Advertisement

Meeting future emission regulation at sea by combining low-pressure EGR and seawater scrubbing

  • Sergey UshakovEmail author
  • Dag Stenersen
  • Per Magne Einang
  • Tor Øyvind Ask
Original article
  • 86 Downloads

Abstract

In the current study, the environmental performance of the first full-scale combined low-pressure exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and seawater scrubbing system was investigated thoroughly onboard an LPG carrier operated on high-sulfur HFO. Results clearly show that the chosen approach allows around 70% \(\hbox {NO}_x\) reduction and simultaneous elimination (98% reduction) of \(\hbox {SO}_x\) emissions. This would allow compliance both with \(\hbox {NO}_x\) Tier III and future ECA sulfur regulations, although it would result in minor fuel penalty due to slightly deteriorated combustion (effect of EGR) and increased backpressure (effect of scrubber). The performed chemical analysis of the water samples revealed a fairly good performance of the wash water treatment plant with water samples identified as a good-quality water almost against all measured compounds. The values for pH, turbidity and nitrates were also far below the IMO requirements. However, in terms of certain metals (vanadium, nickel and zinc) and PAHs (fluoranthene and pyrene), the quality of discharge water was somewhat poorer. These compounds also appear to be the main drivers of risk of the environmental damage as was determined by the PEC/PNEC analysis. Here, the sufficient dilution with ambient seawater is essential to bring down the corresponding concentrations to the acceptable levels, although the measured excessive pollution of ambient water in terms of arsenic, copper and molybdenum should be kept in mind. Finally, different sampling procedures (IMO MARPOL and US EPA VGP rules) were practically evaluated providing some ideas for their further improvement, as with wrong sampling the obtained results can be very misleading.

Keywords

Marine diesel engine Residual fuel Scrubber EGR Emissions Wash water 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Norwegian Centre for Improved Energy Efficiency and Reduced Harmful Emissions (SFI Smart Maritime) as well as the Norwegian \(\hbox {NO}_x\) fund for the financial support of the investigation presented in the current paper. The crew members of Clipper Harald (Solvang ASA) are gratefully acknowledged for their assistance and technical support during the onboard measurement campaigns. Ole Thonstad (SINTEF Ocean AS) is acknowledged for performing onboard exhaust emission measurements, and Bjørn Henrik Hansen, Ragnhild Daae and Kaja Hellstrøm (all SINTEF Ocean AS) for performing environmental characterization of wash water samples.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    IMO (2008) MEPC 58/23/Add.1, Annex 14, Resolution MEPC.177 (58), Amendments to the technical code on control of emission of nitrogen oxides from marine diesel engines (NOx Technical Code 2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    IMO (2013) MARPOL Annex VI and NTC (2008) with Guidelines for Implementation, 2013 ed.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IMO (2016) The 2020 global sulphur limit. Frequently asked questions. http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/GHG/Documents/FAQ_2020_English.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2018
  5. 5.
    Anderson M, Salo K, Fridell E (2015) Particle- and gaseous emissions from an LNG powered ship. Environ Sci Technol 49:12568–12575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, Schaeffer R, Sha F, Riahi K, Meinshausen M (2016) Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below \(2^{\circ }\text{ C }\). Nature 534:631–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    IMO (2017) Marine Environmental Committee (MEPC), 71st session, 03–07 July 2017Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bouman EA, Lindstad E, Rialland AI, Strømman AH (2017) State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping—a review. Transport Res Part D Transp Environ 52:408–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aesoy V, Magne Einang P, Stenersen D, Hennie E, Valberg I (2011) LNG-fuelled engines and fuel systems for medium-speed engines in maritime applications. In: SAE technical paperGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lauers T, Holly W, Pachler R, Winter F, Murakami S (2016) Impact of the fuel gas quality on the efficiency of a large gas engine. In: CIMAC congress, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stenersen D, Thonstad O (2017) GHG and NOx emissions from gas fuelled engines. Technical report, SINTEF OceanGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krivopolianskii V, Valberg I, Stenersen D, Ushakov S, Æsøy V (2018) Control of the combustion process and emission formation in marine gas engines. J Mar Sci Technol 24(2):593–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Notteboom T, Delhaye E, Vanherle K (2010) Analysis of the consequences of low sulphur fuel requirements. Univ Antwerpen Transp MobGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hämäläinen E (2015) Estimated impacts of the sulphur directive on the Nordic industry. Eur Transp Res Rev 7:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abadie LM, Goicoechea N, Galarraga I (2017) Adapting the shipping sector to stricter emissions regulations: fuel switching or installing a scrubber? Transport Res Part D Transp Environ 57:237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deniz C, Zincir B (2016) Environmental and economical assessment of alternative marine fuels. J Clean Prod 113:438–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindstad H, Sandaas I, Strømman AH (2015) Assessment of cost as a function of abatement options in maritime emission control areas. Transport Res Part D Transp Environ 38:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Panasiuk I, Turkina L (2015) The evaluation of investments efficiency of SO x scrubber installation. Transport Res Part D Transp Environ 40:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brynolf S, Magnusson M, Fridell E, Andersson K (2014) Compliance possibilities for the future ECA regulations through the use of abatement technologies or change of fuels. Transport Res Part D Transp Environ 28:6–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hirata K, Niki Y, Kawada M, Iida M (2009) Development of marine SCR system and field test on ship. ISME, BusanGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Magnusson M, Fridell E, Ingelsten HH (2012) The influence of sulfur dioxide and water on the performance of a marine SCR catalyst. Appl Catal B Environ 111:20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cimino S, Lisi L, Tortorelli M (2016) Low temperature SCR on supported MnOx catalysts for marine exhaust gas cleaning: effect of KCl poisoning. Chem Eng J 283:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Azzara A, Rutherford D, Wang H (2014) Feasibility of IMO annex VI tier III implementation using selective catalytic reduction. The International Council on Clean Transportation, Paper 2014-4, Washington, DC, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Amdahl J, Lundby L (2013) Havromsteknologi et hav av muligheter. NTNU, Samarbeidsforum marin, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carlton J (2012) Marine propellers and propulsion. Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lack D.A, Thuesen J, Elliot R (2012) Investigation of appropriate control measures to reduce black carbon emissions from international shipping, study reportGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moldanová J, Fridell E, Popovicheva O, Demirdjian B, Tishkova V, Faccinetto A, Focsa C (2009) Characterisation of particulate matter and gaseous emissions from a large ship diesel engine. Atmos Environ 43:2632–2641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ushakov S, (2012) Particulate matter emission characteristics from diesel engines operating on conventional and alternative marine fuels, Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet, Doctoral thesises at NTNU 341Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fridell E, Salo K (2016) Measurements of abatement of particles and exhaust gases in a marine gas scrubber Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment 230:154–162Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    ISO (2006) ISO 8178-1:2006. Reciprocating internal combustion engines. Exhaust emission measurement. Test-bed measurement of gaseous and particulate exhaust emissionsGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sink MK (1999) Handbook: Control technologies for hazardous air pollutants. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, United States. Center for Environmental Research InformationGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Register L (2012) Understanding exhaust gas treatment systems, Guidance for shipowners and operatorsGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ali M, Yan C, Sun Z, Gu H, Mehboob K (2013) Dust particle removal efficiency of a venturi scrubber. Ann Nucl Energy 54:178–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hansen JP (2012) Exhaust gas scrubber installed onboard MV Ficaria Seaways. Public test report. Environmental project no 1429Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhao Y, Ma S-C, Wang X-M, Zhang Q (2003) Experimental and mechanism studies on seawater flue gas desulfurization. J Environ Sci 15:123–128Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Andreasen A, Mayer S (2007) Use of seawater scrubbing for SO2 removal from marine engine exhaust gas. Energy Fuels 21:3274–3279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gregory D, Confuorto N (2012) A practical guide to exhaust gas cleaning systems for the maritime industry. EGCSA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Us EPA (2011) Exhaust gas scrubber washwater effluent. US EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Karle I-M, Turner D (2007) Seawater scrubbing-reduction of SOx emissions from ship exhausts, AGS Office at Chalmers, GMV, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden 26Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Endres S, Maes F, Hopkins F, Houghton K, Mårtensson EM, Oeffner J, Quack B, Singh P, Turner D (2018) A new perspective at the ship-air-sea-interface: the environmental impacts of exhaust gas scrubber discharge. Front Mar Sci 5:139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Boer DE, Hoen M (2015) Scrubbers—an economic and ecological assessment. CE Delft, DelftGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    IMO (2017) MARPOL Consolidated Edition, Jan 2017. Incorporating all amendмants in force on, pp 432–437Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zheng M, Reader GT, Hawley J (2004) Diesel engine exhaust gas recirculation—a review on advanced and novel concepts. Energy Convers Manag 45:883–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Johnson TV (2009) Diesel emission control in review. SAE Int J Fuels Lubr 1:68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lamas MI, Rodriguez CG (2012) Emissions from marine engines and NOx reduction methods. J Marit Res 9:77–81Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Verschaeren R, Schaepdryver W, Serruys T, Bastiaen M, Vervaeke L, Verhelst S (2014) Experimental study of NOx reduction on a medium speed heavy duty diesel engine by the application of EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) and Miller timing. Energy 76:614–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Abd-Alla GH (2002) Using exhaust gas recirculation in internal combustion engines a review. Energy Convers Manag 43:1027–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Thangaraja J, Kannan C (2016) Effect of exhaust gas recirculation on advanced diesel combustion and alternate fuels a review. Appl Energy 180:169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    InnSep (2018) Lynx gas scrubbing. Principle of operation. http://innsep.com/technology/. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  50. 50.
    Pedersen MF, Andreasen A, Mayer S, (2010) Two-stroke engine emission reduction technology state-of-the-art. In: 26th CIMAC world congress, Bergen, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ushakov S, Valland H, Æsøy V (2013) Combustion and emissions characteristics of fish oil fuel in a heavy-duty diesel engine. Energy Convers Manag 65:228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    IMO, MEPC 184(59) (2009) Guidelines for exhaust gas cleaning systems. Report of the MEPC on its 59th session. MEPC 59/24/Add.1.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kjølholt J, Stian A, Carsten J, Jørn L (2012) Assessment of possible impacts of scrubber water discharges on the marine environment. Danish Ministry of the Environment – Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Project No. 1431, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Koski M, Stedmon C, Trapp S (2017) Ecological effects of scrubber water discharge on coastal plankton: potential synergistic effects of contaminants reduce survival and feeding of the copepod Acartia tonsa. Mar Environ Res 129:374–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Johnsen S, Frost T.K, Hjelsvold M, Utvik T.R, Others, (2000) The Environmental Impact Factor-a proposed tool for produced water impact reduction, management and regulation. In: SPE international conference on health, safety and environment in oil and gas exploration and production, society of petroleum engineersGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Frost T.K, (2002) Calculation of PNEC values applied in environmental risk management of produced water discharges. Report no. F&T 200212100003, technical report, Statoil, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rye H, Reed M, Frost TK, Smit MGD, Durgut I, Johansen Ø, Ditlevsen MK (2008) Development of a numerical model for calculating exposure to toxic and nontoxic stressors in the water column and sediment from drilling discharges. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4:194–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    OSPAR Commission (2012) OSPAR guidelines in support of recommendation 2012/5 for a risk-based approach to the management of produced water discharges from offshore installations. OSPAR Agreement: 2012–7, updated by OIC 2014Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    US EPA (2016) ECOTOX knowledgebase. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/. Accessed 22 Oct 2018
  60. 60.
    Majewski WA, Khair MK (2006) Diesel emissions and their control. In: SAE technical paperGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Agarwal D, Singh SK, Agarwal AK (2011) Effect of Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) on performance, emissions, deposits and durability of a constant speed compression ignition engine. Appl Energy 88:2900–2907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Petzold A, Weingartner E, Hasselbach J, Lauer P, Kurok C, Fleischer F (2010) Physical properties, chemical composition, and cloud forming potential of particulate emissions from a marine diesel engine at various load conditions. Environ Sci Technol 44:3800–3805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mellqvist RJ, Conde V, Beecken J, Ekholm J (2017) Certification of an aircraft and airborne surveillance of fuel sulfur content in ships at the SECA border, technical reportGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Abramovich GM (1963) The theory of turbulent jets, p 103. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., United StatesGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ulpre H, Eames I (2014) Environmental policy constraints for acidic exhaust gas scrubber discharges from ships. Mar Pollut Bull 88:292–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Miljødirektoratet (2016) Grenseverdier for klassifisering av vann, sediment og biota, Technical Report M-608 (in Norwegian). https://www.miljodirektoratet.no/globalassets/publikasjoner/M608/M608.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2018
  67. 67.
    US EPA (1999) APTI 413: Control of particulate matter emissions, 5 ed.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Abdel-Shafy HI, Mansour MS (2016) A review on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons source, environmental impact, effect on human health and remediation. Egypt J Pet 25:107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Naval Architects and Ocean Engineers (JASNAOE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marine TechnologyNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.SINTEF OceanTrondheimNorway
  3. 3.Solvang ASAStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations