Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.advisorEhlers, Soren
dc.contributor.advisorÆsøy, Vilmar
dc.contributor.authorSkarbø, Runa A.
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-05T15:02:50Z
dc.date.available2015-10-05T15:02:50Z
dc.date.created2014-12-17
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifierntnudaim:12309
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2350591
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this thesis is to determine whether the Northern Sea Route (NSR) is a more cost effective alternative than the Suez Canal Route (SCR) between Asia and Europe, given an introduction of an Emission Control Area (ECA) in the Arctic Ocean. A case study is performed, based on transport of iron ore between Murmansk, Russia and Tianjin, China. The vessel used in the study is a 75 000 DWT Panamax bulk carrier with ice class 1A. The study is performed for a time period of one year. Actual ice data from 2008 and 2009 is used in the study. A MATLAB model is developed to perform the simulations. The study compares several scenarios for complying with ECA regulations. The alternative approaches to compliance are either fuel switch, retrofitting the vessel with exhaust cleaning technology, converting the main machinery to also run on alternative fuels or a combination of these. The scenarios in the study are defined as follows: 1. Exhaust cleaning only: The vessel burns only Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO). The vessel is retrofitted with a scrubber to clean SOx emissions, and a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) unit to reduce NOx emissions. 2. Combine fuel switch and exhaust cleaning: The vessel burns HFO outside ECAs, and switch to Marine Gas Oil (MGO) upon entering an ECA. MGO has a negligible sulphur content, and therefore no abatement 3. Conversion of main machinery to dual fuel (DF) operation combined with exhaust cleaning: The main engine of the vessel is converted to operate on DF. Thus, the vessel can operate on both HFO and liquified natural gas (LNG). In addition, the vessel is retrofitted with an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) unit, for reduction of NOx emissions. Scenarios 1-3 sail on the NSR when the ice conditions allow for sailing. For the case vessel, this is found to be for ice thicknesses below 123 cm. When the maximum ice thickness along the NSR grows thicker than 123 cm, the vessels sail on the SCR. The performances of scenarios 1-3 are evaluated against a base case. The base case is defined as the vessel sailing only on the SCR for the whole simulation time period, with no emission abatement measures installed. The vessel switch to MGO when sailing through the SOx ECA in Northern Europe. The scenarios are evaluated based on costs, emissions and cost effectiveness. Investment costs (CAPEX), operating costs (OPEX) and equivalent annual costs (EAC) are calculated for each scenario. For CAPEX and OPEX, only differences from the base case scenario are considered. For emissions, the scenarios are evaluated in terms of total reduced emissions and also reduced emissions per tonne cargo transported. Emissions of \ce{CO2}, SOx, NOx and particulate matter (PM) are considered. Also cost effectiveness for reduced emissions and per tonne transported cargo is considered. Resistance, speed and fuel consumption for the vessel along the NSR vary according to the ice conditions. As emissions are related to both fuel consumption and engine load, emissions and specific fuel consumption are modeled accordingly in the model. The main findings of the study are as follows: - By utilising the NSR, the vessels can sail one extra roundtrip each year (six roundrips on the NSR vs five roundtrips on the SCR); - Scenarios 1-3 have less total emissions per year than the base case scenario. Scenario 3 give the greatest reductions in total emissions; - Scenarios 1-3 are more environmentally friendly, and emits less per tonne cargo freight for all emission types; - The base case scenario is the most cost effective in terms of USD/tonne cargo. All scenarios 1-3 come out relatively equal in cost effectiveness. The study concludes that utilising the NSR with an ECA in the Arctic Ocean will not be cost effective compared to sailing the SCR. The main reasons for this are the limited operation window on the NSR, the high investment costs of retrofitting abatement technology and the increased operating costs in ECAs due to operation on more expensive fuel.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherNTNU
dc.subjectMarin teknikk, Marin prosjektering
dc.titleEmission Reduction Technology and Cost Efficiency for Ships Operating on the Northern Sea Route - A Case Study
dc.typeMaster thesis
dc.source.pagenumber165


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel