2009 Wartsila Dual Fuel LNGC Presentation

Wrtsil Dual-Fuel LNGC
March 2008
Wrtsil
This document, and more, is available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net
Contents
Dual-Fuel-Electric LNGC
Components Machinery Layout Fuel flexibility Sailing scenarios Components Machinery Layout Fuel flexibility Sailing scenarios Propulsion alternatives
OpEx CapEx Emissions Fuel bunkering requirements
Dual-Fuel-Mechanic LNGC
Comparison study
Safety Reliability Redundancy Maintainability Crewing Summary
DF-M vs. DF-E
Advantages and disadvantages of DF-M propulsion compared to DF-E.
Wrtsil
Contents
Comparison study
DF-M vs. DF-E
Wrtsil
DF-E Propulsion Components

155000 m3 dual-fuel-electric LNG carrier
(3x Wrtsil 12V50DF + 1x Wrtsil 6L50DF)
Generators
97% eff.
Engines
48 % eff.
W 12V50DF 11400 kW
Shaft line
98% eff.
El. Motors
98% eff. W 12V50DF 11400 kW
Trafo & conv.

98% eff. W 12V50DF 11400 kW
Reduction gear
99% eff.
W 6L50DF 5700 kW
Wrtsil
DF-E Machinery layout (1/2)

(3x Wrtsil 12V50DF + 1x Wrtsil 6L50DF)
Wrtsil
DF-E Fuel flexibility

DF-E propulsion plant has a complete fuel flexibility. Gas, MDO or HFO can be selected (or re-selected) as source of energy in a fast, simple and reliable way without stopping the engines and without losses in engine speed and output. Fuel selection can be manually or automatically controlled. During laden voyage, ballast voyage or when at loading/unloading facilities the most economical or favourable operating mode can be chosen. Regional emission regulations, restrictions on heavier liquid fuel utilization, fuel bunkering requirements will have low or no impact on sailing route and schedule.
Wrtsil
DF-E Sailing scenarios (1/4)

Power distribution calculation
Ship size Ship service speed Engine configuration: Propulsion power Ship service power Propulsion losses Ship service power losses Total required mechanical power m3 kn kW kW kW kW kW 155 000 19,5 1x6L50DF + 3x12V50DF 21600 1500 2400 (chain efficiency of 90%) 46 (chain efficiency of 97%) 25546
All engines in operation Total available power Propulsion power without sea margin Ship service power Propulsion & Aux. gen. losses Extra available power Sea margin Sea margin Power reserve Missing power for contractual speed Power utilized for propulsion Corresponding ship speed kW kW kW kW kW kW % kW kW kW kn 39900 21600 1500 2446 14354 4536 21 9818 0 21600 19,5
One 6L50DF engine not connected 34200 21600 1500 2446 8654 4536 21 4118 0 21600 19,5
One 12V50DF engine not connected 28500 21600 1500 2446 2954 2954 14 0 0 21600 19,5
Wrtsil

1x6L50DF + 3x12V50DF
All engines in operation
45000 40000
W 12V50DF
35000 30000 Power (kW) 25000 20000 15000
W 12V50DF
W 12V50DF
10000 5000 0
W 6L50DF
Power reserve Sea margin Drive losses Required ship service power Required propulsion power
Wrtsil

One 6L50DF not connected
45000 40000
W 12V50DF
35000 30000 Power (kW) 25000 20000 15000
W 12V50DF
W 12V50DF
10000 5000 0
W 6L50DF
The vessel maintain contractual sailing speed of 19,5 kn

9 Wrtsil

One 12V50DF not connected
45000 40000
W 12V50DF
35000 30000 Power (kW) 25000 20000 15000
W 12V50DF
W 12V50DF
10000 5000 0
W 6L50DF

10 Wrtsil
Contents
Comparison study
DF-M vs. DF-E
11
Wrtsil
DF-M Propulsion Components

(4x Wrtsil 8L50DF + 2x Wrtsil 9L32)
W 8L50DF
7600 kW
Booster motor / PTO 2000 kW W 9L32 W 8L50DF

7600 kW 4320 kW
Shaft lines
98% eff.
Reduction gears
99% eff. W 8L50DF
7600 kW
Main engines
48 % eff.
Aux. engines
46 % eff.
W 9L32
4320 kW
W 8L50DF Booster motor / PTO 2000 kW
7600 kW
12
Wrtsil
DF-M Machinery layout

155000 m3 dual-fuel-mechanic LNG carrier
(4x Wrtsil 8L50DF + 2x Wrtsil 9L32)
13
Wrtsil
DF-M Fuel flexibility

DF-M propulsion plant has a complete fuel flexibility. Similarly to DF-E plant, gas, MDO or HFO can be selected with the same easiness and reliability. Engines dont need to be stopped and do not loose power or speed when changing operating mode. Clutch-in operation, rump-up and rump-down periods must be performed in liquid fuel mode for ensuring the fastest and most reliable result.
14
Wrtsil
DF-M Sailing scenarios (1/3)

Power distribution calculation
Ship size Ship service speed Engine configuration: Propulsion power Ship service power Propulsion losses Ship service power losses Total required mechanical power m3 kn kW kW kW kW kW 155 000 19,5 4x8L50DF 21600 1500 668 79 23847
(chain efficiency of 97%) (chain efficiency of 95%)
All engines in operation Total available power Boost from booster motor Propulsion power without sea margin Ship service power Propulsion & Aux. gen. losses Extra available power Sea margin Sea margin Power reserve Missing power for contractual speed Power utilized for propulsion Corresponding ship speed kW kW kW kW kW kW kW % kW kW kW kn 30400 21600 1500 747 6553 4536 21 2017 0 21600 19,5
One 8L50DF engine not connected 22800 2000 21600 1500 747 953 953 4 0 0 21600 19,5
15
Wrtsil

4x8L50DF
All engines in operation
40000 35000
PTO 1500 kW
W 8L50DF
30000
25000 Power (kW)
W 8L50DF
20000
15000
10000
5000
W 8L50DF
0
W 8L50DF
16
Wrtsil

4x8L50DF
One 8L50DF not in operation Booster from booster motor
Booster 2000 kW
W 8L50DF
40000 35000 30000 25000 Power (kW)
W 8L50DF
20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Power reserve Sea margin Drive losses Required ship service power Required propulsion power
W 8L50DF
W 8L50DF

17 Wrtsil
Contents
Comparison study
DF-M vs. DF-E
18
Wrtsil
Comparison study (1/16)

Propulsion alternatives:
DF-Electric DF-Mechanic Two-stroke + reliquefaction Two-stroke gas injection engine Steam Turbine Reheated Steam Turbine Gas Turbine + WHR
19
Wrtsil

Diesel engine alternatives CapEx simple comparison
DF-Electric
1x6L50DF+3x12V50DF Electric Drive Propellers, shafts, gearboxes TOTAL 13 M 9 M 1,5 M 23,5 M
DF-Mechanic
4x8L50DF + 2x9L32 (Aux) 2 sets of CPP+shafts+Gearboxes TOTAL 13,5 M 6 M 19,5 M
Two-stroke + reliquefaction
2x6S70ME Generating sets (4x8L32) Reliquefaction unit Propellers and shafts TOTAL 8,5 M 4 M 10 M 1 M 23,5 M
Two-stroke gas injection engine

2x6S70ME Upgrade to Gas-Injection system Generating sets (4x8L32) Gas compressor Propellers and shafts TOTAL 8,5 M 1 M 4 M 9 M 1 M 23,5 M
Note: all values are estimated

20
Wrtsil

Data for the calculation
Cargo capacity Boil-off rate, laden Boil-off rate, ballast Leg length Service speed, laden Service speed, ballast Loading time Discharging time Value NBOG Value FBOG Price HFO Price MDO Price MGO Price lube oil Price cylinder oil (two-stroke engine) Propeller shaft power, laden Propeller shaft power, ballast Ship service power, laden Ship service power, ballast Maintenance costs DF installation Two-stroke + reliq. Installation Four-stroke auxiliary engines Ultra Steam turbine installation Ultra Steam generator installation Gas turbine installation WHR installation (gas turbine) 155 000 0,13 40 6500 19,5 19,5 15 15 2,5 8,29 470 780 820 490 640 25,0 24,0 1,4 1,3 4,00 1,50 4,00 0,80 0,70 4,50 0,70 m3 % % of laden nm kt kt h h US US US US US US US / / / / / / / mmBTU mmBTU ton ton ton ton ton
equal to equal to
12,3 US / mmBTU 19,3 US / mmBTU
MW MW MW (for steam turbine vessel) MW (for steam turbine vessel) US US US US US US US / / / / / / / MWh MWh MWh MWh MWh MWh MWh
21
Wrtsil

Alternatives efficiency chains
DF-Electric
Fuel DF engine Alternator Trafo & Converter El. propulsion motor Gearbox Shaftline 100% 48% 97% 98% 98% 99% 98% Fuel DF engine Gearbox Shaftline
DF-Mechanic
100% 48% 98% 98%
2-Stroke + reliq.
Fuel 2-stroke engine Shaftline 100% 49% 98%
2-Stroke gas diesel engine

Fuel 2-stroke engine Shaftline 100% 49% 98%
Steam turbine
Fuel Boiler Steam turbine Gearbox Shaftline 100% 89% 34% 98% 98,0%
Reheated Steam turbine

Fuel Boiler Ultra Steam turbine Gearbox Shaftline 100% 89% 39% 98% 98,0%
Gas turbine combined cycle

Fuel GT Alternator Trafo & Converter El. propulsion motor Gearbox Shaftline 100% 44% 97% 98% 98% 98% 98%
Propulsion 43,4% power efficiency
Fuel Auxiliary power Alternator
100% 48% 97%
Fuel DF engine Gearbox Alternator
100% 48% 98% 97%
Fuel Auxiliary engine Alternator
100% 45% 96%
Fuel Auxiliary engine Alternator
100% 45% 96%
Fuel Boiler Aux. steam turbine Gearbox Alternator
100% 89% 34% 98% 96%
Fuel Boiler Aux. steam turbine Gearbox Alternator
100% 89% 34% 98% 96%
Fuel Auxiliary power Alternator
100% 44% 97%
Electric power efficiency
46,6%
45,6%
43,2%
43,2%
28,5%
28,5%
42,7%
22
Wrtsil

Energy consumption
200 Reliquefaction 180 160 140 Ship service Propulsion
Energy consumption [ MJ / s ]
120 100 80 60 40
Laden Ballast Laden Ballast Laden Ballast Laden Ballast Laden Ballast Laden Ballast Laden Ballast
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
0
DF-Electric Two-Stroke + reliquefaction DF-Mechanic
23 Wrtsil
Steam Turbine Reheated Steam Turbine
Gas turbine + WHR
Two-Stroke gas injection
Total
20

Fuel Flexibility
Possibility of each alternative to be operated on different fuels
dBO G
-B O G
FO H
al
N at ur
DF-Electric DF-Mechanic Two-stroke + rel. Two-stroke gas injec. Steam Turbine Reheated Steam Turbine Gas Turbine + WHR
x x
x x
Fo r
ce
x x x
x x x x x x
x x x x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x
24
Wrtsil

Reasonable fuel selection
Usual operating on:
Reason for fuel selection:

High efficiency in gas mode, cleanest energy source. High efficiency in gas mode, cleanest energy source. Only possibility. MDO not profitable. High percentage of HFO always needed. If NBOG+FBOG selected, high amount of gas to be compressed. No significant difference. Gas is the cleanest source of energy. No significant difference. Gas is the cleanest source of energy. MGO utilization not profitable.
DF-Electric DF-Mechanic Two-stroke + rel. Two-stroke gas injec. Steam Turbine Reheated Steam Turbine Gas Turbine + WHR
25 Wrtsil
Natural-BOG + Forced-BOG
HFO
Natural-BOG + HFO
Natural-BOG + Forced-BOG Natural-BOG + Forced-BOG

Operating expenses per roundtrip Maximization of gas use
2000 1800 1600
Operating expenses [ kUS$ ]
Emission penalty HFO MDO+MGO FBOG NBOG Lube oil Maintenance
1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
DF-Electric Gas DF-Mechanic

26 Wrtsil
Two-Stroke + Reliquefaction HFO Two-Stroke gas Injection
Steam Turbine Gas
Gas turbine + WHR Gas
Reheated Steam Turbine
Gasis available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net This document, and more, Gas Gas

Operating expenses per roundtrip Reasonable fuel selection
2000 1800 1600 1400
Operating expenses [ kUS$ ]
Emission penalty HFO MDO+MGO FBOG NBOG Lube oil Maintenance
1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

DF-Electric Gas DF-Mechanic Two-Stroke + Reliquefaction HFO Two-Stroke gas Injection Steam Turbine Gas Reheated Steam Turbine Gas turbine + WHR Gas
27
Wrtsil
Gasis available for download from Martin's Marine Engineering Page - www.dieselduck.net This document, and more, Gas + HFO Gas

Very low emission levels:
Clean burning Relatively free of contaminations Methane contains the highest amount of hydrogen per unit of energy of all fossil fuels -> lower CO2 emissions Lean burn Otto process provides very low NOx emissions
H C H H
Natural gas compared to diesel:

CO emissions reduction approx. 75% CO2 emissions reduction approx. 20% NOx emissions reduction approx. 80% No SOx emissions Benzene emissions reduction approx. 97% No lead emissions Less particle emissions No visible smoke
H
H
C H
C
H H Methane (CH4) H
Ethane (C2H6)
28
Wrtsil

Emissions Maximization of gas use
120% S0x N0x 100% CO2
Reference values
80%
Emissions [ - ]
60%
40%
20%
0%
29 Wrtsil
Steam Turbine Gas

Emissions Reasonable fuel selection
120% S0x N0x 100% CO2
Reference values
80%
Emissions [ - ]
60%
40%
20%
0%
30 Wrtsil
Steam Turbine Gas

Yearly bunkering requirements Maximization of gas use
50
HFO used per year

45
MDO used per year
40
Bunkering requirements [ kton/year ]
35
30
25
20
15
10

31 Wrtsil
Steam Turbine Gas

Yearly bunkering requirements Reasonable fuel selection
50
HFO used per year

45
MDO used per year
40
Bunkering requirements [ kton/year ]
35
30
25
20
15
10

32 Wrtsil
Steam Turbine Gas

Safety, reliability and redundancy A safety concept has been developed by Wrtsil for the applications of dual-fuel engines on LNGCs. The safety concept describes the required measures to make dual-fuel LNGCs as safe as steam turbine LNGCs. Low pressure gas admission ensures safe operation on gas in every sailing condition. The dual-fuel engines have inherited reliability from the diesel engines from which they are derived. Electric propulsion systems featuring multiple generating sets are state-of-the-art with respect to redundancy. Dual-Fuel-Mechanic alternative imply a high level of redundancy as well, thanks to the multiple engine installation.
The safety concept has been Additionally, experience have been gained through the field approved in principle by all major classification societies. operation of already sailing Dual-Fuel-Electric LNGC. Additionally, many HazId, HazOp and FMEA analyses have been successfully carried out.
33
Wrtsil

Maintainability and crewing Dual-fuel engines require substantially less maintenance than diesel engines when running predominantly on gas. Additionally, the Dual-Fuel machinery concept allows for single engines to be taken out of operation without significantly affecting the ships performance. Dual-fuel engines can be operated by regular diesel engine crews with decent training. No exceptional skills are required as no high pressure steam/gas is present onboard.
34
Wrtsil
Comparison study - Summary

5.Good 1.Bad
Two Stroke + reliquefaction 3
Two Stroke gas diesel 4
Steam Turbine 5
Reheated Steam turbine 4
Dual-Fuel Electric 3
Dual-Fuel Mechanic 4
Gas Turbine + WHR 2
CapEx OpEx Emissions Fuel bunkering req. Safety Reliability Redundancy Maintainability Crewing Total
4 4
1 3
4 5
4 5
5 4
5 4
3 4
25
28
33
34
39
41
31
35
Wrtsil
Contents
Comparison study
DF-M vs. DF-E
36
Wrtsil
DF-Electric Vs. DF-Mechanic (1/2)

Dual-Fuel-Electric has
High efficiency with engines running always at high loads The constant load entails less thermal load and, therefore, less wear of components Fixed pitch propeller can be used with consequent reduction in capital cost and in propeller maintenance Auxiliaries engines are not needed Economical advantages
Full torque at zero load given by electric motors Reduction gear doesnt need any clutch with derived more simple construction and less maintenance required The maintenance can be carried out in an easier way as engines are not coupled with the reduction gear Very good operational characteristics at ice on in difficult sea conditions
Operational advantages
37
Wrtsil
DF-Electric Vs. DF-Mechanic (2/2)

Dual-Fuel-Mechanic has
High efficiency of the complete propulsion system with consequent lower OpEx Smaller investment cost. Electric motors, frequency converters, transformers and large switchboards are not needed Save in space and weight as all electric drives are not needed. Higher cargo capacity At harbour auxiliary engines can run at high load with high efficiency and low SFOC Economical advantages
Smaller propulsion engines are needed. The maintenance can be faster and cheaper When an engine is under maintenance, PTO can be used as boost Simpler and smaller automation system. Simple power management system for auxiliary engines Operational advantages
38
Wrtsil
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

For more information, please contact your local Wrtsil representative or visit wartsila.com
39
Wrtsil

2009 Wartsila Dual Fuel LNGC Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2009 Wartsila Dual Fuel LNGC Presentation

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

2009 Wartsila Dual Fuel LNGC Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wrtsil Dual-Fuel LNGC

Safety Reliability Redundancy Maintainability Crewing Summary

DF-M vs. DF-E

Advantages and disadvantages of DF-M propulsion compared to DF-E.

Safety Reliability Redundancy Maintainability Crewing Summary

DF-M vs. DF-E

Advantages and disadvantages of DF-M propulsion compared to DF-E.

DF-E Propulsion Components

Trafo & conv.

DF-E Machinery layout (1/2)

DF-E Fuel flexibility

DF-E Sailing scenarios (1/4)

DF-E Sailing scenarios (2/4)

35000 30000 Power (kW) 25000 20000 15000

DF-E Sailing scenarios (3/4)

35000 30000 Power (kW) 25000 20000 15000

The vessel maintain contractual sailing speed of 19,5 kn

DF-E Sailing scenarios (4/4)

35000 30000 Power (kW) 25000 20000 15000

The vessel maintain contractual sailing speed of 19,5 kn

Safety Reliability Redundancy Maintainability Crewing Summary

DF-M vs. DF-E

Advantages and disadvantages of DF-M propulsion compared to DF-E.

DF-M Propulsion Components

Booster motor / PTO 2000 kW W 9L32 W 8L50DF

W 8L50DF Booster motor / PTO 2000 kW

DF-M Machinery layout

DF-M Fuel flexibility

DF-M Sailing scenarios (1/3)

(chain efficiency of 97%) (chain efficiency of 95%)

DF-M Sailing scenarios (2/3)

25000 Power (kW)

DF-M Sailing scenarios (3/3)

The vessel maintain contractual sailing speed of 19,5 kn

Safety Reliability Redundancy Maintainability Crewing Summary

DF-M vs. DF-E

Advantages and disadvantages of DF-M propulsion compared to DF-E.

Comparison study (1/16)

Comparison study (2/16)

Two-stroke gas injection engine

Note: all values are estimated

Comparison study (3/16)

12,3 US / mmBTU 19,3 US / mmBTU

Comparison study (4/16)

2-Stroke gas diesel engine

Reheated Steam turbine

Gas turbine combined cycle

Propulsion 43,4% power efficiency

Propulsion 46,1% power efficiency

Propulsion 48,0% power efficiency

Propulsion 48,0% power efficiency

Propulsion 29,1% power efficiency

Propulsion 32,9% power efficiency

Propulsion 39,4% power efficiency

Fuel Auxiliary power Alternator

100% 48% 97%

Fuel DF engine Gearbox Alternator

100% 48% 98% 97%

Fuel Auxiliary engine Alternator

100% 45% 96%