.82%
1.80%
Actual fuel savings per day
after TFM
3.799
4.306
4.309
3.725
3.744
Cost of Fuel
$452.00
$452.00
$500.00
$520.00
$600.00
Savings over 30 day
voyage
$51,517.15
$58,383.94
$64,635.00
$58,106.88
$67,392.00
Cost of Test and Advisory
service
$3,000 to $4,000
$3,000 to $4,000
$3,000 to $4,000
$3,000 to $4,000
$3,000 to $4,000
Tests Performed On Fuel For TFM
Routine Analysis
Fuel Tech
Ignition and
Combustion
Purifier Efficiency Before & After Spectroscopic And
Particle Count
TAN/SAN
Xylene
equivalent
number
Analyze Ship
Machinery
Condition With
Logged Data
GC-MS
Reserve stability
number
Monitor Results
After Corrections
Are
Implemented
Asphaltene
Stability
How Does It Work
Output:
Parameters derived from Combustion
Pressure Trace and Rate of Heat Release
(ROHR)
Case: Problem Fuel
Combustion Pressure Trace
Fuel Properties According
to ISO 8217
Normal fuel
Problem fuel
6,5
Pressure increase (bar)
5,5
• Caused extensive problems for
main engine
– Reduced engine output
– Heavy knocking at part load
– Cylinder components needed
replacement
4,5
3,5
2,5
1,5
0,5
-0,5 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Tim e (m sec)
ROHR Curves
Normal fuel
2,0
1,5
• FIA testing at Fueltech shows:
– Bad ignition and combustion
properties
– Indication of dumb-bell fuel
ROHR (bar/msec)
Problem fuel
1,0
0,5
0,0
0
5
10
15
-0,5
Tim e (m sec)
20
25
30
FIA - Curve & Glossary
Figures on Manipulation
Sample Ref
Normal Fuel
Temp increase
Chamber ref. pressure
Chamber ref. temp.
Fuel ref. temp.
Cooling water ref. temp.
45.0 bar
500.0 °C
113.5 °C
90.0 °C
45.0 bar
520.0 °C
113.5 °C
90.0 °C
Ignition delay
Start of main combustion
Combustion periode
Max. ROHR position
Max. ROHR level
8.10 ms
13.50 ms
38.5 ms
13.6 ms
0.9 bar/ms
6.15 ms
9.25 ms
17.3 ms
9.4 ms
1.7 bar/ms
ENERGY
MANAGEMENT MODULES
FUEL MANAGEMENT
 SHIP ENERGY EFFICIENCY MANAGEMENT
 CREATING AWARENESS AND MOTIVATION AND
TRAINING IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN
 VOYAGE PLANNING
 OPTIMIZED SHIP HANDLING
 HULL MAINTENANCE
ONBOARD ENERGY MONITOR
MEASURES THE FOLLOWING
 EEOI - Energy Efficiency Operational Index
 TonHFO/Ton nm - Mass of HFO per nautical mile
 TonLFO/Ton nm - Mass of LFO per nautical mile
 TonCO2/nm - CO2 per nautical mile
 kWh/nm - Energy used per nautical mile
 kWh/Shaft Kw - ME efficiency
 TonCO2/shaft kWh - CO2 per shaft energy
 kn/shaft kWh - Velocity per shaft energy
 Ton CO2 / kWh - Generators emissions
 GEffi. - % Generator and efficiency
 Ton CO2 / kWh - Boiler emissions
SOME OTHER FUEL SAVING OPTIONS
TECHNOLOGY
Optimized Hull design and form
Weather and Voyage Routing
Propeller Mewis Duct
Fins on propeller boss nut
Propeller - 3 blades
Trim Adjustment
Wind Energy
LFC Paint
Emulsion Fuel
Choosing the right lubricants
POSSIBLE SAVING
upto 10%
4%
4% to 6%
1%
upto 3%
3% to 5%
upto 50%
upto 9%
upto 10%
5% to 15%
OTHER ENERGY SAVING OPTIONS
STARISTIND
GriegStarShipping
firstvessel
withMDinfullscale
September2009
Cost around USD 200,000.
Fitting time 2 days in Dry Dock
Retrofitting Possible. Currently 140 on order
Upto 6% energy savings
4
Scrubbers
•
•
•
•
•
EXPENSIVE MARINE DISTILLATE
FUELS
TIGHTER SULFUR REGULATIONS
SRUBBERS - VIABLE ALTERNATIVE
MARPOL ANNEXE VI
LIMITS ON SULPHUR
GLOBAL (Jan 1st)
ENTRY INTO
FORCE DATE
>= 2012
TO
2020/25*
LIMITS
3.5% +
EMMISSION CONTROL AREAS
>= 2020/25*
>= 1 Jul 2010
TO
< 1 Jan 2015
>= 1 Jan 2015
0.5% +
1.0% +
0.10% +
* EFFECTIVE YEAR (2020 OR 2025) WILL BE DECIDED IN 2018
+ ALTERNATE TECHNOLOGIES ALSO ACCEPTABLE INCLUDING
EXHAUST GAS CLEANING SYSTEM
LIMITS ON SULPHUR
- EUROPEAN UNION (EU) REQUIREMENTS AND CARB
0.1 % SULPHUR LIMIT(m/m) FOR MARINE
FUEL INTRODUCED
 EFFECTIVE DATE: JANUARY 1, 2010
 APPLIES TO ALL TYPES OF MACHINERY
CALIFORNIA – 0.1% FROM 01 JANUARY
2014
Why Scrubbers? CASE 1
Consider a ship of 35,000 DWT consuming 25 MT per day.
Based on detailed working, it is reasonable to assume that a
ship will be in ECA area for at least 100 days in a year.
Take the example of a ship coming from Japan/China to US
West Coast.
– Voyage takes 30 days. In a year, at least 11 voyages.
This will involve:
• Port stay of 11 voyages X 2 x 3 days stay = 66 days.
• Maneuvering time of 0.5 day X 22 times = 11 days
• US West Coast ECA entry will be 1 X 22 = 22 days.
• Total ECA time = approximately 100 days
Why Scrubbers?
Consider the following benefits for Case 1
• As ECA area increases, this 100 days can become much more thereby
increasing the savings.
• Post 2015, the differential cost between HFO and MDO can be much more
than $300 per MT.
• After 2020, there will be substantial benefit when the sulfur content is
capped at 0.5%. Assuming the ship will be around for another 10 years, the
savings will be:
– 265 (days) X 25 (consumption) X $220 +
– 34 (days) X 20 (consumption) X $220 +
– 66 (days) X 5 (port consumption) X $220 = $1,680,000 per year
• So from 2012 to 2020, savings are $ 630,000 and
From 2020 to 2030, savings are $18,500,000
Why Scrubbers?
Other benefits are:
• Not having to have more tanks and
pipelines for LS fuel,
• The freedom to buy any sulphur fuel,
• Not having to go to ports with added delay
and bunkering small quantities of low
sulphur fuel all of which are expensive and
time consuming.
Introducing VISWA Scrubbers
Forefront of Technological
Excellence. Fully
automated trouble free
operation
A product developed by
three IIT (Indian Institute
of Technology) Engineers
with combined experience
of over 100 years
30 years of experience,
supplying pollution
control equipment
including scrubbers
Expertise in all aspects of
Ships and Marine industry
through the Viswa Group
VISWA Scrubbers
Features and Options
Single
scrubber
Includes
can treat
main
exhaust
engine,
gas
auxiliary
streams
boilers and
from ALL
generators
combustion
sources
Scrubber
capacities
up to 20
MW
Higher
capacity
scrubbers
available
Options for
exhaust
gas
treatment
in ports
A LOGICAL alternative to
WET SCRUBBERS - An exclusive from Viswa Scrubbers
• A new simplified low cost regulations
compliant design
• New Design Dry scrubbers
• Spray Dried Absorbers
• Uses lime for SO2 capture
•
Safe to handle
• No Centrifuges
• No wash water to be discharged
Schematic Diagram of SDA
Atomizer
Air to
Atomizer
Inlet exhaust gas
From main
engine, auxiliary
engine and
boilers
Fabric Filter
Stack
Spray
Dryer
Lime
& Water
Waste solids
(CaSO3 &
CaSO4)
Advantages of SDA
Ca(OH)2 + SO2 > CaSO3 + H2O
CaSO3 + ½ O2 > CaSO4
CONCLUSION
Substantial savings are possible through bunker quantity
management
Asset protection and long term savings are possible
through a Holistic Management of Bunker fuels
Energy Efficiency can be augmented through fuel savings
and Total Fuel Management and Energy saving in Total
Lube Management. Lube Management also enhances asset
protection
Low cost new design scrubbers help in conforming to
emission regulations with maximum savings and minimum
complications
Additional Energy Savings ideas
Viswa Lab will continuously partner, participate and
contribute in realizing these goals
MARPOL ANNEXE VI
REGULATIRY UPDATES
* MEPC 62
EEDI – 01 JAN 2013 – NEW SHIPS
SEEMP 01 JAN 2013 – ALL SHIPS
EEOI ( Voluntary )
MARKET BASED MEASURES DISCUSSED
*MEPC 63
LARGELY UNEVENTFUL
Clarifications on EEDI
Discussions on ECA compliant fuels
Market Based Measures Discussed
65
MEPC 62
•
•
•
•
•
Chapter 4 Enters into Force on 01Jan 2013
All ships 400 GT and Above (Some exceptions )
Attained EEDI not to exceed Required EEDI
Building Contract on or after 01 Jan 2013
No Building Contract - Keel Laid or Similar stage
of construction
• Irrespective of above dates delivery on or after
01Jan 2015
• All ships to be provided with SEEMP
• 30% reduction in three phases by 2025
Energy Efficiency Design Index
Environmen
tal cost
EEDI
Benefit for society
• Cost: Emissions of CO2
• Benefit: Cargo capacity & transport work
Complex formula to accommodate most
ship types and sizes
67
Attained Index
Environm ental cost
Attained designCO2 index 
Benefit for society
• Cost: Emission of CO2
• Benefit: Cargo capacity transported a certain distance
• Relates to seagoing maximum condition – maximum capacity
transported using maximum engine power
Attained Index
CF  SFC  P
Attainedindex 
f i  Capacity Vref  f w
• CF: Conversion between fuel and CO2
• SFC: Specific fuel consumption
• P, Vref and Capacity: A consistent set of engine power required to
sail at a certain speed when the ship is carrying its capacity in calm
weather
• fw: Speed reduction factor in wind and waves
• fi: Correction factor for any regulatory limitation on capacity
Benchmark Against Baseline
Different Benchmarks for different types
Benchmark against a baseline
• From public databases (LRFP*) a baseline for the ship types in
the current MEPC discussion is derived for
– Bulker
– Tanker
– Gas carrier
– Container ships
– General cargo ships
– Ro-ro passenger ships, etc.
• The “Required EEDI” of a new ship shall be below the
Baseline
EEDIRequired < EEDIBaseline
EEDI base line vs. required EEDI
EEDI base line = a x DWT–c
To be determined according to “Guidelines”
Reduction of EEDI (MEPC61)
Required EEDI = base line x (1-(X/100))
X = reduction ratio of EEDI(%)
Y DWT : Ship Size requiring attained EEDI to be less than required EEDI
Y
73
Baseline Establishment
• EEDI New Baseline formula agreed at MEPC 60
Baseline Establishment
Baseline value  a  b c
Ship type
[Passenger ships
a
b
c
[]
]
Dry Cargo Carriers
DWT
Gas tankers
DWT
Tankers
DWT
Container Ships
DWT
[Ro-Ro Ships
General Cargo Ships
]
DWT
[Ro-ro Passenger Ships
Refrigerated Cargo Ships
]
DWT
• If the design of a ship makes it possible to fall into more than one of the above ship type definitions
the required energy efficiency design index for the ship the most stringent energy efficiency design index.
Verification of EEDI
Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI)
• An efficiency indicator for all ships (new and existing) obtained
from fuel consumption, voyage (miles) and cargo data (tonnes)
Actual Fuel
Consumption
Index
Fuel Consumption in Operation
=
Cargo Onboard x (Distance traveled)
78
Objective of the EEOI
•Measuring energy-efficiency of existing ships
•Evaluation of operational performance by owners or operators
•Continued monitoring of individual ship
•Evaluation of any changes made to the ship or its operation
•Currently voluntary in nature
Market Based Instruments
• Should MBIs be included?
• Reasons for MBIs
– Long life of ships
– Growth of international shipping
– CO2 reductions due to EEDI (new ships) = long term measure
– Measures on existing ships = not sufficient to meet reductions of
20% or more in the short terms (up to 2020)
• Which MBI?
- Bunker Levy (Denmark/Japan)
- Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) (Norway,
Germany, U.K. & France)
- US alternative – based upon EEDI
- World Shipping Council (WSC) – modified US alternative
- IUCN Proposal of Levy on Imported Goods
- Bahama proposal of doing nothing other than Technical and
Operational Measures.
Work Being Done At IMO
•
EEDI and SEEMP will come into force as a part
of MARPOL Annex VI by 2013 under tacit
acceptance.
•
Many leading maritime nations (European and
Asian) are testing EEDI Formula and EEDI Base
formula and carrying out impact assessment and
reporting back to IMO for development of
regulations that are equitable and
implementable.
MEPC 63
SESSION 27 FEB TO 02 MARCH 2012
• EEDI Formula Correction Factors AGREED
Bulk carriers and Tankers built to CSR
Ship Specific Structural Enhancements
Containerships – 70% Deadweigtht
Chemical carriers Cubic correction factor
ICE Class ships
ALL SHIPS - Weather correction factor option
Minimum Power and Mimnimum Speed – No
AGREEMENT reached – defer to MEPC 64
82
Epilogue – Crisis ; Danger or Opportunity ?
Crisis
83
Danger
Opportunity
Climate Change
Green Growth
Coming together is a beginning,
Staying together is progress &
Working together is a success
- Henry Ford
Viswa Lab will be happy to be your partner in
these endeavors and to achieve these goals
together
THANK YOU

similar documents