Ammonia1 July 2020 •09:00-09:45 BST

Part ofMarine Fuels Webinar Week29 June-3 July 2020

Webinar Q&A summary:NdV | Niels de Vries, C-Job Naval ArchitectsTB | Tore Boge, NCE Maritime CleanTechJF | Jan Flores, NETSCoRS | Rob Stevens, Yara International

Sponsored by

Can you clarify the fuel production cost comparing NH3 to other fuels? Which fuel is the most expensive/cheap to produce?

NdV | Please see:

https://c-job.com/new-research-shows-safe-and-effective-application-of-ammonia-as-marine-fuel-according-to-c-job-naval-architects/

and

https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:be8cbe0a-28ec-4bd9-8ad0-648de04649b8?collection=education

See Appendix A (Mentioned in the report and appendix)

RS | I would refer to the excellent graphs in the IEA 2019 Hydrogen for the future G20 paper, keeping in mind that the cost graphs there likely do not

include the project costs and cost of ownership. The cost is by green power costs (OPEX) and electrolyser costs H2 (CAPEX), which is the same for all e-fuels.

For ammonia the HaberBosch loop comes into addition, which is cheaper than the Fishcer Tropsch synthetic carbo. Energy consumption for capturing

nitrogen from the air is cheaper than capturing CO2 from the air. Haber-Bosch is net exothermic. The energy generated is mainly re-consumed to run the

compressor for the HB loop. Hence, ammonia production only consumes marignal energy compared to the hydrogen generation in the front-end.

Will the ammonia fuel cell run on ammonia or will the ammonia be ‘cracked’ to hydrogen before used in the fuel cell?

NdV | See Q link for more info for the options you can consider. Most preferably no cracking with direct use in SOFC. Requires more developments.

TB | For ShipFC the SOFC will run on ammonia, with internal ‘cracking’ to hydrogen.

JF | Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) will run wit ammonia via self cracking. Polymer Electrolyte Members Fuel Cell (PEMFC), most efficient, only runs on pure

hydrogen.

RS | SOFC ammonia only, but one can think of hybrid systems, where the SOFC-generated heat is used to crack the NH3 to pure H2 which can run a cheaper

PEM fuel cell (car type).

Is ammonia synthesis considered to be done on board the ship? And is the dynamic green ammonia synthesis (feeding fluctuating green H2 and N2 to

the ammonia reactor without storing them) a feasible option?

RS | Ammonia synthesis onboard is not an option, as you would require hydrogen storage and power. It would be more efficient to use the solar/wind

electricity directly. Flexibility in HaberBoshc ammonia is technologically feasible within a certain bandwidth. The lower volume dictated by the heat capacity

in the catalyst and equipment to ensure the auto ignition temperature of the catalyst. The flexibility is dictated by the levelised cost of ammonia, and the

end consumer willingness to pay this delta. Ideally, hydropower (24/7) or a solar/wind combination >70% powerload would be the best (cheapest).

What happens with the NOx emissions if ammonia gets burned?

NdV | See Q1 for more info, ammonia hydrogen combustion is expected to do similar as diesel Tier II. Also, ammonia diesel combustion is expected to do

similar as diesel Tier II. For IMO Tier III SCR is recommended. With ammonia already present an installation using ammonia can be very effective.

JF | Ammonia combustion will generate NOx. Coincidentally, ammonia can remove NOx from emissions. There is ongoing work to develop this technology.

RS | DeNOX installations are proven technology. The engine plus deNOX can both run on ammonia (active component in AdBlue/Def urea). So overall it will

not be an environmental issue any longer, but an ammonia efficiency of the full system.

Is the amount of ammonia required for SCR included in the OPEX calculation (same amount as fuel for engine!)

NdV | Depending on the NOX levels an actual amount of NH3 is required; compared to fuel consumption this is marginal.

JF | We are investigating this.

RS | Marginal, and see answer Q5.

Operating with ammonia, is there any emission of odour or awkward smell affecting crew/environment - if so how to deal with this?

NdV | See Q1 for more info, report Chapter 7 AEGL.

TB | The systems should be designed to make sure there is no smell. If the system is designed ‘smell-free’ any smell will act as a fault indicator and as such

be a safety mechanism.

JF | Ammonia is toxic at high concentrations. Also, ammonia’s foul smell is detected in the early onset before it becomes toxic, and it is used as one of the

safety mechanism. ISGOTT has procedures for ammonia safety.

RS | Ammonia has a self-warning advantage, one already can smell it at 5ppm, which is not harmful. Eight hours administrative standard working day is

25ppm. Training, awareness is important, as with all other systems, cargos, engines etc.

Status or rules for ammonia as fuel?

NdV | The basis is IGF and IGC which need to be further developed coping with toxicity.

TB | In Norway the authorities are working to identify the requirements and how ammonia will be handled. SDNVGL expects to publish revised guidelines

Q2/Q3 2021.

JF | IGF code will need to be updated to include the specific requirements for ammonia toxicity. We are working with DNVGL on a working draft.

RS | To be developed with the IGF/IGC codes.

Is an ammonia reactor onboard vessels available?

NdV | Making renewable fuels onboard is not the most sensible in my view, since if you have energy available you use it directly for propulsion. Renewable

fuels will be made with plants using sustainable energy sources. Ships bunker and consume the fuel.

JF | I'm not familiar with any available. My opinion is that the first renewable source of energy install onboard should feed batteries rather than developing

ammonia. Ammonia is better used when developed ashore via renewable sources and then shipped for consumption.

RS | Wärtsilä, MAN ES are developing these. Both companies have their roadmap and recently announced their test facilities.

Is zero NOx downstream of SCR realistic, given that the engine will emit higher NOx than with diesel fuel?

NdV | SCR is well able to score below IMO TIer III, removing >95%. This can be improved further by injecting more ammonia/urea in the SCR and add an

ammonia scrubber which is significantly smaller than a SOx scrubber.

JF | Ammonia combustion will generate NOx. Coincidentally, ammonia can remove NOx from emissions. There is ongoing work to develop this technology.

RS | The main part of Nox is dictated by the temperature of the burning, and coming from the N2 oxidation from the 78% N2 in the air. NH3 will first oxide

the hydrogen part. Testing will have to confirm the amounts.

How does the ammonia compare with synfuel diesel produced with renewable energy ?

NdV | Ammonia approx 1.8 MJ/MJ and syn diesel 3-4 MJ/MJ also see Q1 answer.

Could you please comment on the perceived safety issues with ammonia?

NdV | Ammonia production onshore and maritime transport will have to be used as a basis to be expanded to ammonia as fuel.

TB | I believe it is important to understand that it is a different fuel. The main risks are related to toxicity, and not explosion/ignition. This requires different

mitigation measures compared to what we use with today's fuels.

JF | This is a very important question. ‘Perceived’ risk in my opinion is higher than it should be. I'm basing this on cargo handling. The risk ranking of

handling diesel vs ammonia as bulk cargo are similar. However, the ‘perceived’ risk of ammonia vs diesel for fuel applications is higher. Same as other fuels,

a lot of work and track record is required.

Do you see ICE's as a viable long-term option for ammonia?

NdV | ICEs are essential for the coming decades; hopefully, later on the SOFC could replace the ICE.

TB | Depends on the efficiency and if they will be able to run on a high percentage of ammonia vs carbon-based fuel. And, of course if one is able to

eliminate all NOx emissions.

JF | I see injection of ammonia into diesel fuel to reduce carbon content as a medium-term solution. I see SOFC with ammonia as a long-term solution - it

makes all the sense.

RS | I do.

How realistic is NH3 as a marine fuel, not as a cargo, in terms of handling?

NdV | With the experience in handling >100 years it is a very realistic step to fuel.

TB | Absolutely realistic.

JF | Same.

RS | Given the fact that ammonia is safely produced, distributed and shipped at large quantities in deep-sea shipping and terminals, I believe these

practices are a sound base to expand ammonia bunkering.

What about the infrastructure needed to store ammonia in the bunker hub?

NdV | See answer Rob Q15.

TB | When several options for ammonia powered vessels (fuel-cells, and ICE appear) the infrastructure will have to be developed. In the early stage the

infrastructure may have to be a part of the pilot projects to secure delivery to the vessels.

JF | This I see to be the biggest advantage of ammonia. The fertilizer supply network has been in place for many years. Now adding the advantage of local

renewable means to produce ammonia will improve the ability to distribute ammonia.

RS | See Q15.

Will NOX emissions from NH3 fuel prohibit its use as fuel?

NdV | NOx emissions will not be an issue when an SCR is used, also see Q11.

JF | see Q11.

RS | NOX emissions need to be controlled, given these are harmful for health. Mobility and stationary regulations are getting stricter, and technologies are

in place to clean these, through known deNOX technologies (even in private cars).

What characteristics must lubricant oil have when ammonia is used as a fuel?

NdV | Lubrication definitely requires special attention, but also other injection strategies could help prevent the ammonia interacting with the cylinder wall

and lubrication oil.

TB | As mentioned in the webinar, large-scale testing will take place in the sustainable energy catapult centre over the next years. These tests will give good

answers to many questions related to the combustion of ammonia.

When do the panel think ammonia will be available at scale for deep-sea? When will it be cost competitive?

NdV | Step-wise introduction and operational in 2030.

TB | This depends on many factors, many which are non-technical. One of the challenges in several deep-sea segments is the distance between the cargo

owner and the fuel purchaser. This distance makes it hard when trying to forward any additional costs related.

RS | From Yara’s point of view the ammonia is already available. The current GHG footprint of grey ammonia is comparable with LNG and HFO if the well-

to-wake footprint is taken into account (so including exploration, refining, liquefaction LNG transport and storage).

Is "blue" ammonia also of interest or do you only consider "green" ammonia?

NdV | Yes, as long as the Well-to-Wake emissions are correctly monitored.

JF | My opinion is that the biggest advantage of ammonia is when sourced from renewables ‘green’. One principal feedstock for blue ammonia is methane,

which we could use as fuel in its raw state.

RS | See Q19, and blue is an intermediate step. Depending on the balance between the customer’s needs for energy and the supplier’s capability to bring at

scale, blue and green likely will co-exist for a while.

Which aspect is the most lacking on the road to ammonia application onboard shipping?

NdV | Available technology requires a few years - safety perception and development of rules. Furthermore, in general the improvement of economics of

renewable fuels.

TB | Increased TRL, followed by infrastructure.

JF | Technology development, primarily on hydrogen synthesis, but also to be used in ICE's combined with ammonia SCR.

RS | The engine, regulation and safety perception.

Considering the compression ratio needed to ignite ammonia air mix 50:1, and the lack of engines ready to take an aggressive substance as ammonia,

what would it take to get a reasonable lifetime of a machine running on ammonia?

NdV | Ammonia with a very small percentage of water, which is also used for maritime transport of ammonia, makes it very well handled with steel and

stainless steel. So equipment should comply with the same properties.

JF | see Q21.

I see quite a lot of debate now on ammonia and hydrogen. The pure hydrogen path seems to be more of a pull scenario from the fuel-cell suppliers and

the ammonia path seems to be more driven by the conventional fuel suppliers and established engines indust

NdV | Ammonia is a wonderful extension of hydrogen, offering improved storage properties in terms of volume , pressure and temperature. Converting it

back to mechanical energy can be done in ICEs which will be available in a few years and later on also in fuel cells.

TB | Efficient-energy conversion can be achieved in SOFC's and also by cracking and use in PEMFC.

JF | We agree with hydrogen as fuel potential, but storing hydrogen is difficult. Therefore, one of ammonia's best uses is the ability to store hydrogen. We

do need to improve the technology to crack hydrogen from ammonia for shipboard use.

RS | See Q3/4. The advantage of NH3 is the least energy consumption in the value chain compared to liquid H2 and synthetic carbon fuels.

The SOFC technology currently has roughly 1/10 of the power density of PEM. SOFC technology has a relatively low TRL; is it really realistic to climb in

the TRL scale in such a dramatic way?

NdV | Yes SOFC requires more development to become mature enough for the maritime industry. However, things are moving faster than in the last

decades.

TB | We believe the SOFC is the right way to go for marine application. ShipFC will help raise the TRL of this technology.

JF | We believe that SOFC technology will improve rapidly.

RS | SHIPFC will find out.

Is the ramp up capacity of SOFC in the range of hours? The batteries have to be in the range of multiple MWh right?

NdV | Different developments offer different properties; start up requires multiple hours, however some have very quick load response once fully started

up.

TB | Recent studies show that a 30MW SOFC will have a ramp-up time of approximately 30 min. This will have to be confirmed through large-scale testing.

What would the price be if it has an ICE running on ammonia instead?

NdV | SOFC go for 5000 euro/kW, where ICE go for 400 euro/kW, in the end efficiency _> fuel cost OPEX are very dominant which could justify higher

CAPEX, developments will bring the CAPEX down.

TB | Yes, this is with a SOFC. ICE on ammonia was not considered in the study.

RS | SOFC is more energy efficient than ICE. SOFC has advantage that it also can give stationary supply, like off-shore supply or cruisship hotel. So in teh end

likely a cost rpo/con on teh choice and both can coexist.

All the comparisons are against immature solutions....none of the solutions being discussed are confirmed solutions or prices.... we need some reality in

their self-positive discussions? After the discussions, should you maybe ask the 2025 question again

NdV | See Tore and Rob answer.

TB | Solutions are immature, but we see an increased focus on establishing projects to increase the TRL of these technologies. I believe we will have

continuously renewed insights and knowledge over the next years and it will be interesting to see how this knowledge effects the answer to the question.

RS | I still see the possibility to have NH3 marine fuel scaling up from 2025, given the proof of ammonia production, supply and storage.

Are there any projects on combustion of NH3 in maritime engines?

NdV | Wärtsilä and MAN ES developments.

TB | Yes, this is with a SOFC. ICE on ammonia was not considered in the study.

RS | Check Wärtsilä, MAN ES, Maersk, SHipFC, GettngtoZero websites.

Can the engine made for the Viking Energy also be used as a generator for an offshore oil/gas platform? Or does it need a lot of modifications? Can this

engine also use diesel as an alternative?

TB | Yes, as mentioned Wärtsilä with partner Sustainable energy catapult will perform testing in a consortium with Repsol.

https://www.wartsila.com/media/news/30-06-2020-world-s-first-full-scale-ammonia-engine-test---an-important-step-towards-carbon-free-ship

Don't you think high storage pressure or low temperature will have an impact on shipping operations? What kind of safety procedures need to be

adopted?

NdV | Preferably low temperature learning from maritime transport of ammonia.

TB | This will have to be analysed for all applications of new fuel types. Risk-based approaches and industry standards will play an important role in defining

this, similarly as has been done with the introduction of LNG and batteries.

How many ships are operating today on liquid ammonia? How many ships are expected to be operating on liquid ammonia in 5-10 years?

NdV | Annually +20 million tonnes of ammonia is transported (10% of the annual produced amount globally). None use it as fuel. I expect the first ships to

use it in 2025-2030.

TB | At least one ship will be in operation within the next five years, namely the Viking Energy through ShipFC.

RS | Zero operating, 20 million tons/year as cargo, we are working towards the solution.

What will be the impact on marine lubricants on using liquid ammonia? What changes in specifications of cylinder oil, TPEO, and system oils will be

needed?

NdV | See Q18.

What sort of infrastructure will be needed at ports to supply ammonia to ships?

RS | Similar to current ammonia storage/loading/unloading, but different ports.

Infrastructure at ports, will it be an issue?

RS | Sufficient area available, if using the space from current bunker tanks.

Ammonia is extremely toxic. How does the panel see crew on board of vessels that are not trained on chemical tankers dealing with the safety

procedures?

TB | Of course, training of crew is important. But if we take a cruise ship as an example we cannot train all the passengers. I believe the passengers will have

to be familiarized with the vessel safety standards, similar to what is done today. toxic, but it is easily detectable at low ppm rates. This provides a built-in

safety mechanism which allows for early detection of any leaks, and thus provides crew with the possibility to mitigate faults at an early stage.

RS | Training needed, as LNG/LPG/MeOH fuelled, and chemical/gas cargos.

Why NH3 in fuel cells and not IC engines?

NdV | Higher efficiency is possible and no harmful emissions with FC vs ICE.

TB | To avoid formation of NoX and burning of pilot fuels. However, both options may provide a good solution for the future.

RS | both, see Q 26.

Shipowners have already made a lot of issues with having ammonia on vessels for NOx control. With ammonia as a fuel, won't it be more challenging

for shipowners to adopt?

RS | see Q17.

What are the pro's and con's in relation to nethanol?

NdV | Selecting a renewable fuel for a ship includes considerations with respect to a balance between the weight factor of volume and the weight factor of

fuel cost. For big vessels with long distance shipping the lower fuel cost of ammonia is expected to outweigh the additional volume required and system

complexity. For other vessels the more energy denser, more practical, but more expensive methanol could be more preferable. Therefore, it can be

foreseen that multiple fuels will co-exist, like methanol and ammonia, depending on various factors including, but not limited to; ship type, ship size,

operational profile/autonomy and local infrastructure. In that sense it must be stated that the various renewable fuel options complement each other

rather than devalue each other, since they all have the same goal: phasing out fossil fuels and their harmful emissions.

RS | See answers synthetic fuels, in addition the CO2 source needs to be carbon neutral: from air or from biomass. The latter availability might be in

competition with land use for food.

Could ammonia toxicity be a limit in the development of the marine technology?

TB | It could, but I don't believe it will be. Ammonia handling is already well established in other industries; combining this knowledge with governing rules

and risk-based design will allow for safe application of ammonia as a marine fuel.

RS | When the ammonia safety aspects are known (which are from the ammonia industry). The design, risk assessments and mitigation/emergency

response can be executed accordingly.

What is the impact of using ammonia as a fuel in terms of NOx emissions (in particular N2O)?

NdV | See Q11, N2O requires more research but could also be reduced with a special SCR unit reducing both NOX and N2O. N2O levels however are not

expected to be much higher than with conventional diesel.

RS | NOx see Q17 and Q37 for environmental and health risk. N2O is climate gas. N2O has to be measured, designed to avoid. In the case it still would occur

deN2O catalysts are known technologies, and in nitric acid production tier 1, 2 and 3 mitigations are being applied.

Comparing NH3 to other traditional and alternative fuels, what is the overall GHG footprint reduction, both for green and conventional ammonia?

RS | In grey conventional gas-based ammonia production the CO2 emission comes from the hydrogen part. Average plants emit 2tCO2/TNH3. Best available

technology is 1,6tCO2/tNH3. In LCA from well-to-wake, the best-practice grey ammonia emissions are comparable to LNG and HFO, given the fact that for

LNG, CH4 emissions occur in liquefaction, shipping, storage and use. In HFO, CO2 emissions are higher in exploration and refining.

How would one deal with the undisputable toxic and corrosive properties of ammonia to use as marine fuel?

TB | Risk-based design, combined with existing knowledge of ammonia handling.

RS | Ammonia is being stored in liquid form in carbon steel tanks, corrosivity prohibits the use of copper. For toxicity see other answers.

Should ammonia be bunkered as refrigerated or pressurized? Hazards are larger as pressurized.

NdV | See Q30.

TB | I believe refrigerated will be the best option based on risk aspects.

RS | Refrigerated has lower risk. In case of loss of confinement, cold will create a pool. Ammonia is self-condensing, and the vapour is determined by the

surface size of the pool, not the quantity. For pressurised NH3 a release will create a vapour-aerosol cloud, which is denser than air, and imposes a higher

risk on ground/board.

How safe is ammonia for passenger vessels? What is the consequence of an ammonia leak onboard a passenger vessel?

TB | See answer in Q35.

RS | Studies and design, including quantitative risk assessment, will have to determine the acceptance of risk, and consequently the mitigating measures to

avoid exposure for passengers. Both are in place for ammonia cargo carriers. The probability has to be designed even lower, given the amount of people is

higher, and the final risk has to be acceptable for society.

Why NH3 instead of synthetic natural gas (SNG)? SNG is produced from the same green H2, offers carbon-neutral operation, it has better energy density,

and can use established LNG infrastructure.

NdV | See Q1 - synthetic methane will be more expensive as it requires more energy to make. Furthermore, methane slip is a serious GHG.

RS | See the other answers on the cost/energy to produce, plus the fact that the CO2 source needs to be carbon neutral: from air or biomass (see earlier

answers).

How does the Viking ship cope with load response as it uses an SOFC?

TB | Batteries will handle the fluctuations in energy demand. Hybrid solution.