MSES Minor Project Ferry - Gerben Spaans en Stefan Bruins Report - v11

HAN Master Engineering Systems, Minor project: Sustainable Energy Systems
Sailing towards a greener future
Version Date Comments

1.0 11/19/2020 Intermediate report
2.0 11/20/2020 Corrected solar panel calculations
3.0 01/24/2020 Final report
i
PREFACE
This report has been written as part of the course sustainable energy systems at the University of Applied science.
The project investigated possible sustainable systems te reduce the greenhouses gases of the Ferry Texelstroom.
The project consists modelling of several sustainable energy systems and described the technical aspect of the
sustainable energy systems. In additional, social and economic aspects is given of the energy systems.
Readers who are especially interested in the background modelling of sustainable energy systems can find this
in chapter 3. Readers who are interested in method used to, can find this in chapter 4. The results can be found
in chapter 5, and finally the conclusions in chapter 6. We, Stefan and Gerben are grateful to Rick Catau, Miel
Stapel and Mascha Smit (supervisors at the HAN), who provide valuable advice to complete the project.
Arnhem, November 2020
ii
Options to reduce greenhouse gases of a
ferry during a mid-life update
Name of students: Stefan Bruins, student no.: 446421

Gerben Spaans, student no.: 641265
Company: HAN university of applied sciences
HAN Supervisor: Rick Catau

Miel Stapel
Masha Smit
Date: January 24, 2021

Revision nm: Version 3, Final report
iii
iv
SUMMARY
In this report the feasibility of the reduction in GHG for existing ships is investigated.
First a literature survey is done which investigates the contribution in GHG emission of various ships, which
options are available for GHG reduction and how to determine the most optimal solution. Also the economic,
legal and social consequences of such a conversion is being described.
Second the method which is used is being described. This involves selection of the most feasible ship type, how
to determine the GHG emission and reduction , which calculation method is used to find the optimal solution
and how the economic consequences are determined.
Third the most feasible ship is being determined based on numerous weighting factors which indicate which
properties can determine whether a ship is feasible for conversion. A Roro ferry is chosen as the most feasible.
Based on this research a detailed case description is being formulated which function as a baseline of this
research.
With this baseline case the current GHG emission and the options to reduce the GHG emission are being
researched based on price and potential GHG reduction. With this information the most cost effective solution
for percentage in reduction is being determined. Main conclusion is that a maximum CO2 reduction of 28% can
be achieved as a cost effective solution.
Finally the existing converted ship is being compared with a new ship and a ship being built in 2030 from a cost
perspective. Main conclusion is that for near future regulations (until 2024) the converted ship can compete with
a new ship. With the current set of regulations a ship built in 2030 with an alternative fuel (green ammonia or
green hydrogen) is not feasible.
v
CONTENTS
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Problem definition ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Research question ................................................................................................................................. 2
2 Goal of the project .......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Outline of the minor project report ...................................................................................................... 4
3 Literature survey ............................................................................................................................................. 5
3.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 5
3.1.1 Analysis of GHG emissions from current vessels............................................................................... 5
3.1.2 Energy efficiency index...................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.3 Impact on existing ships .................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Options to reduce GHG on vessels ........................................................................................................ 7
3.2.1 Alternative fuels ................................................................................................................................ 8
3.2.2 Alternative energy generation .......................................................................................................... 9
3.2.2.1 Battery ...................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2.2.2 Supercap ................................................................................................................................. 10
3.2.2.3 Flywheel energy storage......................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2.4 Flettner rotor .......................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.2.5 Sail .......................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2.6 Thruster regeneration ............................................................................................................ 13
3.2.2.7 Organic Rankine Cycle ............................................................................................................ 14
3.2.2.8 Shore to ship ........................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.2.9 Solar panels ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.2.2.10 Vehicle To Grid (V2G) ............................................................................................................. 16
3.3 NSGA-II................................................................................................................................................. 16
3.4 Scenarios of economical, legal and societal development .................................................................. 17
3.4.1 Economic consequences ................................................................................................................. 17
3.4.2 Legal consequences......................................................................................................................... 18
3.4.3 Societal consequences .................................................................................................................... 20
4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 21
4.1 Vessel type feasibility methodology .................................................................................................... 21
4.1.1 Profile variation ............................................................................................................................... 21
4.1.2 Propulsion type ............................................................................................................................... 21
4.1.3 Equipped with crane ....................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.4 Size of the hotel load ....................................................................................................................... 23
4.1.5 Available deck space and weight .................................................................................................... 23
4.1.6 Mission length ................................................................................................................................. 24
vi
4.1.7 Client type score card ...................................................................................................................... 24
4.1.8 Predictability of the sailing route .................................................................................................... 24
4.2 GHG emission calculation methodology.............................................................................................. 24
4.3 GHG reduction calculation methodology ............................................................................................ 25
4.3.1 Modeling of alternative fuel ............................................................................................................ 25
4.3.2 Alternative energy suppliers ........................................................................................................... 25
4.3.2.1 Battery .................................................................................................................................... 25
4.3.2.2 Supercap ................................................................................................................................. 25
4.3.2.3 Flywheel energy storage......................................................................................................... 25
4.3.2.4 Flettner rotor .......................................................................................................................... 25
4.3.2.5 Sail .......................................................................................................................................... 25
4.3.2.6 Thruster regeneration ............................................................................................................ 25
4.3.2.7 Organic rankine cycle ............................................................................................................. 25
4.3.2.8 Shore to ship ........................................................................................................................... 26
4.3.2.9 Solar panels ............................................................................................................................ 26
4.3.2.10 Vehicle to grid ......................................................................................................................... 26
4.4 NSGA II algorithm methodology .......................................................................................................... 26
4.5 Economic consequences methodology (CAPEX / OPEX) ..................................................................... 27
5 Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 28
5.1 Vessel type feasibility .......................................................................................................................... 28
5.1.1 Vessel selection ............................................................................................................................... 28
5.2 Roro ferry case description.................................................................................................................. 29
5.2.1 Propulsion concept.......................................................................................................................... 30
5.2.2 CO2 emission ................................................................................................................................... 31
5.3 Feasibility of options to reduce GHG feasibility ................................................................................. 31
5.3.1 Constraints ...................................................................................................................................... 32
5.4 Current GHG emission ......................................................................................................................... 33
5.5 GHG reduction calculation................................................................................................................... 33
5.5.1 Alternative fuels .............................................................................................................................. 33
5.5.2 Alternative energy supply ............................................................................................................... 36
5.5.2.1 Flettner rotor .......................................................................................................................... 36
5.5.2.2 Solar panels ............................................................................................................................ 37
5.5.2.3 Orcan unit ............................................................................................................................... 38
5.5.2.4 Shore connection.................................................................................................................... 38
5.5.2.5 Batteries ................................................................................................................................. 38
5.5.2.6 Investment.............................................................................................................................. 38
5.5.2.7 Calculation .............................................................................................................................. 39
5.6 Optimization ........................................................................................................................................ 39
vii
5.6.1 NSGA calculation ............................................................................................................................. 39
5.6.2 Return of investment ...................................................................................................................... 42
5.7 Economic consequences...................................................................................................................... 43
6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 47
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................................... 48
Appendix A Nomenclature .................................................................................................................................... 50
Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix B Feasibility scores ................................................................................................................................ 51
Appendix C CO2 emission calculation Roro ferry .................................................................................................. 53
Appendix D CO2 Reduction calculation roro ferry ................................................................................................. 55
Appendix E Current value and value after 15 years determination ...................................................................... 56
Appendix F Estimation of annual maintenance and fuel costs ............................................................................. 57
Appendix G Properties table of fuels .................................................................................................................... 58
viii
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Despite the shipping industry being by far the least polluting mode of transport, the CO 2 emissions still increased
during the years 2012 to 2018 (Fourth IMO GHG Study, 2020). 80% of the total global trade volume is transported
by ships. Therefore, the shipping industry can make a major contribution to tackle climate change and achieving
the goals of Paris agreement.
The aim of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of
ships by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 (IMO M. , 2018). Various organizations and companies have
taken the target to reduce GHG more strictly and come up with their own goals and strategy. For example, the
Netherlands Ministry of Defense (NMD) have the ambition to reduce fossil fuels by 20% in 2030 and by at least
70% in 2050. Shell demands from their contractors a reduction of 15% by 2025 (Shell, 2020). Because a ship has
a lifespan of approximately 30 years, the propulsion drive system of current ships will have to be adapted to
achieve these ambitions.
The standard combustion engines used in vessels, are fully integrated in the maritime industry. Adjusting a
propulsion drive system therefore has consequences and influence on various factors. For example, if the engine
room is twice as large due to a new propulsion system, the vessel can also carry less cargo. This requires necessary
adjustments to existing and new vessel. In addition, the maritime industry infrastructure is furnished for fossil
fuels propulsion drive system. New or an additional propulsion drive system has impact on the environment,
possibility and availability. The maritime regulations also play an important role in the transition to new
propulsion drive system, in order to guarantee safety.
From economic perspective, the technical lifespan of a ship is around thirty years as mentioned before. The
economical lifespan, however, due to technical progress, is lower. The shipping industry is a competitive market.
Therefore, it is important that the operational expenditures (OPEX) are as low as possible without a large impact
on the capital expenditures (CAPEX). Fuel costs impact the OPEX. This makes fuel savings and decreasing
maintenance intervals important subjects. Therefore, for ship owners, costs, availability, regulations and safety
are trade-offs to be made.
1.2 Problem definition

To achieve the objectives of IMO, Shell and NMD, an investigation will performed to possibilities of reducing GHG
of existing vessels in short term. The current vessels have been designed and integrated with a specific propulsion
system for a particular operational profile. Therefore, sustainable energy systems must be able to meet the
current operational profile and prevent blackouts. In additional, the implementation of these sustainable energy
systems are also important because cargo volume and deadweight (a measure indication how much weight a
ship can carry) are important economic factors for ship owners.
For the mid-life update of a ship the possibilities are investigated of refitting solutions to reduce the carbon
intensity. Often clients (commercial or government) require for contract rewarding carbon intensities which are
applicable for new ships, in that scenario a ship owner with an older ship is not able to compete with a ship
owner with a new ship. Therefore, it is interesting to determine whether it is possible (during a mid-life update)
to improve the efficiency of a ship build in 2006 (2021 minus a period time 15 years) to meet the requirements
in reducing the carbon intensity as defined in phase 2 of the EEDI target. The feasibility is heavily dependent on
the ship type, therefore it is very important to determine which ship types are suitable for efficiency
improvement.
1
1.3 Research question
The primary research question of this project is framed as follows:
 What energy system(s) can contribute to reduce GHG of existing vessels in short term as an
intermediate solution to zero-emission systems?
The supplementary question is:
 What are the consequences of incorporating these energy system(s) on social and economic aspect?
2
2 GOAL OF THE PROJECT
Considering a mid-life update of ships after 15 years and the above mentioned EEDI targets, the goals of this
project is framed as follows:
 Determine which ship type is the most feasible for improvement of the EED according phase 2, to
reduce the carbon intensity with at least 20% below the reference line.
 Determine which sustainable energy systems are most suitable to achieve the EEDI phase 2 targets.
 Determine what are the most cost effective methods in order to improve the EEDI.
 Determine economic and legal consequences of the new system as compared to alternatives for at
least 3 different scenarios of economical and societal development.
Out of scope are:

 This project focuses on implementation of additional sustainable energy sources on board of the ship,
to reduce the carbon intensity. A total replacement of current main energy systems e.g. main
propulsion and engine is therefore beyond the scope of the project.
 This project is aiming on reducing carbon intensity on ships. other emission like sulfur oxides (SOx),
oxide of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), etc. are not specifically investigated.
 Methods and solutions which have high impact on usefulness and capability of the ship.
2.1 Approach
The project consist of two phases. In phase one, the technical aspect of sustainable energy systems is
investigated. In the second phase, the social and economic aspects of the sustainable energy system are
investigated.
Phase 1: technical aspect of sustainable energy systems

The necessary information about the current state of vessels has been obtained from the literature. With the
help of literature, choices have been made regarding which vessel type is most suitable and which energy
systems are available in the short term. The following approach has been applied:
 Properties collected from literature from various alternative fuels and energy sources.
 A spreadsheet overview created of the properties and calculated the CO 2 emissions using an Excel.
 Selected a specific sailing profile to assess possibilities sustainable energy systems.
 The optimal solution determined based on the NSGA II sorting algorithm to find the best combination
of sustainable systems.
Phase 2: social, legal and economic aspects of the sustainable energy system
The following approach has been applied for the social, legal and economic aspects:
 The cost of the various alternative fuels and energy sources are collected from literature, and with Excel
an overview of cost i.e. CAPEX/OPEX is created.
 Research into regulation and social has been done through literature research.
3
2.2 Outline of the minor project report
The project report has been structured into six chapters.
Introduction
The first two chapters describes the why the background information of the project, the problem definition, and
a research question has formulated. Chapter 2 describes subsequently, the goal of the project, and what is
beyond the scope of the project. And finally, the approach is described in chapter 2.1.
Literature survey
Chapters 3 describes first of all the pollution within the maritime industry from a broad perspective. The current
situation of fuel consumption is described, and which ships are the most polluting. Subsequently, the background
alternatives to reduce GHG are describes, which are divided into alternative fuels and alternative energy
generation. Chapters 3.3 describes the NSGA-II algorithm what is used te determine the options based on
objectives. Chapter 3.4 describes the background of two additional scenarios based on economical, legal and
societal development.
Methodology
In chapter 4.1, the method to determine which vessel type is the most feasible to reduce the GHG emission is
described. In additional, the method the calculate the GHG reduction is described in chapter 4.3. NSGA-II
algorithm is described in chapter 4.4 and the method used for economical, legal and societal development in
chapter 4.5.
Results
In chapter 5.1, the feasibility is examined per vessel type, to determine which vessel type is the most feasible to
reduce the GHG emission. Subsequently, a vessel type is selected, and the operational profile of this vessel is
used to calculate the feasibility of a sustainable energy systems. Subsequently, The results of GHG reduction of
the alternative fuel and alternative energy supply can be found in chapter 5.5. The results of the optimization
with the NSGA-II algorithm is written in chapter 5.6, and the economic aspects in chapter 5.7. The conclusions of
the project can be found in chapter 6.
4
3 LITERATURE SURVEY
This chapter describes the background information and options to reduce the GHG of vessels. First, chapter 3.1
describes in general which vessels are the most polluting. Subsequently, chapter 3.2 describes how GHG can be
reduced on vessels, which is mainly by alternative fuels and alternative energy generation. Section 3.3 describes
an optimization method: the NSGA algorithm, for comparing different options based on set objectives. Due to
the current development in energy transition, it is important to prevent unexpected and undesirable scenarios.
therefore, in addition to GHG reduction of midlife update vessel building 2006, the social and economic
consequences of the new systems will be also investigated for vessels build in 2021 and 2030. The social and
economic consequences can be found in Section 3.4.
3.1 Background
3.1.1 Analysis of GHG emissions from current vessels

90% of all world trade is carried by vessels, and 3% of the total CO 2 emissions can be related to ship industry
(Shell, 2020). In addition to CO2 emissions, other pollutants for example, NOx and SOx emissions, are also
emitted. Therefore, the maritime industry has a responsibility to reduce the Greenhouse Gases (GHG).
Subdivision vessel type

Vessels are divided into categories to distinguish between all ships worldwide. Table 1 shows the subdivision.
There are roughly 4 different vessel groups: (1) Cargo-carrying transport ships, (2) Non-merchant vessels, (3)
work vessels, and (4) non seagoing merchant vessels. By subdividing the vessels into groups, it is possible to look
more closely at the GHG emissions.
Table 1: Subdivision vessel type into groups
5
Fuel consumption
If we look worldwide, the majority of all ships worldwide still sail on heavy marine fuel (HFO). HFO is identified
as the ‘worst case substance’ (Heavy fuel oil, 2020).
The total amount of fuel consumption by vessel type is displayed in Figure 1. In addition to HFO, other fuels are
also used in the maritime industry. For example liquefied gas tankers, LNG, and LPG vessels, which consume the
fuel that is being transported. Besides, Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) is used for a small percentage, for almost all
ships. But as the figure shows, most of the fuel consumption can be related to HFO. The cargo-carrying transport
ships: bulk carrier, container and oil tanker are vessels with the highest fuel consumption. These are mainly the
largest ships in the maritime industry, and sail relatively long distances. The next 3 most polluting vessels are
chemical tankers, general cargo and liquefied gas tankers. These vessels are smaller in size and weigh less
compared to the first mentioned ships, and therefore less fuel consumption. In the categories: non-merchant
vessels, work vessels, and non-seagoing merchant vessels, (vessels on the right side of figure 1) the fuel
consumption is relatively low. It can be notice that the GHG can be reduced when an energy-efficient solution is
found for the vessels cargo-carrying transport category
Figure 1: Fuel consumption by ship type, and current fuel types
The energy consumption of the energy demand is divided in different uses on-board. Main engine (propulsion),
auxiliary engines (electric generation) Boiler (heat). The overall energy demand generally comes from the main
engine and propulsion demand (Fourth IMO GHG Study, 2020).
Vessels from the cargo-carrying transport category have the largest share of fuel consumption. The question is
whether these vessels are also the most suitable for reducing GHG, in the short term. In the following chapters,
further research is conducted into which ship types are most suitable for short-term retrofitting, with the aim of
reducing GHG.
3.1.2 Energy efficiency index

The Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) was made mandatory for new ships (IMO M. , 2018). The EEDI for new
ships is the most important technical measure and aims at promoting the use of more energy efficient (less
polluting) equipment and engines. Since 1 January 2013, following an initial two year phase zero, new ship design
needs to meet the reference level for their ship type. The level is to be tightened incrementally every five years,
6
and so the EEDI is expected to stimulate continued innovation and technical development of all the components
influencing the fuel efficiency of a ship from its design phase.
EEDI targets for new ships:
 Phase 0 - ships built between 2013-2015 are required to have a carbon intensity at least equal to the
baseline.
 Phase 1 - ships built between 2015-2020 are required to have a reduction in carbon intensity, at least,
10% below the reference line
 Phase 2 - ships built between 2021-2025 are required to have a reduction in carbon intensity, at least,
20% below the reference line.
 Phase 3 - ships built after 2025 are required to have a reduction in carbon intensity, at least, 30% below
the reference line.
3.1.3 Impact on existing ships

Commercial clients which uses services from the shipowners such as offshore supply, transport of people or
cargo demand (in order to reduce their carbon footprint) ships with a newer EEDI targets due to corporate
social responsibility. This makes usage of ships which no EEDI target or a lower EEDI target more difficult to use.
3.2 Options to reduce GHG on vessels

Together with alternative power systems and equipment, these alternative fuels are converted into usable
power. This chapter describes the alternative fuels as well as the alternative energy suppliers. Figure 2 shows a
Sankey diagram of a diesel electric ship where the power flow and losses are shown.
4
Hotel load
1 47.5%
Useful 5 6
Generator
electrical
Thruster
2 Thrust Speed
Ship
energy 95% Mechanical
Motor
Electric power
Drive
Useful shaft energy 35% Propulsion load power Loss

power
47.5% Loss 35%
Loss 5%
Loss 5%
Loss 5%
Fuel
Exhaust gas 40%
Engine cooling 20%
1 Alternative fuels (Hydrogen / Ammonia / Methanol )

Mechanical loss 5%
2 Engine efficiency improvement (Short term energy storage; batteries / flywheel / supercap)
3 Heat recovery (Organic Rankine Cycle / heat pump)

3
4 Sustainable energy sources (Solar / wind)
5 Thruster efficiency improvement ( energy recovery )
6 Propulsion assistance ( Sails )
Figure 2 Sankey diagram ship
Based on this diagram, there are globally 6 options to decrease the carbon intensity of a ship:
1. Alternative fuels, by replacing or adding engines with alternative fuels with a lower or zero carbon
intensity, the overall carbon intensity can be decreased. These fuels are described in chapter 3.2.1
2. Energy efficiency improvement, engines have the lowest carbon intensity for each kWh at a certain load.
Short term energy storage can be used in order to optimize the engine load for the lowest carbon
intensity. Energy storage systems are described in chapters 3.2.2.1 until 3.2.2.3.
7
3. Heat recovery, a large portion of the energy in fossil fuels are losses resulting in heat in the exhaust gas
system. Energy recovery systems converting this heat into electrical energy can be used to recover part
of these losses. Heat recovery systems are described in chapters 3.2.2.7.
4. Sustainable energy sources, feely available energy from sustainable energy sources such as the sun can
be used for the creation of electrical energy. Sustainable energy sources are described in chapters
3.2.2.8 and 3.2.2.9
5. Thruster efficiency improvement, regenerative techniques which recover the energy when decelerating
the ship can be used to improve the efficiency. Thruster regeneration is described in chapter 3.2.2.6.
6. Propulsion assistance, wind energy by using sails can reduce the energy needed for propulsion. Wind
assisted propulsion techniques are described in chapters 3.2.2.4 and 3.2.2.5.
3.2.1 Alternative fuels

Alternative fuels can be seen as a possible option to reduce the greenhouse gases or even make them completely
zero. However, the alternative fuels have different properties as the traditional fuels: Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO),
Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) and Marine Gas Oil (MGO). The properties of the alternative fuels have been
investigated for the integration of these fuels within vessels. In addition to the properties of the different fuels,
the choice for an alternative fuel will also depend on the requirements set for the vessels. For example the
operational profile. An alternative fuel may be suitable on the basis of an operational profile, while it is not
advisable for another operational profile.
Properties table
Appendix G provides an overview of the most promising alternative fuels with the properties of the fuels (DNV-
GL, Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies, 2018). In the table the properties: energy density
by mass, energy density by volume and the GHG emissions are given. The traditional HFO fuel is taken as
reference when comparing the alternative fuel.
Energy density by mass

De energy density by mass determines de endurance of the total amount of energy in specific fuel type. This is
an important factor because vessels can be operational for weeks or months. The column 'specific energy' shows
a wide variation in energy density by mass. This is mainly due to the specific energy of hydrogen. The specific
energy density of hydrogen is 120 [MJ/kg] which is 3 times the energy density of mass of 40.2 [MJ/kg] for HFO.
The next highest energy density of mass are the alternative fuels Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Liquefied
Petroleum Gas (LPG). The alternative fuels Ammonia and methanol are with ~18.5 [MJ/kg] lower than HFO.
Energy density by volume

The energy density by volume determines the storage on board for a specific fuel. For hydrogen, the state of
storage has a significant influence on the volumetric energy density. Hydrogen stored as a liquid state will require
about 5 times the storage on board compared to the HFO storage tank, while hydrogen stored at 300 bar has
almost 16 times the volume of HFO. The energy density by volume for LNG and LPG results in roughly 2 times
the volume compared the volumetric energy density HFO. Methanol and Ammonia need a tank which is 2.5 and
3 times larger than HFO tank, respectively.
GHG emissions
The GHG emissions are presented in the table with kg CO 2/kg fuel. When Hydrogen is considered as energy carrier
in vessels in combination with fuel cells, no CO2 emissions are produced. This also applies to the alternative fuel
Ammonia. Ammonia does not contain carbon and is therefore CO2 emission-free (Rinze Geertsma, 2019). When
methanol is produced from renewable sources, low CO2 emissions can be achieved as shown in the table which
is approximately 3.5 times less compared with methanol from fossil origin.
As described, the alternative fuels hydrogen and ammonia, produced from renewable sources, are CO 2 emission-
free. However, the engines running on ammonia are still under development and are limited available (Rinze
8
Geertsma, 2019). Therefore, the alternative fuel ammonia is unfeasible in the short term. The development for
fuel cells used for hydrogen is under further development compared to the engines running on ammonia.
Therefore, hydrogen is being further investigated as a possible alternative fuel.
3.2.2 Alternative energy generation
3.2.2.1 Battery
The most common medium to store energy is obviously battery storage. The most popular battery types are
Lead-Acid and Lithium. Both battery type have their own performance characteristics. Figure 3 compares three
popular battery types.
Figure 3 Battery comparison for various battery types (Torrero-Munoz, 2019)
As the battery delivers a DC voltage and the current from and to the battery system has to be controlled. The
system should be connected to the AC-grid of the existing ship. Therefore an AC/DC converter is required. A
typical setup is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Typical setup for a battery system on an existing AC grid placed on a ship
9
A very common way to simulate a battery system is the Kinetic Battery Model (Manwell, 1993)
Figure 5 Kibam model
The efficiency of the AC/DC converter must also be taken into account.
As mentioned in (ACEP, 2017) there is no potential fuel saving for power smoothening (which limits the power
fluctuations on a generator but not change the average amount of load) . Therefore the only applicable strategy
for usage of a battery system is charging from a clean energy source (for instance, when the ship is berthed) and
using the energy when sailing,
Corvus Energy is a company which provides Lithium batteries while Danfoss is a good example of a provider of
AC/DC converters in this field.
3.2.2.2 Supercap
A supercap can be considered as high capacity capacitor. The energy stored is somewhere between the
traditional capacitor and a rechargeable battery. Although it has a lower energy density compared to
rechargeable batteries, the energy density is much higher and it can handle more charge and discharge cycles.
As the supercap delivers a DC voltage and the current from and to the supercap system has to be controlled. The
system should be connected to the AC-grid of the existing ship. Therefore an AC/DC converter is required, this is
similar to Figure 4. If the voltage level matches, eventually the supercap can be connected in parallel with other
DC sources, such as batteries.
The classical capacitor model, containing the dielectric leakage resistance (Rleakage), and the effective series
resistance and inductance (RESR and LESL) as shown in Figure 6 can be used.
Figure 6 Capacitor model
The efficiency of the AC/DC converter must also be taken into account.
Skeleton is a company which provided ultracapacitors.
10
3.2.2.3 Flywheel energy storage
A flywheel stores energy by accelerating a rotor and thus storing it as rotational energy. When energy is delivered
by the flywheel, the rotor will decelerate appropriately.
The centripetal force of a flywheel is an aspect to take into consideration. This force counter reacts with the
potential movement of a ship, therefore the foundation has to be strong enough to coop with these forces.
Some companies provide a commercial, off-the-shelve, flywheel energy storage system containing a flywheel
system and a converter, converting the variable frequency of the flywheel into the fixed frequency at the output.
The classical equation can be used for the simulation of the flywheel
1 1
𝐸 = 𝐼 𝜔2 = 𝑀𝑟 2 𝜔2 (1)
2 2
The efficiency of the converter must also be taken into account.
Piller is a company which provides flywheel energy storage system.
3.2.2.4 Flettner rotor

A Flettner rotor (Flettner rotors, 2021) is a cylinder which rotates around his axis. Due to the Magnus effect a
force is generated at perpendicular angle of the flow and the rotational direction of the cylinder.
Figure 7 Flettner rotor
Some companies deliver a complete package, to be mounted on a ship. The power required to rotate the cylinder
has to be taken into account.
Depending on the wind direction (a Flettner rotor only generates thrust based on the perpendicular part of the
wind) the Flettner rotor should be stopped, rotated clockwise or rotated counter clockwise.
11
Based on the efficiency of the Flettner rotor (which is dependant of the size) the rotor reduces thrust based on
the wind conditions. The thrust has to be converted into electrical power. This electrical power can be subtracted
from the propulsion power as delivered by the drive system (Figure 8)
𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 𝐹(𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 ) (2)
Figure 8 Electrical power
For a Flettner rotor with a height of 35 meters, a diameter of 5 meter and a spin ratio of 3.5 the effective power
is shown in Figure 9
Figure 9 Flettner rotor polar (Traut, 2014)
12
Norsepower is a company which provides Flettner rotors. The Flettner rotor as described above will function as
a base case in this study.
3.2.2.5 Sail
Modern sails are wing shaped elements which are (in contrast to airplanes) designed to generate at low wind
speed forward thrust. Due to relative large angle of the wing some provisions have to be made to influence the
air flow preventing stalling effects.
In the wing small ventilation holes are applied. With a large fan air is suctioned in these holes which generates
an efficient airflow around the wings.
Figure 10 Ventifoil (Econowind, 2021)
Some companies deliver a complete package, to be mounted on a ship. The power required for the fan has to be
taken into account.
Depending on the wind direction (a sail only generates thrust based on the straight part of the wind) the sail
rotor should be stopped, rotated clockwise or rotated counter clockwise.
Based on the efficiency of the sail (which is dependant of the size) the rotor reduces thrust based on the wind
conditions. This is similar to the Flettner rotor as described in formula (2) and Figure 8.
Econowind provides Ventifoils.
3.2.2.6 Thruster regeneration

When performing, for instance, a crash stop on a thruster control system, two steps will be performed on the
thruster:
 Breaking the thruster to standstill
 Accelerating the thruster to the reverse direction
13
Breaking the thruster to standstill means that the thruster motor will act as a generator. In conventional solutions
a power resistor is used to consume the generated power. From an efficiency point of view it is better to store
the generated power and use it at a later moment. A short term power storage solution such as a supercap can
be used.
An example of a regenerative system is shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11 Regenerative system
A supercap system consisting of an inverter and a supercap will store the energy generated during the braking
process.
When braking, the energy generated will be stored. When accelerating, this energy will be used.
Based on the model of the thruster and the electric motor, a certain amount of energy is generated.
𝑃𝑂𝑅𝐶 = 𝐹(𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟) (3)
There is no, off the shelve, solution.
3.2.2.7 Organic Rankine Cycle

The organic rankine cycle (Energy, 2021) can be seen as a steam turbine. A steam turbine extracts thermal energy
from pressurized steam and uses it to mechanical works on a rotating output shaft. The organic rankin cycle used
a refrigerant which boils a 15 ⁰C. With a screw expander, the vapour will be converted to rotational energy. Figure
12 shows this principle.
14
Figure 12 Organic Rankine Cycle
Some companies deliver a complete package, to be mounted on a ship.
Based on the waste heat, the Organic Rankine Cycle generates an amount of power.
𝑃𝑂𝑅𝐶 = 𝐹(𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡) (4)
Orcan energy is a company which provides ORC solutions. The 85 kW Orcan unit will act as a base case for this
study.
3.2.2.8 Shore to ship

Traditionally, the amount of power the ship can draw from the shore connection is limited to 400V/125 A. This
means that maximal 87 kW can be drawn from the grid. Currently some harbours are capable of drawing more
power from the grid.
The IEC-80005 standard describes this high power shore connection system. Figure 13 shows such an example.
Figure 13 Shore connection system (Siemens, 2016)
Essentially the system consists of a AC/AC converter which converters the local grid, which can have varying
voltage and frequencies to the grid the ship demands. When in the harbor, all power required will be drawn from
the grid and no CO2 will be emitted.
Siemens SIHARBOR provides shore connection solutions. For lower power densities a standard cable connected
to the ship can be used.
15
3.2.2.9 Solar panels
Solar panels placed on the deck of the ship can be used for the production of energy from the radiation of the
sun.
Solar panels and DC/AC converters with MPPT technology are placed on the ship and the corresponding
distribution boards.
3.2.2.10 Vehicle To Grid (V2G)

Vehicle To Grid (Chademo, 2021) is a technology which is already implemented in the Tesla Model 3 EV and part
of the vision of Nissan in their future Nissan Leaf. Essentially to electric vehicle will deliver (using the internal
AC/DC converter in reverse direction) power to the grid instead of consuming power from the grid.
Figure 14 V2G example
For the Tesla model 3 EV the following data is applicable:
Table 2 Tesla V2G
Capacity 50 kWh
Maximum discharge power 22 kW
Maximum charge power 25 kW
3.3 NSGA-II
With Non dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) it is possible to solve multi objective optimization
problems (Deb, 2002).
Our system should meet the following objectives:
 Low price
 High emission reduction
 Size and weight within boundaries
NSGA-II uses a randomized population-based search on the solution space and constraints and organizes them
into fronts based on the non denominization criteria. After, the crowding distance, a measure of how close an
individual (a solution) is to its neighbor, is assigned. A larger value specifies more diversity. The fittest solutions
are chosen using a process called tournament selection along with a crowded comparison using the crowding
distance. Once crossovers and mutations are completed, the parents and children are joined to construct the
next generation.
16
Figure 15 NSGA II algorithm
3.4 Scenarios of economical, legal and societal development

In this section, background is given on the social and economic consequences of adapting the traditional
propulsion drive system of vessels. In addition to the current social and economic consequences of the ship, built
in 2006, two extra scenarios are being investigated. Vessels built in 2021 and 2030. These scenarios do not predict
the future, but provide insight into future developments, and access the impact of unexpected changes, to make
the right decision in the future.
3.4.1 Economic consequences

Economics of vessels
For the economic consequences the costs of all the options have to be compared. There are three scenario’s to
consider:
 A 15 year old vessel, build in 2006, with a midlife update, meeting the current and future EEDI
requirements.
 A new vessel, build in 2021, meeting the current and future EEDI requirements.
 A ship which will be built in 2030, meeting the ultimate EEDI requirement (zero emission).
For the determination of the current value of a ship and the value after a period of 15 years a formula for the
depreciation has to be found, according (Belastingdienst, 2019) the depreciation can be calculated according
Table 3.
Table 3 Ship depreciation according
Percentage
Part purchase value Depreciation rate
Casco 55.00% 2.00%
Engine room 15.00% 10.00%
Others 30.00% 6.66%
The CAPEX is than assumed as depreciation for each year, based on the operation profile.
For the OPEX it is important to determine the efficiency of a ship. According (Delft, 2019) the efficiency of new
ship are not better than the efficiency of older ships. This is shown in Figure 16.
17
Figure 16 Development of the design efficiency of new tankers, 1960-2012
Economics of alternative fuel

In chapter 3.2.1 it concluded that hydrogen can be an alternative fuel for a mid-life update vessel, given current
technical developments. This means that for scenario ‘vessel 2021’, it may also be technically feasible to operate
with hydrogen. Green ammonia and green methanol have been rejected for the mid-life update vessel and for
the scenario ‘vessel 2021’ due to the immaturity of the engines needed. However, In scenario ‘vessel 2030’ it is
assumed that the engines have been further developed. Therefore, for an alternative fuel in 2030, further
research is being done into green methanol and green ammonia, to investigate whether it is also feasible
economically.
Both green methanol and green ammonia have different properties. Ammonia has to be stored at 10 bar or
refrigerated at -34 deg (both liquid form), therefore special tanks are required. moreover, ammonia is poisonous
and therefore additional safety systems are needed. Ammonia is also strongly dependent on the price of
hydrogen, and has less environmental impact when spilled compared to ammonia. Methanol, on the other hand,
can be stored in atmospheric conditions, and has less environmental impact when spilled compared to ammonia.
There is also a difference in fuel price. Green ammonia is cheaper than green methanol with €0.66/kg and €
1.03/kg, respectively (MARIN, 2021).
There are various options regarding the type of combustion engine. Methanol can also be used in an internal
combustion engine. Such as the ship: MS Stena Germanica. This ship uses bio-methanol, but is not completely
CO2 emission free. In addition, internal combustion engine is feasible but not efficient. Therefore, a Solid Oxide
Fuel Cell (SOFC) is chosen for both green ammonia and green methanol to achieve the highest efficiency
(Looijenga, 2020). The price of the SOFC fuel cells are approximately twice the price of the PEM fuel cells (Tijdgat,
2020).
3.4.2 Legal consequences

Regulations of alternative fuel
Hydrogen (and some other fuels) are considered as low-flashpoint fuel which are subject to the international
code for safety on ships using gasses or other low-flashpoint fuels (IGF, 2017). Hydrogen storage, however, is not
covered in the current version of the IGF code. These rules are currently in development and will be part in future
versions of the IGF code. Until the new rules occur, hydrogen storage and use must follow the alternative design
18
approach in accordance with SOLAS Regulation II-1/55 (SOLAS, 1974) to demonstrate an equivalent level of
safety.
Other regulations, such as the DNV GL class rules for fuel cell (FC) installations (DNV GL rules for classification of
ships Part 6, Chapter 2, Section 3) (DNV-GL, 2019) cover design principles, material requirements, arrangement
and system design, safety systems and other aspects.
Regarding the use of hydrogen, the ISO/TR 15961 “Basic considerations for the safety of hydrogen systems” (ISO,
ISO/TR 15961 Basic considerations for the safety of hydrogen systems, 2015) provide an overview of safety-
relevant considerations for H2.
The ISO and IGF Codes cover the storage of liquefied gas on board ships, and the C-tank rules will in principle
cover liquid hydrogen, but additional considerations will be necessary due to the properties of hydrogen and its
very low storage temperature. Bunkering of hydrogen-fueled ships is subject to national regulations and
therefore needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Bunkering and port regulations for bunkering H 2 fuel
do not exist at this time. However, several ports do have LNG rules, and bunkering is subject to SGMF guidelines
(SGMF, 2017) and ISO/TS 18683 (ISO, 2016). It is assumed that there will be a significant overlap with future
standards for hydrogen.
For batteries regulations such as the DNV GL class rules for battery power installations (DNV GL rules for
classification of ships Part 6, Chapter 2, Section 1) (DNV-GL, 2019), cover design principles, material
requirements, arrangement and system design, safety systems and other aspects.
With the method of the resulting EEDI (IMO, 2013) can be calculated for alternative fuels while the method (IMO,
2018) of the resulting EEDI can be calculated for alternative energy supplies. Both methods are show in Table 4
and Table 5.
Table 4 Calculation for alternative fuels
Lower calorific Carbon CF (t- CO2/t-

Type of fuel Reference value (kJ/kg) content Fuel)
ISO 8217 Grades DMX
1 Diesel/Gas Oil through DMB (ISO, 2017) 42,700 0.8744 3.206
ISO 8217 Grades RMA
2 Light Fuel Oil (LFO) through RMD (ISO, 2017) 41,200 0.8594 3.151
ISO 8217 Grades RME
3 Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) through RMK (ISO, 2017) 40,200 0.8493 3.114
4 Liquefied Petroleum
Gas (LPG) Propane 46,300 0.8182 3
4 Liquefied Petroleum
Gas (LPG) Butane 45,700 0.8264 3.03
5 Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG) 48,000 0.75 2.75
6 Methanol 19,900 0.375 1.375
7 Ethanol 26,800 0.5217 1.913
19
Table 5 Calculation categories for alternative energy supplies
Category A Category B-1 Category B-2 Category C-1 Category C-2

Cannot be seperated Can be treated Can be treated Effective at all Depending on
from overal seperately from seperately from the time ambient
performance of the the overall overall performance environment
vessel performance of of the vessel
the vessel
Feff=1 Feff<1 Feff=1 Feff<1

low friction coating hull air lubrication wind assistance (sails, waste heat photovoltaic cells
system (air cavity Flettner-Rotors, kites) recovery system
via air injection to (exhaust gas heat
reduce ship recovery and
resistance) (can conversion to
be switched off) electric power)
bare optimization
rudder resistance
propeller design
3.4.3 Societal consequences

New techniques are often not accepted by the community, This is caused by the fact that new techniques are
often unknown and therefore percepted as dangerous. In this project batteries and some alternative fuels can
be considered as rather unknown.
According (Government, 2020) thrust has to be built in the community. The risk as well as the opportunities for
the acceptance will change as awareness grows when people see new techniques emerge. Therefore it is
important to ensure people that these techniques are introduced in a safe and responsible way.
A good example is the case study as shown (Government, 2020). In this case, firefighters, police and ambulance
are trained how to react in incidents related to hydrogen. This has to advantages, the people involved knew how
to deal with hydrogen while the communities felt safer being aware of this.
In California there are a lot of hydrogen cars. The firefighters were considered as stakeholders and where
engaged in an early stage in the introduction of these cars and fuel stations. The firefighters concluded from their
own that hydrogen can be handled safely. These “ambassadors” help the community in feeling safe with
hydrogen technology.
20
4 METHODOLOGY
4.1 Vessel type feasibility methodology

First step in this project is to determine which ship type is the most feasible to reduce the GHG emission. For the
ship types as defined in Table 1 the ships are weighted by using aspects which determine the feasibility.
To be able to calculate the feasibility some criteria have to be found which determines whether a ship is suitable.
In this case the criteria as described in the next chapters are used. In this report the weight of each criteria is
even, this means that the importance of each criterion is even. Obviously a more detailed investigation of the
weighting factor for each criteria will result in a more precise outcome of the feasibility.
4.1.1 Profile variation

A ship can be sailing at different speeds, maneuvering at different, standing still at different wind conditions or
is at berth, these conditions are called sailing profiles. A container carrier is designed to sail at a constant speed
and at more than 90% of the time it is running at this profile. The whole ship design is optimized for this profile.
A tug will run at various profiles, therefore it is difficult to optimize the ship and the design is a compromise. An
overview of possible profile types is shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Profile types for various ship types (Kwasieckyj, 2013)
Modes
Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Unknown
Transport carrier Port Port loading Manoeu- Cruising Cruising Cruising Cruising Cruising
at various speeds discharge vring <5 kn 9 kn 11 kn 13 kn 14 kn
Tug Port Transit 16 Transit Anchor Bollard DP low DP high Standy Standby
kn towing handling pull low high
Cruise ship Port Cruising Cruising Cruising
< 11 kn < 15 kn 20 kn
Ferry Port Port standby Manoeu- Cruising
vring 24 kn
Offshore supply Port Port loading Economi Full Manoeu- DP
vessel / unloading c speed speed vring
The potential for GHG reduction at ships with a varying profile is higher than for ships with a constant profile.
Table 7 shows the score card for each profile type.
Table 7 Profile type feasibility score card
Propulsion Feasibility score

Unknown 0
Transport carrier at various 0.2
speeds
Tug 0.8
Cruise ship 0.6
Ferry 0.4
Offshore supply vessel 0.7
4.1.2 Propulsion type

Figure 17 shown the most common propulsion concepts.
21
Figure 17 Diesel direct (conventional) vs diesel electric (Yanmar, 2020)
The propulsion type determines whether using an alternative energy source is feasible. For a diesel direct driven
ship it is difficult to change the fuel or to embed and alternative energy as this can only being used for the
auxiliary load. A diesel electric ship (where the propulsion is being driven by drive systems) is more suitable. A
diesel direct driven ship with power take in (possibility to use an additional energy source) is a possible
compromise. Table 8 shows the score card for each propulsion type.
Table 8 Propulsion feasibility score card
Propulsion Feasibility score

Diesel direct 0
Diesel direct with PTI 0.5
Diesel electric 1
4.1.3 Equipped with crane

Some ships have a crane used for loading and unloading in small harbors lacking of onshore cranes. An example
is shown in Figure 18.
22
Figure 18 Ship equipped with crane
The cranes have a large power consumption and require that the brake energy is being absorbed. Also the cranes
are used intermittent which means that generators are running continuously for a crane which is in operation
for 10% at the time. Energy storage might be a good solution for this kind of operation. Table 9 shows the score
card for each profile type.
Table 9 Crane feasibility score card
Crane Feasibility score

Yes 1
No 0
4.1.4 Size of the hotel load

For ships transporting a large amount of passengers (such as cruise vessels) or having a lot of auxiliary equipment
(such as offshore supply vessels) a large portion of the produced power is used for non-propulsion purposes.
These ships have a varying power demand where energy storage or alternative energy sources might be feasible.
Table 10 shows the score card for each profile type.
Table 10 Hotel load feasibility score card
Hotel load Feasibility score

Low 0
Medium 0.5
Large 1
4.1.5 Available deck space and weight

Ships having a large amount of deck space or weight space have more possibilities to accommodate energy
storage or alternative energy sources. Table 11 shows the score card for each profile type.
Table 11 Deck space/ weight space feasibility score card
Deck space / Weight space Feasibility score

Low 0
Medium 0.5
23
High 1
4.1.6 Mission length

Large container carriers will sail for multiple weeks while roro ferries will sail for less than an hour. Weak point
of a lot of alternative energy sources is the energy density. As a result, ships with a shorter mission length are
more suitable. Table 12 shows the score card for each profile type.
Table 12 Mission length feasibility score card
Mission length Feasibility score

Short 1
Medium 0.5
Long 0
4.1.7 Client type score card

Most ships are owned by commercial parties where return of investment is more important than sustainability.
Some ships however, such as ferries, have the government as a stakeholder. This is a big advantage in a possible
business case because a government tend to justify the additional costs for a sustainable system more easily
than a commercial party. Table 13 shows the score card for each profile type.
Table 13 Client type
Client type Feasibility score

Government 1
Commercial 0
4.1.8 Predictability of the sailing route

Most ships will sail depending on the cargo to transport. Therefore the exact usage is unknown and can change.
Other ships (such as ferries) will have a predetermined route. Calculations for the CO2 reduction is more easily
for these kind of predictable ships. Table 14 shows the score card for each profile type.
Table 14 Predictability score card
Predictability Feasibility score

Low 0
Medium 0.5
High 1
4.2 GHG emission calculation methodology

First step to determine the CO2 emission is to determine which sailing profiles are applicable for which time and
based on the number of online diesel engines what the average load on each Diesel Engine is. Diesel engine
manufacturers often provide measurement data where the CO 2 emission as a function of the engine load is
shown (GL, 2008).
24
4.3 GHG reduction calculation methodology
4.3.1 Modeling of alternative fuel

Before an alternative fuel can be modelled, the energy demand of the vessel must be known. The energy demand
of the vessel can be determined with the operational profile of the vessel concerned. Subsequently, a tank
calculation is made with the energy demand using the properties table from appendix G to determine the amount
of storage. In addition, it is investigated which systems are needed to adjust the ship during the mid-life update.
Based on this research, the required costs are determined.
4.3.2 Alternative energy suppliers
4.3.2.1 Battery
For the battery it is assumed that energy from shore will be used to charge the battery. During the transit the
batteries will be discharged.
4.3.2.2 Supercap
For the supercap it is assumed that energy from shore will be used to charge the supercap. During the transit the
supercap will be discharged.
4.3.2.3 Flywheel energy storage

For the flywheel it is assumed that energy from shore will be used to accelerate the flywheel. During the transit
the flywheel will be decelerated.

The polar plot of Figure 9 is used to estimate the “thrust power” as generated by the Flettner rotor. The
equivalent “electrical power” which is normally used to generate the thrust power is dependent on the efficiency
of the propulsion propellers.
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = (5)
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡
For convenience a rather pessimistic efficiency of 100% is assumed.
4.3.2.5 Sail
A similar calculation as shown for the Flettner rotor in chapter 4.3.2.1 is also applicable for the sail.
4.3.2.6 Thruster regeneration

The equivalent “electrical power” which is normally used to regenerate the thrust power is dependent on the
efficiency of the propulsion propellers.
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = (6)
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡
For convenience a rather pessimistic efficiency of 50% is assumed for the thruster regeneration during breaking.
4.3.2.7 Organic rankine cycle

The supplier of the organic rankine cycle equipment (Orcan, 2019) shows typical configurations fitting to a certain
size diesel engine. For instance; for a 2 MW Diesel Engine, a 87 kW organic rankine cycle unit can be used.
25
4.3.2.8 Shore to ship
For the shore to ship a typical shore connection of 87 kW is assumed (125A at 400V).

For the solar panels, a flat orientation is assumed. Weather data in combination with the time schedule of the
ship is used in order to estimate
4.3.2.10 Vehicle to grid

A distribution board consisting of connectors (V2G charge stations) to the various vehicles, switchgear and a
transformer are placed on deck of a ship. The strategy is sketched in Figure 19
Port A Sailing Port B
2800 m2 2800 m2
400 kW 400 kW
1 hour / 400 kW 1 hour / 400 kW

400 kWh 400 kWh
385 kWh (15%)
Peak 600 kW
Minimal 16x Minimal 16x
Nissan Leaf V2G Nissan Leaf V2G
Minimal 28x Nissan Leaf
50 kWh 0.5C V2G 50 kWh 0.5C
50 kWh 22kW V2G
0..100% 100..0% 0..100%
Figure 19 V2G application
To be attractive as a business case for the owners of the vehicles on the harbor a large solar park is installed
charging the electric vehicles during the waiting time for entering the vessel. During the trip the batteries will be
discharged and as soon as the vehicles exiting the vessel a large solar park at the destination will be used for
charging the electric vehicles back to their initial state if charge.
The solar radiation will be analyzed for the charging. Based on the characteristics of a Nissan Leaf the charge and
discharge process (taken into account an 1 hour harbor time) are analyzed.
4.4 NSGA II algorithm methodology

For the NSGA II optimization the algorithm in Matlab (Selvaray, 2015) is used for the calculation. Price
information, potential CO2 emission reduction and potential constraints are used the find the optimal solution
for each unit price.
26
4.5 Economic consequences methodology (CAPEX / OPEX)
Economics of vessels
For each ship the CAPEX is determined based on the depreciation as shown in Table 3. For the OPEX the efficiency
will be assumed to be equal for an older as well as a new ship, this is also shown in Figure 16. In this way the total
CAPEX and OPEX is determined for the reference ships. Second step is to determine the impact on the CAPEX
and the OPEX for the GHG reduction techniques where the goal is to meet the EEDI requirements. Finally the
total cost of ownership (TCO) can be calculated for each ship and the most feasible solution for each scenario
can be determined.

To compare the economics consequents green methanol and green ammonia, a tank calculation has been made
using the properties table from appendix G.
27
5 RESULTS
5.1 Vessel type feasibility

The ship types as mentioned in Figure 1 are taken into account. The calculation of the feasibility scores is shown
in Appendix B.
5.1.1 Vessel selection

Weighting the ship types of Figure 1 with the criteria of chapter 4.1 results in the overview of Figure 20.
Profile score Propulsion score Crane score

Hotel load score Deck space score Weight space score
Mission length score Client score Mission predictability score
Figure 20 Ship feasibility of ship types for the feasibility score cards
Based on the criteria of the previous chapters the roll on roll off ferry (Roro) is chosen as the most feasible ship.
Important aspects are:
- Typical short mission lengths (< 1 hour)

- Government will act as a stakeholder
- Predicable sailing route
- Relative high hotel load
- Availability of deck space
28
5.2 Roro ferry case description
To be able to determine the CO2 reduction an exact case has to formulated which will act as a typical case showing
the potential of the reduction. In this chapter this case is detailed.
Based on [1] the operational profile as shown in Table 15 is assumed (Kwasieckyj, 2013).
Table 15 Operational profile of a Roro ferry
Pd [kW] Paux [kW] Time [hr/year]

Mode 1 Port 0 500 2936
Mode 2 Port standby 0 1000 559
Mode 3 Manoeuvring 1500 2000 1188
Mode 4 Cruising 11 kn 3000 1000 4077
For the mission time and location the “Texelstroom” from TESO, which functions as a Roro ferry between Den
Helder and Texel is chosen. This means that the time between leaving at Den Helder (port A) and leaving at Texel
(port B) is 1 hour (TESO, 2021). With the information from Table 15 this results in the schedule of Table 16.
Table 16 Schedule of Texelstroom
Tstart (minutes) Tstop (minutes) Profile Description

0 20 Mode 1 – Port Den Helder
20 22 Mode 2 – Port standby
22 minutes 27 minutes Mode 3 – Manoeuvring
27 minutes 55 minutes Mode 4 – Cruising 24 kn
58 minutes 60 minutes Mode 2 – Port standby
60 minutes 80 minutes Mode 1 – Port Texel
87 minutes 115 minutes Mode 4 – Cruising 24 kn
The ship will sail from 6:00 in the morning until 21:00 in the afternoon. The route of the ship will be in North
(from Den Helder to Texel) and in South (from Texel to Den Helder) direction.
29
Figure 21 TESO route
5.2.1 Propulsion concept

Assumed is a standard propulsion concept as shown in Figure 22
DG #1.1 DG #1.2 DG #2.1 DG #2.2

2000 kW 2000 kW 2000 kW 2000 kW
G G G G
BTB. #1
MSB #1 MSB #2
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
M M M M
Distr. #1.1 Distr. #2.1
Azimuth Azimuth Distr. #1.1.1 Distr. #2.1.1 Azimuth Azimuth

thruster thruster thruster thruster
#1.1 #1.2 #2.1 #2.2
1500 kW 1500 kW 1500 kW 1500 kW
Figure 22 Propulsion concept of Texelstroom
The propulsion concept of four diesel generators with a maximum power of 2000 kW each. Test generator will
supply the load to four azimuth thruster. An azimuth thruster is a configuration of marine propellers placed in
pods that can be rotated to any horizontal angle (azimuth), making a rudder unnecessary. These give ships better
maneuverability than a fixed propeller and rudder system
30
Figure 23 Azimuth thruster
5.2.2 CO2 emission

For the determination of the current CO2 emission the propulsion configuration is assumed as shown in Table
17. Main idea is that for each mode a minimum number of diesel generators are running ensuring an optimal
load of the diesel generators.
Table 17 Propulsion configuration
Number of online Number of online

diesel generators azimuth thrusters
Mode 1 Port 1 0
Mode 2 Port standby 1 0
Mode 3 Manoeuvring 3 4
Mode 4 Cruising 11 kn 3 2
For the fuel consumption (GL, 2008) is assumed as shown in Table 18.
Table 18 Engine performance
Mode 1 2 3 4
Power 100% 75% 50% 25%
CO2 mass flow 110772 g/h 81740 g/h 56312 g/h 32093 g/h
BSFC 214.3 g/kWh 213.2 g/kWh 219.5 g/kWh 253.7 g/kWh
5.3 Feasibility of options to reduce GHG feasibility

The strategies of chapter 3.2 as shown Table 19 will be simulated the estimate the CO2 reduction. In Table 19 is
described what the maturity (in accordance with technology) of energy saving potential of each strategy is. The
strategies in Table 19 with a high maturity and a high potential will be used in the further calculations.
31
Table 19 Strategies
Technique Description Maturity Potential Interesting for

further
calculations
Hydrogen Check whether an additional hydrogen fuel cell can be High High Yes
used
Batteries Usage of batteries, the system will be charged when in High High Yes
the harbor and discharged during sailing
Supercap Usage of supercaps, the system will be charged when in High Low (due to
the harbor and discharged during sailing energy density)
Flywheel Usage of flywheel energy storage, the system will be High Low (due to
energy charged when in the harbor and discharged during sailing centripetal foce)
storage
Flettner Usage of Flettner rotors to assist. Based on the wind High High (due to Yes
rotor speeds in Den Helder. As the most popular wind direction Dutch wind
is west, the potential is high. regime)
Sails Usage of sails to assist. Based on the wind speeds in Den High Medium (due to
Helder. As the most popular wind direction is west, the Dutch wind
potential is medium. regime)
Thruster Regenerate braking energy from the thruster. Due to High Low
regeneration predictive sailing route, crash stops are quite rare and
therefore the potential is low.
Organic Usage of an Organic Cycle for the waste heat as High High Yes
rankine generated by the main engines
cycle
Shore to Charging the batteries while in port, based on the existing High High Yes
ship 125/250A 400V shore supply or investigate what is
necessary regarding the upgrade of the shore supply
Solar panels Usage of solar panels for the hotel load (in combination High High Yes
with the batteries) based on the solar radiation in Den
Helder
Vehicle to Vehicle to grid charging and discharging. Still an Low High
grid experimental solution
Goal is to find the strategy which reduces to CO2 emission with the lowest operational costs. It is assumed that
the conversion is part of the midlife upgrade. Assuming a lifetime of 30 years and a midlife upgrade at 15 years,
this means that the total cost of ownership (sum of the operational expenditures (OPEX) and the capital
expenditures (CAPEX)) should be as low as possible in a period of 15 years.
The weather data from the KNMI (wind and sun) from de Kooy near Den Helder from the last 10 years will be
taken for the validation of the solar panels and the wind assisted part.
5.3.1 Constraints
For the batteries, Orcan unit and hydrogen fuel cell the main constraint is that the size and weight should not
exceed the size of a truck. Regarding the solar panels it is assumed, as with the Texelstroom, that a maximum of
700 m2 space is available for solar panels
These constraints are shown in Table 20.
32
Table 20 Constraints
Max length 18.75 meter

Max width 2.55 meter
Max height 4.00 meter
Max weight 50 ton
Max solar panels space 700 m2
5.4 Current GHG emission

As a baseline, first the CO2 emission is calculated without CO2 reduction techniques. This is done by determining
the engine load based on the operational profile of Table 15, the schedule of Table 16, the propulsion
configuration of Table 17 and finally the engine performance of Table 18.
This results in the CO2 emission of 3481 kg for each trip as shown in appendix C.
5.5 GHG reduction calculation
5.5.1 Alternative fuels

Hydrogen can be potential solution for zero emission transport application. Especially for ferries, ferries operate
on a fixed routes over a relative short distance. Therefore, it is easier to ensure availability of hydrogen.
Hydrogen (H2) is the lightest element in the periodic table (Hydrogen, 2020). H2 colourless, odourless and non-
toxic gas. One of the reasons why H2 is a possible solution for transport applications is the high energy density of
120 [MJ/kg]. Hydrogen is an energy carrier what means that is must be manufactured. Nowadays, hydrogen is
produced from natural gas. During production, reforming of natural gas without CO 2 capture, is currently the
most common method. Therefore, it is not sustainable. If hydrogen is generated using CO2 capturing or
renewable energy, hydrogen can be zero-emission.
Storage
Due to the low density of hydrogen, H2 has to be stored as compressed gas, in liquid substance or chemical bound
(DNV-GL, Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies, 2018). Nowadays, composite pressure
vessels between 350 bar and 700 bar are commercially available (Boekhout, 2020).
Feasibility
A feasibility analysis is made, based on operational profile described in chapter 5.2. Table 21 shows the hydrogen
needed with an energy delivered to the propeller (Pd) of 18480 MJ. Also, the efficiency of the Fuel cell is taken
in to account.
Table 21 Hydrogen needed based on operational profile
Pd MJ 18480
H2 needed kg 154
H2 incl. 53% efficiency FC kg 295
In this analysis, storages hydrogen at 350, 500 and 700 bar are considered. From Table 21, the hydrogen needed
in litre is calculated for one round trip. Next the number of tubes is determined in which 1 tube consist of 211 L.
33
subsequently, the number container can be calculated based number of tubes. For marine applications,
compressed hydrogen in 40ft container are available. Figure 22 shown an example of a compressed hydrogen
container. One 40ft container consist of 136 tubes. Finally, the number of containers are calculated needed for
1 day considering 32 round trips/day.
Table 22 Compressed hydrogen for 1 round trip, at 350, 500 and 700 bar
Compressed, H2 Comment
350 bar 500 bar 700 bar
Volume, round trip [L] 12814,65 8931,42 7499,67
Amount of tube, round trip [-] 61 43 36 1 tube consist of 211 L
amount of containers, round trip [-] 0,374 0,264 0,221 Container 40ft consist of 163 tubes
amount of containers, day [-] 12 9 8 With 32 round trips/day
Figure 24 Compressed hydrogen 40ft container (MariGreen, 2018)
PEM Fuel cells

Fuel cells are used to convert chemical energy with hydrogen as fuel into electrical energy. Based on operational
profile described in chapter 5.2, a maximum of 2000kW is required. Therefore, large fuel cells are needed. In the
maritime industry PEM fuel are common used (Boekhout, 2020). The company Nedstack provides large PEM
fuels. In Figure 22 two different fuels cells are shown, on the left, a 500 kW PEM fuel with a size of a 20ft
container, on the right, a 1MW PEM fuel with size of a 40ft container. More detail in dimensions, weight and
prices of the fuels cells and hydrogen storages container are shown in Table 21.
34
Figure 25 PEM fuel cells: 500 kW (20ft container) left, 1000 kW (40ft container)
Table 23 Dimensions hydrogen container and fuel cells
H2 config. Length Beam Height Volume Weight Price Lifetime Comment

3
m m m m ton € year
40ft container 12.00 2.44 2.59 75.84 8 900,000 -
500 kW Fuel cell, 20ft 6.06 2.44 2.90 42.88 15 1,680,000 ~5-6 3360 €/kW
1000 KW Fuel cell, 40ft 12.00 2.44 2.59 75.84 29 3,360,000 ~5-6 3360 €/kW
Taken into account the 500kW fuel cell of

Table 23 and the profile of Table 16, the potential power which could be delivered by a hydrogen fuel cell is
calculated. This is shown in Table 24.
Table 24 Potential power alternative fuel
Time
Start Stop Paux P

Profile Description Pd [kW]
(min) (min) [kW] hydrogen
0 20 Mode 1 Port - Den Helder 0 500

Port standby -
20 22 Mode 2
Departure Den Helder 0 1000 -500
Maneuvring -
22 27 Mode 3
Sailing Den Helder -
27 55 Mode 4
Texel 3000 1000 -500
Maneuvring - Arrival
55 58 Mode 3
Texel 1500 2000 -500
Port standby - Arrival
58 60 Mode 2
Texel 0 1000 -500
60 80 Mode 1 Port - Texel 0 500
Port standby -
80 82 Mode 2
Departure Texel 0 1000 -500
35
Maneuvring -
82 87 Mode 3
Sailing Texel - Den
87 115 Mode 4
Helder 3000 1000 -500
115 118 Mode 3
Den Helder 1500 2000 -500
118 120 Mode 2
Den Helder 0 1000 -500
Based on Table 21 can be determined that hydrogen at 53% efficiency has kWh/kg ratio of 17.4. The results of
Table 24 can be expressed in energy and CO2 reduction. This is shown in Table 25.
Table 25 CO2 reduction and kg hydrogen needed
kg
CO2
Start Stop kWh Fuel kg
Profile Description saving
(min) (min) hydrogen saving hydrogen
hydrogen
hydrogen
0 20 Mode 1 Port - Den Helder 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Port standby -
20 22 Mode 2
Departure Den Helder 16.67 3.94 12.24 0.96
Maneuvering -
22 27 Mode 3
Departure Den Helder 41.67 8.97 27.86 2.39
27 55 Mode 4
Texel 233.33 50.07 155.46 13.41
Maneuvering - Arrival
55 58 Mode 3
Texel 25.00 5.38 16.71 1.44
58 60 Mode 2
Texel 16.67 3.94 12.24 0.96
60 80 Mode 1 Port - Texel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Port standby -
80 82 Mode 2
Departure Texel 16.67 3.94 12.24 0.96
Maneuvering -
82 87 Mode 3
Departure Texel 41.67 8.97 27.86 2.39
Sailing Texel - Den
87 115 Mode 4
Helder 233.33 50.07 155.46 13.41
Maneuvering - Arrival
115 118 Mode 3
Den Helder 25.00 5.38 16.71 1.44
Port stand-by - Arrival
118 120 Mode 2
Den Helder 16.67 3.94 12.24 0.96
Total /
666.67 144.63 449.03 38.31 trip
5.5.2 Alternative energy supply

Figure 26 compares the Flettner efficiency with the overall wind regime as derived from the KNMI (KNMI, 2020)
in de Kooy from 2010 to 2020 (taken into consideration the sailing route of Figure 21).
36
Figure 26 Wind regime vs flettner efficiency when sailing southwards
The fact that the ship is heading in North and South direction, the Flettner rotor has high efficiency with wind at
90 degrees angles and that the most common wind direction is WSW (west-south-west) makes the Flettner rotor
a suitable type of wind assistance. Using the weather data of Den Helder for the last 10 years and the polar plot
of the Flettner rotor (with a height of 35 meters, a diameter of 5 meter and a spin ratio of 3.5 under the
assumption that the rotational direction of the Flettner rotor will not be changed) the equivalent electrical power
is determined. This is shown in Figure 27.
600.00
500.00
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
20100101
20100919
20150512
20160128
20100511.5
20110127.43
20110606.93
20111015.36
20120222.86
20120702.29
20121109.79
20130320.21
20130728.71
20131206.14
20140415.64
20140824.07
20150101.57
20150919.5
20160606.43
20161014.93
20170222.36
20170702.86
20171110.29
20180320.79
20180729.21
20181206.71
20190416.14
20190824.64
Figure 27 Single Flettner rotor power generated in a period of 10 years
During sailing, the average power generated by a Flettner rotor of Figure 9 is 300 kW.

The maximum space available for solar panels is 700m2. Assuming an efficiency of 20% of the solar panels and a
flat orientation the electrical power, using the weather data of De Kooy (KNMI, 2020) for the last 10 years, can
be determined. This is shown in Figure 28.
37
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
20160128
20100101
20100511.5
20100919
20150512
20110127.43
20110606.93
20111015.36
20120222.86
20120702.29
20121109.79
20130320.21
20130728.71
20131206.14
20140415.64
20140824.07
20150101.57
20150919.5
20160606.43
20161014.93
20170222.36
20170702.86
20171110.29
20180320.79
20180729.21
20181206.71
20190416.14
20190824.64
Figure 28 700 m2 Solar panel power generated in a period of 10 years
The average power generated by 700m2 solar panels is 28 kW.
A flat orientation of the solar panels is used, this makes the ship usable in forward direction as well as reverse
direction. The stern is therefore not forced to go in Northern direction.
5.5.2.3 Orcan unit

Based on the datasheet of the supplier a single Orcan unit connected to the exhaust gas system of a 2000 kW
Diesel generator can generate 85 kW as long as the Diesel generator is running.
5.5.2.4 Shore connection

A typical shore connection can, without any additional investment, supply 87 kW when the ship is in the Harbour.
In this example a higher power shore connection is not taken into account.
5.5.2.5 Batteries
When using the shore connection as discussed in the previous chapter, no spare power is available for the
charging process of the batteries. Therefore batteries are not taken into consideration.
5.5.2.6 Investment
For the investment Table 26 is assumed.
Table 26 Investment
Technology Price Lifetime Source

1 piece Flettner rotor (35x5m) 950000 30 (Flettner
rotors,
2021)
1 piece Orcan unit 87 kW 345000 15 (Orcan,
2019)
700 m2 Solar panels 201299 25 (Vattenf
al, 2020)
1 piece Shore connection 0 30
38
5.5.2.7 Calculation
Taken into account an 87 kW shore connection, 85 kW Orcan unit, 700 m2 solar panels and a single Flettner rotor
and the profile of Table 16 the potential power which can be delivered by each of the techniques is calculated.
This is shown in Table 27.
Table 27 Potential power energy supply systems
Time
Start Stop Paux
Profile Description Pd [kW] Pshore P orcan P solar P flettner
(min) (min) [kW]
0 20 Mode 1 Port - Den Helder 0 500 -87 -28
Port standby -
20 22 Mode 2
Maneuvring -
22 27 Mode 3
Departure Den Helder 1500 2000 -85 -28
27 55 Mode 4
Texel 3000 1000 -85 -28 -300
55 58 Mode 3
Texel 1500 2000 -85 -28
58 60 Mode 2
Texel 0 1000 -28
60 80 Mode 1 Port - Texel 0 500 -87 -28
Port standby -
80 82 Mode 2
Maneuvring -
82 87 Mode 3
Departure Texel 1500 2000 -85 -28
Sailing Texel - Den
87 115 Mode 4
Helder 3000 1000 -85 -28 -300
115 118 Mode 3
Den Helder 1500 2000 -85 -28
118 120 Mode 2
Den Helder 0 1000 -28
The results of Table 27 can be expressed in energy and CO2 reduction. This is shown in appendix D.
5.6 Optimization
Based on the information of the previous chapter, the most optimal solution set has to be determined. The NSGA
II sorting algorithm is used in order to find the best CO 2 reduction solution set as a function of investment.
5.6.1 NSGA calculation

In this case, the NSGA II algorithm is fed with the following data (based on the investments of
Table 23 and Table 26 and the CO2 reduction of Appendix C and Table 25). A hydrogen price of €5/kg is assumed.
This result in the dataset of Table 28.
Table 28 Optimization parameters
Technique Unit Range Price (unit) Saving per trip

(unit)
39
Solar 700 m2 0..700 m2 201299 euro 40.69 kg CO2
panels
Flettner 1 rotor 0..4 rotors 950000 euro 186.59 kg CO2
rotor
Orcan unit 1 orcan 0..3 orcan 345000 euro 68.03 kg CO2
unit units
Hydrogen 500 kW 0..500 kW 900000 euro (storage unit) 449 kg CO2
168000 x (15 years / 6 years (fuel cell)
15 year x 2632 trips x 38.32 kg x 5 euro (fuel)
The baseline kg CO2 per trip (emission without CO2 reduction) is 3481 kg CO2.
A constraint is that amount of space used by a Flettner rotor (diameter of 5 meter) cannot be used for solar
panels and the maximum amount of deck space is 700m 2.
Constraint: (0.5 x 5 meter)2 x π x “Flettner rotors” + “Solar panels“ < 700 m2
As a result of this algorithm the CO2 saving as a function of the price in euros is shown in Figure 29.
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000
-5.00%
Figure 29 NSGA II CO2 saving
Next step is to see which optimal set of CO2 saving measures are taken. The measures as a function of the price
in euros is shown in Figure 30.
40
m2 solar panels Amount of orcan units
700 3.50E+00
600 3.00E+00
500 2.50E+00
400 2.00E+00
300 1.50E+00
200 1.00E+00
100 5.00E-01
0 0.00E+00
0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000
Amount of flettner rotors Amount of 500 kW fuel cells

4.50E+00 1.20E+00
4.00E+00
1.00E+00
3.50E+00
3.00E+00 8.00E-01
2.50E+00
6.00E-01
2.00E+00
1.50E+00 4.00E-01
1.00E+00
2.00E-01
5.00E-01
0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000
Figure 30 NSGA II saving measures
From the saving measures can be seen that a combination the solar panels, Orcan units and Flettner rotors have
are used to as the most price efficient method to reduce the CO 2 reduction to 28%. The price involved for this
reduction is 5 million euros. At 28% the maximum number of solar panels, Orcan units and Flettner rotors which
can be mounted on the ship are used
Second step, to create a reduction from 28% to 40% can be achieved by usage of a 1 fuel cell.
41
5.6.2 Return of investment
Besides the potential CO2 reduction it can also be very important to analyze the fuel saving and estimate the
potential return of investment. A HFO fuel price of 0.5 euro/kg is assumed and it is assumed that each kg fuel
emit: 3.1 kg CO2. (Hermans, 2011) This is shown in Table 29.
Table 29 Return of investment
Unit Price Life- CO2 CO2 Fuel Fuel Investment Return

time saving saving saving saving (15 years) of
kg kg (15 kg (15 euro (15 investm
(trip) years) year) years) ent
(years)
Solar 700m2 € 30 41 kg 1618680 kg 522155 kg € € 11.57
panels 201,299.00 years 261,077.42 201,299.00
Flettner 35x5 € 15 187 kg 7382760 kg 2381535 € € 11.97
rotors meter 950,000.00 years kg 1,190,767.74 950,000.00
Orcan 87 kW € 25 68 kg 2684640 kg 866013 kg € € 11.95
unit 345,000.00 years 433,006.45 345,000.00
H2 40 ft € 30 449 kg 17726520 5718232 € € > 15
container 900,000.00 years kg kg 2,859,116.13 12,662,394.
00
500 kW € 6 years
fuel cell, 1,680,000.00
20ft
38.31 kg € 1 trip
hydrogen 191.55
(5
euro/kg)
A similar pattern is shown here. The difference between the Solar panels (11.57 years), Orcan units (11.95 years)
and the Flettner rotors (11.97 years) are neglectible. However, all these techniques have a return of investment
within 15 years and thus, also from an economical point of view, create a viable solution.
A hydrogen unit is not viable. This is for two reasons. First the relative high price of the installation and the limited
lifetime of the fuel cell. Second reason is that the current price of green hydrogen (5 euro per kg) in comparison
to a HFO fuel price (0.5 euro per kilogram) is not viable. Recalculation to price per energy is done in Table 30.
Table 30 HFO vs Hydrogen
Price/kg Energy content Price/kWh Source

(kwH/kg)
HFO 0.5 4.6 0.10975 Table 18, 50% engine load
kwH/kg=1000/(g/kWh)
H2 5 17.4 0.287356 Table 21, 53% efficiency
kwH/kg=1000.MJ/(kg.3600)
As long as the price/kWh of hydrogen is higher, no viable business case (from an economical point of view) will
exist for hydrogen.
42
5.7 Economic consequences
Economics of ferries
As our ferry is based on the Texelstroom, first the price for each ship is determined (Texelstroom, 2015)
(Wagemaker, 2005) (Schulpengat, 1990) and compensated by inflation (Inflatiecalculator, 2020). This results in
the data as shown in Table 31
Table 31 Ship prices
Price after No
Ship Year Price inflation Length Width passenger No cars
Texelstroom 2015 € 55,800,000.00 € 59,571,616.00 135 28 1750 340
Dokter
Wagemaker 2004 € 37,000,000.00 € 47,633,423.59 130.4 22.7 1750 300
Schulpengat 1989 € 31,818,181.82 € 60,226,656.24 110.44 18.7 1750 242
Based on the depreciation of Table 3, the current value and the value after 15 years can determined, this is shown
in appendix E. The resulting CAPEX for each year is shown in Table 32
Table 32 CAPEX reference ships
Ship Capex / year

Texelstroom € 1,608,910.20
Dokter Wagemaker € 523,967.66
Schulpengat € 662,493.22
To estimate the maintenance costs (Ferries, 2011) is used. Based on the ratio regarding the number of cars of
this reference the annual fuel costs and annual maintenance and repair costs are estimated. The resulting OPEX
for each year is shown in Table 33.
Table 33 OPEX reference ships
Ship Opex / year

Texelstroom € 1,800,596.37
Dokter Wagemaker € 1,762,646.37
Schulpengat € 1,707,618.87
The EEDI for Ro-ro passenger ships with a size greater than 4.000 GT the EEDI goals differ. This is shown in Table
34, the necessary additional energy saving is shown in Table 35.
Table 34 EEDI Ro-ro passenger ships
EEDI phase 0 EEDI phase 1 EEDI phase 2 EEDI phase 3

Ship type 2013-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-…
Ro-ro passenger ship
>4.000 GT n/a 5 20 30
43
Table 35 EEDI additional saving required
EEDI phase
0 EEDI phase 1 EEDI phase 2 EEDI phase 3
Ship Year GT compliant compliant compliant compliant
No (15% No (25%
additional additional
saving saving
Texelstroom 2015 >4.000 Yes Yes necessary) necessary)
No (5% No (20% No (30%
additional additional additional
Dokter saving saving saving
Wagemaker 2004 >4.000 Yes necessary) necessary) necessary)
No (5% No (20% No (30%
additional additional additional
saving saving saving
Schulpengat 1989 >4.000 Yes necessary) necessary) necessary)
In the previous chapters we have concluded that hydrogen, solar panels, Orcan units and Flettner rotors are
suitable techniques in order to reduce the GHG emission. Important is to know whether (IMO, 2018) and (IMO,
2013), this reduction can be calculated. In Table 36 is shown how the EEDI can be calculated for these techniques.
Table 36 EEDI calculation for hydrogen, solar panels, orcan units and Flettner rotors
Technology EEDI Calculation

Type of
Hydrogen fuel Reduction of conversion factor between fuel consumption and CO2 emission
Average solar irradiance on main global shipping route to the nominal solar
Solar panels C2 irradiance specified by the manufacturer
Orcan unit C1 Power reduction due to waste heating recovery system
Flettner rotor B2 Propulsion force and wind probability on the main global shipping routes
Important conclusion is that the calculation is very similar to the methods used in this paper. Therefore we
assume that the final results are comparable. Based on the Pareto Figure 29 the costs (CAPEX+OPEX) as shown
in Table 37 for each percent of energy reduction are applicable.
Table 37 TCO as a function of saving
Annual
CAPEX+OPEX
(euro/percent
Saving saving)
0..28% € 179,000.00
28..40% € 1.050,000.00
With this the TCO can be calculated by using the CAPEX and OPEX of Table 32 and Table 33, the additional
requirements of Table 35 and the additional costs of Table 37. This results in the overview of Table 38.
44
Table 38 TCO EEDI compliancy
TCO EEDI phase TCO EEDI phase TCO EEDI phase TCO EEDI phase 3
Ship Year GT 0 compliant 1 compliant 2 compliant compliant
Texelstroom 2015 >4.000 € 3,409,506.58 € 3,409,506.58 € 6,088,078.00 € 7,873,792.29
Dokter
Wagemaker 2004 >4.000 € 2,286,614.03 € 3,179,471.17 € 5,858,042.60 € 9,386,614.03
Schulpengat 1989 >4.000 € 2,370,112.09 € 3,262,969.23 € 5,941,540.66 € 9,470,112.09

The results of the tank calculation with a comparison between green methanol and green ammonia is presented
in Table 39. An efficiency of the SOFC fuel cell of 60% has been used (Looijenga, 2020). The results show that
methanol requires less storage volume and less weight compared to ammonia.
Table 39: Tank calculation between green methanol and green ammonia
Green Green
Required volume methanol Ammonia Comment
Energy demand, Pd MJ 18480 18480
Energy demand incl. efficiency MJ 30800 30800
Weight fuel kg 1579.487 1655.914
Volume fuel L 1949.367 2444.444
Volume fuel m3 1.949 2.444 1 round trip
Volume day m3 62.380 78.222 32 round trips
3
Volume year m 22768.608 28551.111 365 days
A cost overview of both green methanol and green ammonia has been made with help of the tank calculation.
The results are shown in Table 40. Disadvantage of methanol is that the price is more expensive to produce
compared to ammonia, therefore methanol has higher Opex cost. More investment is needed for ammonia due
to additional systems, therefore higher Capex.
Table 40: Cost comparison between green methanol and green ammonia
Green Green
Costs - 2030 methanol Ammonia Comment
Capex
SOFC 5 year € 64,500,000 € 64,500,000
SOFC/year 1 year € 12,900,000 € 12,900,000
Equipment € 400,000
storage € 3,000,000
Capex total: € 12,900,000 € 16,300,000
Opex
fuel price EUR/kg € 1.03 € 0.66
fuel price/day EUR/kg € 52,059.90 € 34,972.90 32 round trips
fuel price/year EUR/kg € 19,001,862.56 € 12,765,109.68 365 days
Opex total: € 19,001,862.56 € 12,765,109.68
Total cost: € 31,901,862.56 € 29,065,109.68 year 2030
45
Summary of the pros and cons are summarized under feasibility, economics and social aspect. Table 41 shows
the pros and cons with pluses and minuses. Green methanol scores higher for feasibility and socially because the
ammonia is more toxic and additional systems are required. The total costs for green ammonia are slightly less
compared to green methanol, due to the lower fuel price. Based on this analysis, the best option for alternative
fuel for the ferry 2030 scenario will be green methanol.
Table 41: Feasibility, economics and social comparison green methanol with green ammonia
Feasibility Economics Social total score

Green methanol ++ +- + +++
Green ammonia + + +- ++
When comparing the TCO as shown in Table 40 with the TCO as shown in Table 38 the main conclusion is that a
ship with an alternative fuel cannot compete in a TCO point of view with an EEDI 2 compliant ship.
It is to expect that future regulation which requires (near to) zero emission can make green ammonia and
green methanol a viable soltion.
46
6 CONCLUSIONS
From all the reference ship types the Roro ferry is the most suitable ship type to limit the GHG emission. The
physical properties of the ship, usage profile and client type are important factors which determines this
feasibility.
In this report is shown that sustainable energy sources can be used for the Roro ferry to limit the GHG emission
to 28% using Solar panels, Flettner rotors and Orcan units. These techniques have a return of investment within
the expected lifetime of the ship (15 years).
An even further reduction to 40% can be achieved by using a hydrogen unit. The current hydrogen fuel prices in
comparison with HFO fuel prices makes this solution not viable from an economical point of view. A drastic
decrease of hydrogen fuel prices or increase in HFO fuel prices is necessary for hydrogen to compete with HFO.
A cost effective EEDI phase 1 and phase 2 compliance (in comparison with a new ship) is possible from a total
cost of ownership point of view. A compliancy with EEDI phase 3 is not feasible. With the current set of
regulations a ship with an alternative fuel is not feasible.
From a legal point of view, further investigation of the exact consequences of the usage of hydrogen and
methanol is required due to the fact that regulatory is quite immature. For the acceptance of hydrogen and
methanol in the community an awareness trajectory is advised.
47
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACEP. (2017). Diesel Generator Fuel Consumption Under Dynamic Loading. Canada.
Belastingdienst. (2019). Convenant binnenvaart, annex met normatieve kaders. Retrieved from
https://download.belastingdienst.nl/belastingdienst/docs/convenant-binnevaart-annex-norm-kaders-
2019_al9861z5ed.pdf
Boekhout, M. (2020). Hydrogen Powered Ship PropulsionforHigh-Speed Craft. Delft: TU Delft.
Chademo. (2021). VGI-Summit-Day-2-S3-Industry-CHAdeMO-V2G_vf.
Dalhuijsen, D. (2020). Storage of energy in hydrogen. HAN.
Deb. (2002). A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II. . IEE transactions on evolutionary
computation, 182-197.
Delft, C. (2019). Historical_trends_in_ship_design_efficiency.
DNV-GL. (2018). Assessment of selected alternative fuels and technologies.
DNV-GL. (2019). DNV GL rules for classification of ships Part 6, Chapter 2, Section 3.
Econowind. (2021). Ventifoil. Retrieved from https://www.econowind.nl/
Energy, O. (2021). Energy and emissions improvement for maritime applications.
Ferries, W. S. (2011). 144-Car Ferry LNG Fuel Conversion Feasibility Study.
Flettner rotors. (2021). Retrieved from https://glomeep.imo.org/technology/flettner-rotors/
(2020). Fourth IMO GHG Study. IMO, MEPC 75/7/15.
GL. (2008). Notice of compliance Engine family 2-D5/7A/C-B TA-E2/E3/C1 Deutz AG.
Government, A. (2020). National-Hydrogen-Strategy-Issue-5-Communinity-Concerns. Retrieved from
https://consult.industry.gov.au/national-hydrogen-strategy-taskforce/national-hydrogen-strategy-
issues-papers/
Heavy fuel oil. (2020, November 16). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_fuel_oil
Hermans, J. (2011). Energy Survival Guide: Insight and Outlook.
Hydrogen. (2020, November 18). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen
IGF. (2017). Code of safety for ships using gases or other low-flashpoint fuels).
IMO. (2013). Guidance on treatment of innovative energy efficiency technologies for calculation and verification
of the attained EEDI.
IMO. (2018). Guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained energy efficiency design index (EEDI) for
new ships.
IMO, M. (2018). INITIAL IMO STRATEGY ON REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS. International
Maritime Organization (IMO).
Inflatiecalculator. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.inflatiecalculator.nl/inflatiecijfers
ISO. (2015). ISO/TR 15961 Basic considerations for the safety of hydrogen systems.
ISO. (2016). ISO/TS 18683 Guidelines for systems and installations for supply of LNG as fuel to ships.
ISO. (2017). ISO 8217 2017 Fuel Standard for marine distillate fuel.
KNMI. (2020). Daggegevens van het weer in Nederland. Retrieved from
http://projects.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/selectie.cgi
Kwasieckyj. (2013). Efficiency analysis and design methodology of hybrid propulsion systems.
Looijenga, J. (2020). Zero-emission ferries in the Wadden Sea. Delft: TU Delft.
Manwell. (1993). Lead acid battery storage model for hybrid energy systems. Solar Energy Vol 50, 399-405.
MariGreen. (2018). Perspectives for the Use of Hydrogen as Fuel in Inland Shipping A Feasibility Study.
MARIN. (2021, January 9). Sustainablepower. Retrieved from Data table Energy Carriers:
https://sustainablepower.application.marin.nl/table
Orcan. (2019). Efficiency-_emissions-improvements_maritime-applications-Orcan_Energy-version-11.0.pdf.
(2016). RESOLUTION MEPC.281(70). MEPC.
48
Rinze Geertsma, M. K. (2019). Alternative fuels and power systems to reduce environmental impact of support
vessels. Conference Proceedings of MECSS, (p. 9).
Schulpengat. (1990). Retrieved from https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulpengat_(schip,_1990)
Selvaray, T. (2015). Constrianed NSGA II for matlab . Retrieved from
https://nl.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/49806-matlab-code-for-constrained-nsga-ii-dr-
s-baskar-s-tamilselvi-and-p-r-varshini
SGMF. (2017). Gas as a marine fuel - an introductory guide.
Shell. (2020, 9 22). SHELL'S NET CARBON FOOTPRINT AMBITION: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. Retrieved
from https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/what-is-shells-net-carbon-
footprint-ambition/faq.html
Siemens. (2016). SIHARBOR The shore connection system for berthed ships.
SOLAS. (1974). Approval of alternative design and arrangements for machinery and electrical installations.
TESO. (2021). Afvaarttijden. Retrieved from https://www.teso.nl/afvaarttijden/
Texelstroom. (2015). Retrieved from https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texelstroom_(schip,_2015)
Tijdgat, J. (2020). Shipping Renewable Hydrogen Carriers. Delft: TU Delft.
Torrero-Munoz. (2019). A critical perspective on rechargeable Al-Io battery technology. Dalton trans, 9906-
9911.
Traut. (2014). Propulsive power contribution of a kite and a Flettner rotor on selected shipping routes. Applied
Energy 114, 362-372.
Vattenfal. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.vattenfall.nl/producten/zonnepanelen/prijs/
Wagemaker, D. (2005). Retrieved from https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dokter_Wagemaker_(schip,_2005)
Yanmar. (2020). Retrieved from
https://www.yanmar.com/global/marinecommercial/products/electricpropulsion/
49
APPENDIX A NOMENCLATURE
Acronyms
GHG Green House Gas

CO2 Carbon Dioxide
SOx Sulfur Oxides
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
PM Particulate Matter
HFO Heavy Fuel Oil
MDO Marine Diesel Oil
MGO Marine Gas Oil
SoC State of Charge
V2G Vehicle to Grid
PTI Power Take In
H2 Hydrogen
NSGA Non dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm
EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index
OPEX Operational Expenditures
CAPEX Capital Expenditures
IMO International Maritime Organization
NMD Netherlands Ministry of Defence
TCO Total Cost of Ownership
50
APPENDIX B FEASIBILITY SCORES
Typ Description Propulsion Electric power Crane Hotel Deck space Profile variation Mission Mission Client type
e load length predictability
1 Bulk carrier Diesel direct PTO (Shaft generator) No Low Medium Transport carrier at Long Medium Commercial
various speeds
3 Chemical Diesel direct PTO (Shaft generator) No Low Medium Transport carrier at Long Medium Commercial
tanker various speeds
4 Container Diesel direct PTO (Shaft generator) / No Low Medium Transport carrier at Long Medium Commercial
with PTI Aux generators various speeds
5 General Diesel direct PTO (Shaft generator) / Yes Low Medium Transport carrier at Long Medium Commercial
cargo Aux generators various speeds
6 Liquified gas Diesel direct PTO (Shaft generator) No Low Medium Transport carrier at Long Medium Commercial
tanker various speeds
7 Oil tanker Diesel direct PTO (Shaft generator) No Low Medium Transport carrier at Long Medium Commercial
various speeds
8 Other liquid Diesel direct PTO (Shaft generator) No Low Medium Transport carrier at Long Medium Commercial
tankers various speeds
9 Ferry - Diesel Aux generator No Medium High Type 4 Medium High Commercial
passengers electric
(pax) only
10 Cruise ships Diesel Aux generator No Large Low Cruise ship Medium Medium Commercial
electric
11 Ropax Diesel Aux generator No Medium High Ferry Medium High Commercial
electric
12 Refridgerated Diesel direct Aux generator No Large Low Transport carrier at Long Medium Commercial
cargo various speeds
13 Roro Diesel Aux generator No Medium High Type 4 (with high Paux) Short High Government
electric
14 Vehicle Diesel direct PTO (Shaft generator) No Low Medium Transport carrier at Medium Medium Commercial
various speeds
15 Yacht Diesel Aux generator No Large Low Unknown (user Short Low Commercial
electric dependant)
51
17 Misc - fishing Diesel Aux generator No Medium Medium Tug Short Medium Commercial
electric
16 Service - tug Diesel Aux generator No Low High Tug Short Low Commercial
electric
18 Offshore Diesel Aux generator Yes Large High Offshore supply vessel Short Low Commercial
electric
19 Service - Diesel Aux generator No Medium High Offshore supply vessel Short Low Commercial
other electric
20 Misc - other
52
APPENDIX C CO2 EMISSION CALCULATION RORO FERRY
Time Capacity CO2 mass low
Start Stop Profile Description Pd [kW] Paux [kW] Number DG 1 DG 2 DG 3 DG 4 DG 1 DG 2 DG 3 DG 4 Total CO2
(min) (min) of DG's (kg)
0 20 Mode Port - Den 0 500 1 25% 0% 0% 0% 394 0 0 0 131
1 Helder
20 22 Mode Port standby - 0 1000 1 50% 0% 0% 0% 691 0 0 0 23
2 Departure Den
Helder
22 27 Mode Maneuvring - 1500 2000 3 58% 58% 58% 0% 791 791 791 0 198
3 Departure Den
Helder
27 55 Mode Sailing Den 3000 1000 3 67% 67% 67% 0% 891 891 891 0 1247
4 Helder - Texel
55 58 Mode Maneuvring - 1500 2000 3 58% 58% 58% 0% 791 791 791 0 119
3 Arrival Texel
2 Arrival Texel
60 80 Mode Port - Texel 0 500 1 25% 0% 0% 0% 394 0 0 0 131
1
2 Departure
Texel
82 87 Mode Maneuvring - 1500 2000 3 58% 58% 58% 0% 791 791 791 0 198
3 Departure
Texel
87 115 Mode Sailing Texel - 3000 1000 3 67% 67% 67% 0% 891 891 891 0 1247
4 Den Helder
115 118 Mode Maneuvring - 1500 2000 3 58% 58% 58% 0% 791 791 791 0 119
3 Arrival Den
Helder
53
2 Arrival Den
Helder
Total 3481
54
APPENDIX D CO2 REDUCTION CALCULATION RORO FERRY
Time
CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2

Start Stop kWh kWh kWh kWh
Profile Description kWh shore saving saving saving saving saving
(min) (min) orcan solar flettner total
shore orcan solar flettner total
0 20 Mode 1 Port - Den Helder 29.00 0.00 9.33 0.00 38.33 24.42 0.00 7.86 0.00 32.28
Port standby -
20 22 Mode 2
Departure Den Helder 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.64
Maneuvring -
22 27 Mode 3
Departure Den Helder 0.00 7.08 2.33 0.00 9.42 0.00 4.74 1.56 0.00 6.30
27 55 Mode 4
Texel 0.00 39.67 13.07 140.00 192.73 0.00 26.43 8.71 93.29 128.43
55 58 Mode 3
Texel 0.00 4.25 1.40 0.00 5.65 0.00 2.84 0.94 0.00 3.78
58 60 Mode 2
Texel 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.64
60 80 Mode 1 Port - Texel 29.00 0.00 9.33 0.00 38.33 24.42 0.00 7.86 0.00 32.28
Port standby -
80 82 Mode 2
Departure Texel 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.64
Maneuvring -
82 87 Mode 3
Departure Texel 0.00 7.08 2.33 0.00 9.42 0.00 4.74 1.56 0.00 6.30
Sailing Texel - Den
87 115 Mode 4
Helder 0.00 39.67 13.07 140.00 192.73 0.00 26.43 8.71 93.29 128.43
115 118 Mode 3
Den Helder 0.00 4.25 1.40 0.00 5.65 0.00 2.84 0.94 0.00 3.78
118 120 Mode 2
Den Helder 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.64
58.00 102.00 56.00 280.00 496.00 48.84 68.03 40.69 186.59 344.16
55
APPENDIX E CURRENT VALUE AND VALUE AFTER 15 YEARS DETERMINATION
Ship Casco price Engineroom price Other price Age Casco value Engineroom value Other value Total value
Texelstroom € 32,764,388.80 € 8,935,742.40 € 17,871,484.80 6 € 28,832,662.14 € 3,574,296.96 € 10,730,039.47 € 43,136,998.58
Dokter
Wagemaker € 26,198,382.98 € 7,145,013.54 € 14,290,027.08 17 € 17,290,932.76 € 0.00 € 0.00 € 17,290,932.76
Schulpengat € 33,124,660.93 € 9,033,998.44 € 18,067,996.87 32 € 11,924,877.94 € 0.00 € 0.00 € 11,924,877.94
Ship Casco price Engineroom price Other price Age Casco value Engineroom value Other value Total value
Texelstroom € 32,764,388.80 € 8,935,742.40 € 17,871,484.80 21 € 19,003,345.50 € 0.00 € 0.00 € 19,003,345.50
Dokter
Wagemaker € 26,198,382.98 € 7,145,013.54 € 14,290,027.08 32 € 9,431,417.87 € 0.00 € 0.00 € 9,431,417.87
Schulpengat € 33,124,660.93 € 9,033,998.44 € 18,067,996.87 47 € 1,987,479.66 € 0.00 € 0.00 € 1,987,479.66
56
APPENDIX F ESTIMATION OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND FUEL COSTS
Annual Fuel Fuel Annual energy

No Design maintanenance Annual fuel costs Annual fuel costs Annual fuel consumption (based
Type cars option Capital costs and repair costs costs per liter consumption per liter costs on 214 g/kWh)
EMD
144 car ferry 144 (diesel fuel) € 2,450,000.00 € 136,620.00 € 2,538,101.00 € 0.96 2631976 € 0.50 € 1,315,987.98 12298953
Estimation
from 144
Texelstroom 340 car ferry € 5,784,722.22 € 322,575.00 2956043 € 0.50 € 1,478,021.37 13813284
Estimation
Dokter from 144
Wagemaker 300 car ferry € 5,104,166.67 € 284,625.00 2956043 € 0.50 € 1,478,021.37 13813284
Estimation
from 144
Schulpengat 242 car ferry € 4,117,361.11 € 229,597.50 2956043 € 0.50 € 1,478,021.37 13813284
57
APPENDIX G PROPERTIES TABLE OF FUELS
Properties - table
Specific Volumetric
Stored Stored Energy energy GHG
fuel type state pressure temperature density emissions References
bar °C MJ/kg MJ/l KWh/kg Kg Co2/kg fuel
Heavy fuel oil (HFO) Liquid - 20 40.2 38.3 11.63 3.11 (RESOLUTION MEPC.281(70), 2016)
Marine Diesel oil (MDO) Liquid - 20 42.71 36 14.89 3.21 (MARIN, 2021)
Marine Gas oil (MGO) Liquid - 20 42.7 36.72 14.89 3.21 (RESOLUTION MEPC.281(70), 2016)
compressed 300 15 2.41
Hydrogen compressed 700 15 120.00 5.64
Liquid - -253 8.48 (MARIN, 2021) (Dalhuijsen, 2020)
LNG compressed - -160 53.60 20.30 14.89 2.75 (MARIN, 2021)
LPG Liquid < 8.4 20 49.60 24.30 13.78 3.01 (MARIN, 2021)
Methanol Liquid 1 20 19.70 15.60 5.47 1.37 (MARIN, 2021)
Methanol from renewables Liquid 1 20 19.90 15.80 5.53 0.40 (MARIN, 2021)
Ammonia Liquid 1 or 10 -34 or 20 18.60 12.70 5.17 - (MARIN, 2021)
58

MSES Minor Project Ferry - Gerben Spaans en Stefan Bruins Report - v11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

MSES Minor Project Ferry - Gerben Spaans en Stefan Bruins Report - v11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HAN Master Engineering Systems, Minor project: Sustainable Energy Systems

Sailing towards a greener future

Version Date Comments

Arnhem, November 2020

Name of students: Stefan Bruins, student no.: 446421

Company: HAN university of applied sciences

HAN Supervisor: Rick Catau

Date: January 24, 2021

1.2 Problem definition

Out of scope are:

Phase 1: technical aspect of sustainable energy systems

3.1.1 Analysis of GHG emissions from current vessels

Subdivision vessel type

Table 1: Subdivision vessel type into groups

Figure 1: Fuel consumption by ship type, and current fuel types

3.1.2 Energy efficiency index

3.1.3 Impact on existing ships

3.2 Options to reduce GHG on vessels

Useful shaft energy 35% Propulsion load power Loss

Exhaust gas 40%

Engine cooling 20%

1 Alternative fuels (Hydrogen / Ammonia / Methanol )

3 Heat recovery (Organic Rankine Cycle / heat pump)

5 Thruster efficiency improvement ( energy recovery )

6 Propulsion assistance ( Sails )

Figure 2 Sankey diagram ship

3.2.1 Alternative fuels

Energy density by mass

Energy density by volume

3.2.2 Alternative energy generation

Figure 3 Battery comparison for various battery types (Torrero-Munoz, 2019)

Figure 5 Kibam model

Figure 6 Capacitor model

Skeleton is a company which provided ultracapacitors.

The efficiency of the converter must also be taken into account.

Piller is a company which provides flywheel energy storage system.

3.2.2.4 Flettner rotor

Figure 7 Flettner rotor

𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡 = 𝐹(𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 ) (2)

Figure 8 Electrical power

Figure 9 Flettner rotor polar (Traut, 2014)

Figure 10 Ventifoil (Econowind, 2021)

Econowind provides Ventifoils.

3.2.2.6 Thruster regeneration

An example of a regenerative system is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11 Regenerative system

𝑃𝑂𝑅𝐶 = 𝐹(𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟) (3)

There is no, off the shelve, solution.

3.2.2.7 Organic Rankine Cycle

Some companies deliver a complete package, to be mounted on a ship.

𝑃𝑂𝑅𝐶 = 𝐹(𝑊𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡) (4)

3.2.2.8 Shore to ship

Figure 13 Shore connection system (Siemens, 2016)

3.2.2.10 Vehicle To Grid (V2G)

Figure 14 V2G example

For the Tesla model 3 EV the following data is applicable:

Table 2 Tesla V2G

3.4 Scenarios of economical, legal and societal development

3.4.1 Economic consequences

Table 3 Ship depreciation according

Economics of alternative fuel

3.4.2 Legal consequences