low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison · pdf filelow- and high-pressure...

Low- and high-pressure dual-fueltechnology comparisonDaniel Strödecke

© WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke2

1 Introduction

2 Technical aspects

3 Case study – LNG carrier

4 Case study – LNG fuelled vessel

5 Conclusion

Agenda

1 Introduction

2 Technical aspects

3 Case study – LNG carrier

4 Case study – LNG fuelled vessel

5 Conclusion

Introduction


Basic dual-fuel technologies


High-pressure technology:Low-pressure technology:

Otto cycle Diesel cycle

43 years perfecting low pressure technology


1972 – launch of 7RNMD90, Low-Pressure DF Enginefor 29,000 m3 LNGC, ‘MV Venator’, Moss Yard, Norway2-stroke

1986 – testing High-PressureDF Engine 6RTA84 at IHI, Japan2-stroke

1995 – Low-PressureDual-Fuel EngineBreak through in marine segment4-stroke

2013 – Low-PressureDual-Fuel Engine2-stroke

1987 – High-PressureGas-Diesel Engine4-stroke

1992 – Low-PressureSpark-Ignited Engine4-stroke

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Beginning introducingmodern gas engines withwell known diesel process(high-pressure)

Perfectinggas engines withlow-pressure dual-fuel technology

ready for the future

Environmental aspects


High-pressure technology:Some environmental benefit

Low-pressure technology:Benchmarking environmentally-friendlylow-pressure technology!

è please refer to separate low-pressuredual-fuel engine presentation

++ +

++: great benefit, +: benefit, ü: meets requirements, −: drawback, −− : significant drawback

Technical aspects


Development challenges


High-pressure technology:- Providing high-pressure (≥300 bar)

gas to engine, i.e. gas supply system- Handling of high-pressure gas on

engine

è High-pressure will alwaysbe a challenge

Low-pressure technology:- Gas admission to combustion

chamber- Ensuring proper homogeneous lean

gas-air mixture

è Managed with fully electronically-controlled engines

ü++


Safety


Same concept of gas safe engine room for both technologies, i.e. same level ofsafety as with conventional diesel engines

High-pressure technology:- Smaller gas pipes, but with higher

gas pressure/density, i.e. similargas amount in engine room as withlow-pressure technology

- Higher risk of leakages- In case of pipe/pipe connection

rupture higher expansion energy ofgas, i.e. long jet flame, if ignited.

Low-pressure technology:- Bigger gas pipes, but with lower gas

pressure/density, i.e. similar gasamount in engine room as with high-pressure technology

- Low risk of leakages- In case of pipe-to-pipe connection

rupture less expansion energy ofgas

Gas safe engine roomèRefer to separate low-pressure dual-fuel engine

presentation)

++ +


Engine performance


High-pressure technology:- Same power output as conventional

diesel engine

Low-pressure technology:- Reduced power output, compared to

conventional diesel engine

à However, in most cases acceptableas conventional diesel engines areusually derated for fuel-savingreasons, while low-pressure DFengines have very similarperformance in the whole ratingfield, even slightly better in the toparea

Power output

++ü


Low-pressure technology:- Dependency on methane numberà However, service speed can bereached with commonly availablefuel gas with MN70-90

Engine performance


High-pressure technology:- No dependency on methane number

Methane number dependency

Typical LNG

Typi

calo

pera

ting

rang

e


++ü

Efficiency


Just considering the 2-stroke main engine as such, the difference in efficiency/brake specificenergy consumption per brake power output needs to be considered:

High-pressure technology:Low-pressure technology:

At high loads a low-pressure Otto cycle engine has the same or better efficiency than a high-pressure Diesel cycle engine. At part-load a high-pressure engine has better efficiency.Ultimately overall system performance has to be considered instead of just main engineperformance as stand-alone, as considered in the following case studies.

++++


++: great benefit, +: benefit, ü: meets requirements, −: drawback, −: significant drawback

High-pressure technology:- Currently only piston type

compressors are available from alimited number of makers

Low-pressure technology:- A wide range of compressor types

and makers is available:- centrifugal type

- screw type

- piston type

© WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

Picture: Burckhardt Compression

Burckhardt Compression

Kobelco (skid solution)

Cryostar

ü++

Fuel-gas handling systemCompressors

13

Fuel-gas handling system


Compressor skid example

LP turbo-compressor set(no damping needed)- 6-stage, 16 bar- drive power ̴ 850 kW- L x W x H: 5.2 x 3 x 2.2m- Weight: ̴ 20 tons

HP piston compressor set (damping vesselsneeded: suction & delivery)- 300 bar- drive power ̴ 1400 kWè ≈1.6 to1.7 x LP power

- L x W x H: 13 x 7 x 5.2mè ≈14 x LP volume

- Weight: ̴120 tonsè 6 x LP weight

Cryostar Burckhardt Compression

High-pressure technology:- Centrifugal supply pumps- Damping vessel- Piston pumps:

- Moving pistons, suction & deliveryvalves

- High maintenance requirement- Damping vessel

Low-pressure technology:- Centrifugal pumps:

- Simple, just rotors turningon a common shaft

- Low maintenance requirement- Submerged solution for LNG-

fuelled vessels available

Fuel-gas handling system


LNG pumps

Vanzetti Engineering Cryostar

OR AND

Vanzetti Engineering

ü++


Case study – LNG carrier


Case study LNG carrier


Configuration

CMCR

CSR

10,000

10,500

11,000

11,500

12,000

12,500

13,000

13,500

14,000

14,500

15,000

15,500

16,000

16,500

17,000

17,500

18,000

18,500

55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0

Engi

nePo

wer

[kW

]

Engine Speed [rpm]

W5X72DF5G70ME-C9.5-GIDesign point

- Main enginesLP: 2x 5X72DFHP: 2x 5G70ME-GICMCR: 2x 12,500 kW at 69.0 rpmCSR: 90% CMCR

- GensetsLP: 2x 8L34DF + 2x 6L34DFHP: 2x 9L34DF + 2x 6L34DF

- Main gas componentsLP: 2x Centrifugal compressorHP: 2x Piston compressor

1x HP LNG piston pump



Operating profile – main engine

Technology abbreviations:DF: gas mode operationDF EGR T.III: gas mode operation with EGR for Tier III complianceDM: diesel mode operation

Operating mode Shipspeed

Voyagetype

non ECA ECA Non ECAzone

technology

ECA zonetechnology

Main fuelnon ECA

Pilot fuelnon ECA

Mainfuel in

ECA

Pilotfuel in

ECA2x W5X72DF

kn RH RHService speed US waters 19.5 laden 15 DF LNG MGOService speed passage 19.5 laden 455 DF LNG MDOSlow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 laden 5 DF LNG MDOService speed passage 19.5 ballast 455 DF LNG MDOService speed US waters 19.5 ballast 15 DF LNG MGOSlow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 ballast 5 DF LNG MDO

2x 5G70ME-GIkn RH RH

Service speed US waters 19.5 laden 15 DF EGR T.III LNG MGOService speed passage 19.5 laden 455 DF LNG HFOSlow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 laden 5 DF HFOService speed passage 19.5 ballast 455 DF LNG HFOService speed US waters 19.5 ballast 15 DF EGR T.III LNG MGOSlow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 ballast 5 DM HFO -

total distance 9215 nm



Operating profile – main engineOperating

modeShip

speedVoyage

typeEngine power

predicted withβ = 3.5

(2 engines)

Relativeenginepower

Enginespeed

El.hotelload

Totalel.

load

Extra el. loaddue to

technologyselected

specification of technology

kn [kW] [%] [rpm] [kWe] [kWe]

Service speed US waters 19.5 laden 22500 90% 66.6 2000 2825 825 kWe compressorService speed passage 19.5 laden 22500 90% 66.6 2000 2825 825 kWe compressorSlow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 laden 2173 9% 30.6 2000 3275 1275 kWe compressor (incl. GCU supply) + GCU (part load)Service speed passage 19.5 ballast 22500 90% 66.6 2000 2835 835 kWe compressor + LNG supply pumpService speed US waters 19.5 ballast 22500 90% 66.6 2000 2835 835 kWe compressor + LNG supply pumpSlow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 ballast 2173 9% 30.6 2000 2835 835 kWe compressor (incl. GCU supply)


Service speed US waters 19.5 laden 22500 90% 66.6 2000 3450 1450 kWe compressor + EGR (blower only)Service speed passage 19.5 laden 22500 90% 66.6 2000 3300 1300 kWe compressorSlow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 laden 2173 9% 30.6 2000 2900 900 kWe compressor GCU supply + GCUService speed passage 19.5 ballast 22500 90% 66.6 2000 3025 1025 kWe compressor (part load) + HP pumpService speed US waters 19.5 ballast 22500 90% 66.6 2000 3175 1175 kWe compressor (part load) + HP pump + EGR (blower only)Slow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 ballast 2173 9% 30.6 2000 2000 0 kWe pure diesel operation (GCU operation not needed)

total distance 9215 nm

2x W5X72DF

2x 5G70ME-GI



Power generation – genset operationOperating mode Operating

time [RH]Ship

speedEnviro.

areaVoyage

typeTotal electric

loadgas

consumption [t]MDO/MGO

consumption [t]

2x 5X72DF Wärtsilä 8L34DF Wärtsilä 8L34DF Wärtsilä 6L34DF Wärtsilä 6L34DFkn 3690 3690 2770 2770

Service speed US waters 15 19.5 Tier III laden 2825 kWe 77% - - - 6.8 0.1Service speed passage 455 19.5 Tier II laden 2825 kWe 77% - - - 206.7 3.5Slow steaming Panama Canal 5 10.0 Tier II laden 3275 kWe 89% - - - 2.6 0.0Service speed passage 455 19.5 Tier II ballast 2835 kWe 77% - - - 207.3 3.5Service speed US waters 15 19.5 Tier III ballast 2835 kWe 77% - - - 6.8 0.1Slow steaming Panama Canal 5 10.0 Tier II ballast 2835 kWe 77% - - - 2.3 0.0

2x 5G70ME-GI Wärtsilä 9L34DF Wärtsilä 9L34DF Wärtsilä 6L34DF Wärtsilä 6L34DFkn 4150 4150 2770 2770

Service speed US waters 15 19.5 Tier III laden 3450 kWe 83% - - - 8.2 0.1Service speed passage 455 19.5 Tier II laden 3300 kWe 80% - - - 239.9 4.0Slow steaming Panama Canal 5 10.0 Tier II laden 2900 kWe 70% - - - 2.4 0.0Service speed passage 455 19.5 Tier II ballast 3025 kWe 73% - - - 223.5 4.1Service speed US waters 15 19.5 Tier III ballast 3175 kWe 77% - - - 7.7 0.1Slow steaming Panama Canal 5 10.0 Tier II ballast 2000 kWe - - 72% - 1.6 0.0

Port operation not considered

Genset type



Fuel consumption – by type & mass– round trip

Fueltype

LHVMax

sulphurcontent

[USD/ton] [$/mmBTU] kJ/kg [%]LNG 450 9.5 50,000 0.0%MGO 850 21.0 42,800 0.1%MDO 650 16.1 42,707 0.5%HFO 450 11.7 40,500 3.5%

Fuel price

X72DF solution: benchmarking low liquid fuel consumption

Fuel consumption

0 t

500 t

1,000 t

1,500 t

2,000 t

2,500 t

3,000 t

3,500 t

2x 5X72DF 2x 5G70ME-GI

gas MGO MDO HFO



Fuel consumption costs – round trip

0 kUSD

250 kUSD

500 kUSD

750 kUSD

1,000 kUSD

1,250 kUSD

1,500 kUSD

1,750 kUSD

2x 5X72DF 2x 5G70ME-GI

Main engines Gensets

Not considered additional costs- HFO treatment system operation of HP solution,- Gas burned by the GCU (higher amount for HP solution)

Fueltype

LHVMax

sulphurcontent


Fuel price

Fuel costs



Fuel consumption costs – LNG price influence

saving 24 kUSDsaving 9 kUSD

loss 7 kUSD

0 kUSD

500 kUSD

1,000 kUSD

1,500 kUSD

2,000 kUSD

2,500 kUSD

2x5X72DF:300 $/t

2x5G70ME-GI:300 $/t

2x5X72DF:450 $/t

2x5G70ME-GI:450 $/t

2x5X72DF:600 $/t

2x5G70ME-GI:600 $/t


Fuel costs: different LNG prices



Indicative investment costs

0 mUSD

10 mUSD

20 mUSD

30 mUSD

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

Alt. 1 2 x 5X72DF Alt. 2 2x5G70ME-C9.5-GI

Two sets of compressors for both solutions


Gas systemEGRGensetsMain engines

Case study –LNG-fuelled vessel


Case study LNG-fuelled vessel


Configuration- Main engines

LP: 1x 6X52DFHP: 1x 6G50ME-GICMCR: 7,800 kW at 95.0 rpmCSR: 90% CMCR

- GensetsLP: 3x 6L20DFHP: 3x 6L20DF

- Main gas componentsLP: 2x LNG centrifugal pumpHP: 2x LNG centrifugal supply pumpHP: 2x LNG HP piston pump

- LNG tanksBoth: 2x 700 m3 single shell LNGBoth: tanks with 10 bar(a) designBoth: pressure

CMCR

CSR

5,500

6,000

6,500

7,000

7,500

8,000

8,500

9,000

9,500

10,000

10,500

70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0

Engi

nePo

wer

[kW

]

Engine Speed [rpm]

W6X52DF6G50ME-C9.5-GIDesign point

Case study LNG fuelled vessel


Operating profile – main engine

Technology abbreviations:DF: gas mode operationDF EGR T.III: gas mode operation with EGR for Tier III compliance

Operating mode Shipspeed

non ECA ECA Non ECAzone

technology

ECA zonetechnology

Main fuelnon ECA

Pilot fuelnon ECA

Mainfuel in

ECA

Pilotfuel in

ECA6X52DF

kn RH RHService speed US waters 14.5 4200 DF LNG MGOService speed non US waters 14.5 1500 DF LNG MDOSlow steaming US waters 10.0 150 DF LNG MGOSlow steaming non US waters 10.0 150 DF LNG MDO

6G50ME-GIkn RH RH

Service speed US waters 14.5 4200 DF EGR T.III LNG MGOService speed non US waters 14.5 1500 DF LNG HFOSlow steaming US waters 10.0 150 DF EGR T.III LNG MGOSlow steaming non US waters 10.0 150 DF LNG HFO

Calculated for one year operation - in total 6000 RH



Operating profile – main engineOperating

modeShip

speedEngine power

predicted withβ = 3.5

(2 engines)

Relative enginepower

Enginespeed

Electrichotelload

Totalelectric

load

Extra electricload due totechnology

selected

specification of technology


Service speed US waters 14.5 7020 90% 66.6 500 505 5 kWe LNG pumpService speed non US waters 14.5 7020 90% 66.6 500 505 5 kWe LNG pumpSlow steaming US waters 10.0 1912 25% 43.2 500 505 5 kWe LNG pumpSlow steaming non US waters 10.0 1912 25% 43.2 500 505 5 kWe LNG pump


Service speed US waters 14.5 7020 90% 66.6 500 590 90 kWe LNG pumps + EGR (blower only)Service speed non US waters 14.5 7020 90% 66.6 500 540 40 kWe LNG pumpsSlow steaming US waters 10.0 1912 25% 43.2 500 555 55 kWe LNG pumps + EGR (blower only)Slow steaming non US waters 10.0 1912 25% 43.2 500 540 40 kWe LNG pumps

Calculated for one year operation - in total 6000 RH

6X52DF

6G50ME-GI



Power generation – genset operationOperating

modeOperatingtime [RH]

Shipspeed

Enviro.area

Total electricload

gasconsumption [t]

MDO/MGOconsumption [t]

6X52DF Wärtsilä 6L20DF Wärtsilä 6L20DF Wärtsilä 6L20DFkn 1065 1065 1065

Service speed US waters 4200 14.5 Tier III 505 kWe 47% - - 451.1 20.9Service speed non US waters 1500 14.5 Tier II 505 kWe 47% - - 161.1 7.4Service speed US waters 150 10.0 Tier III 505 kWe 47% - - 16.1 0.7Slow steaming non US waters 150 10.0 Tier II 505 kWe 47% - - 16.1 0.7

6G50ME-GI Wärtsilä 6L20DF Wärtsilä 6L20DF Wärtsilä 6L20DFkn 1065 1065 1065

Service speed US waters 4200 14.5 Tier III 590 kWe 55% - - 508.8 21.8Service speed non US waters 1500 14.5 Tier II 540 kWe 51% - - 169.8 7.6Service speed US waters 150 10.0 Tier III 555 kWe 52% - - 17.3 0.8Slow steaming non US waters 150 10.0 Tier II 540 kWe 51% - - 17.0 0.8

Port operation not considered

Genset type


Fuel consumption – by type & mass– per year

X52DF solution: benchmarking low liquid fuel consumption

Case study LNG fuelled vessel Fueltype

LHVMax

sulphurcontent


Fuel price

Fuel consumption

0 t

1,000 t

2,000 t

3,000 t

4,000 t

5,000 t

6,000 t

7,000 t

6X52DF 6G50ME-GI

gas MGO MDO HFO



Fuel consumption costs – per year

Not considered additional costs:- HFO treatment system operation of HP solution

Fuel costs

0 kUSD500 kUSD

1,000 kUSD1,500 kUSD2,000 kUSD2,500 kUSD3,000 kUSD3,500 kUSD4,000 kUSD4,500 kUSD5,000 kUSD

6X52DF 6G50ME-GI


Fueltype

LHVMax

sulphurcontent


Fuel price



Fuel consumption costs – LNG price influence

Fuel costs: different LNG prices

saving 48 kUSDsaving 4 kUSD

loss 40 kUSD

0 kUSD

1,000 kUSD

2,000 kUSD

3,000 kUSD

4,000 kUSD

5,000 kUSD

6,000 kUSD

7,000 kUSD

6X52DF:500 $/t

6G50ME-GI:500 $/t

6X52DF:700 $/t

6X50ME-GI:700 $/t

6X52DF:900 $/t

6X50ME-GI:900 $/t






0 mUSD

5 mUSD

10 mUSD

15 mUSD

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Alt. 1 6X52DF Alt. 2 6G50ME-GI

Gas systemLNG tank(s)EGR

Main engineGensets

Conclusion


Conclusion


Low-pressure dual-fuel technology is the industry standard

Low-pressuretechnology

High-pressuretechnology

Environmental-friendliness ++ +

Fuel-gas handling ++ ü

OPEX (fuel costs +maintenance) ++ +

CAPEX ++ −−/−*)

*) −− for LNGC, − for LNG fuelled vessel


low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison · pdf filelow- and high-pressure...

Documents