ANALYSIS OF LNG TANKER PROPULSION SOLUTIONS

Ivica Domić1, Tatjana Stanivuk2, Ladislav Stazić2*, Igor Pavlović2

1
Independent
2,
University of Split, Faculty of Maritime Studies
*corresponding author: lstazic@pfst.hr

Abstract: The LNG market has undergone major changes and significant development in the last few years. Along with the
increase in the number of ships and the increase in the amount of transported gas, there was also a change in the propulsion
machinery of LNG ships. For many years, the steam turbine was the only propulsion engine on this type of cargo ship with a
negligible number of ships powered by a classic low-speed heavy-duty diesel engine is increasingly being replaced by new
technologies. Versions of dual-fuel internal combustion engines that burn evaporated natural gas are increasingly replacing steam
turbine drives. This phenomenon has been particularly pronounced in the last few years when the ordering of steam turbine-powered
LNG ships has ceased. This article examines and presents the main reasons for these changes, which can be divided into two
categories. The first is financial because the use of new technologies can provide significant financial savings on fuel, fuel costs can
be reduced by up to 30%. Reducing fuel consumption is part of a significant reduction in gas emissions, and pollution can be
significantly reduced, by more than 25% in some cases.

Keywords:LNG fleet, LNG ships, ship propulsion, air emission, fuel consumption.

1. Introduction
More than a decade Gkonis and Psaraftis pointed that: ”The Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) trade is one of the most
promising sectors in energy shipping. It is expected that competition will increasingly develop in the shipping segment
of the LNG chain” [1]. That research is one of the numerous researches performed at that time about various aspects of
LNG trade [2], [3], [4]. Together with the research into LNG trade, there wasresearch into LNG ship propulsion and
future developments [5], [6]. Most of these analyses and predictions were not completely reliable, the best comment on
these predictions is provided by Stanivuk et al. who wrote that “Predictions of the LNG trade volume can be difficult;
they depend on a multitude of factors and the market behaviour in the analyzed period” [7]. At the same time,
mentioned recent research gave the analysis of the LNG market growth in the past period and gave predictions for short
time future period (Figure 1).

Fig. 1. LNG trade volume per annum in million tons [7]

One of the factors influencing LNG trade is the price of gas on the world market. According to many authors, that
price is volatile [8], [9].Stanivuk et al. analyzedthe past period from 2010 to 2019 and concluded that “from 2010 to
2015, there was almost no increase in the annual LNG trade” [7] which is against the predictions of most of the authors
in the field. After that period,the rapid expansion of the trade was recorded, on average more than 8.2% annually.
Predictions for the future are again different, depending on the author and the methodology used. Ruszel [10] is very
optimistic in his predictions, he foresees LNG trade to grow on average of 8% annually. Meza et al. [11] gave a more
conservative prediction of an increase of 3 to 4% annually.
LNG market growth causes an increase in expenses, therefore both manufacturers and ship owners are forced
even more to optimise ship propulsion, as can be seen in Fig. 2. [7].
The keyword and technical process closely related to LNG tankers fleet are the term boil-off gases (BOG), gases
that arise from the evaporation of liquefied gas stored in cargo tanks. The imperfection of insulation layers, fitted in
boundaries of cargo tanks, is one of the reasons of commercial and technical aspects for the selection of different types
of propulsion. The prime mover for the development of LNG propulsion engines besides BOG gases are stricter NOx
emission limits, Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and to have flexible, efficient propulsion systems to satisfy
various operating conditions [12]. Table 1. presents propulsion options and efficiency comparison on today’s LNG fleet
[12].

Fig. 2. Comparison of most common LNG fleet propulsion systems [7]

The design of the LNG vessel propulsion system at the turn of the century was mostly a steam turbine on BOG. The
percentage of other propulsion types was minimal [13]. The dominance of steam turbine propulsion ceased on the new
LNG carrier fleet in the mid-2000s [14]. The cause of this change is attributed to the need for the development of larger
LNG carriers. With the increasing volume of carrier tanks, BOG is increasing also and the quantity becomes too large
for actual power demands, and consequently, the remaining quantity needed to be reintroduced into cargo tanks.
To decrease the fuel consumption of those larger LNG carriers (Table 1), a slow-speed Diesel engine (SSD) as a
more economic option than the steam turbine plant (turbine plant has an efficiency of around 35% [15]), starts to be a
relevant propulsion option coupled with reliquefaction unit intended for BOG to be reintroduced into cargo tanks [16].
SSD, which runs on either heavy or diesel oil, is the engine without the capability to burn boil-off gases, allowed an
increase in the size of LNG carriers and causedthe gradual replacement of the ST plant as the main choice for
propulsion of LNG tankers at the beginning of the century [13], [14].
Further developments in the area are caused bythe development of engines capable to burn both fuels, evaporated
BOG gas and diesel oil in the same engine package[14]. Modernization of dual-fuel engines or DFDE has been
intensified in the late 2000th and especially from 2010. Today especially prevalent dual fuel diesel engines with high-
pressure gas injection as a product of MAN B&W ME-GI factory and engine with a low-pressure gas injection or X-DF
engine, developed by WinGD manufacturer [17], [18], [19].
Table 1. Propulsion options and efficiency comparison on LNG fleet [12]
Propulsion options ST DFDE SSDR LSDF
Fuel/BOG 1.00 Fuel/BOG 1.00 Fuel/BOG 1.00 Fuel/BOG 1.00
THERMAL 2-stroke DF 0.50/
Boiler 0.88 DF engine 0.45 2-stroke engine 0.50
EFFICIENCY OF engine (HP/LP) 0.49
ENGINES & Steam turbine 0.35/ Alternators 0.97 Shafting 0.99 Shafting 0.99
TRANSMISSION CST/UST 0.41 Convertors 0.98
EFFICIENCY OF Gearbox 0.98 E-Motors 0.96
COMPONENTS Re-liquefication
Shafting 0.99 Gearbox 0.98
Shafting 0.99
TOTAL EFFICIENCY CST 30% / UST 35% 40% 40% HP 49% / LP 48%
ST - Steam turbine,
DFDE - Dual fuel diesel-electric
SSDR - Slow speed diesel engine with reliquefication unit
SSDR - Slow speed diesel engine with reliquefication unit

The propulsion of LNG carriers fueled with economic and ecologic reasons gradually changed towards newer
technologies, introducing better diesel engines and abandoning steam turbines, despite developments in that area [20],
[21]. Figure 3. shows the categorization propulsion systems of modern LNG carrier fleet [12], which are the types of
propulsion we find today.
 Fig. 3. Categorization tree of propulsion systems on LNG carriers [12]
There are six propulsion systems with their combinations such as the optimised version of the steam turbine - ultra
steam turbine, slow-speed diesel engine on MGO as fuel with installed reliquefaction unit - SSDR and rare examples of
installed propulsion hybrids like combined gas and steam turbine engines - COGES or steam turbine and gas engines -
STaGE. In contrary to claim that dominance of steam turbine propulsion ceased on new LNG carrier fleet constructed
from 2010th, on existing fleet the market share of propulsion types is as follows in Table 2. [7].

Table 2. LNG propulsion types at 2020. market share in percentage [7]

Type of ship World market
propulsion share
STEAM 38.00%
MEGI 11.00%
XDF 6.00%
TFDE 14.00%
DFDE 19.00%
SSD 8.00%
S. REHEAT 3.00%
STaGE 1.00%
MEGI-high pressure gas injected
XDF-low pressure gas injected
TFDE-tree fuel diesel electric
DFDE-dual fuel diesel electric
SSD-slow speed diesel engine
S. Reheat-steam thermal reheat
STaGE-hybrid propulsion system consists of steam turbine and electric motor

Despite a large number of researches in the area, simple quantification of benefits of the introduction of newer
technologies on LNG carriers has never been clearly written. This article aims to analyze and compare the quantity both
of fuel consumed and the quantity of NOx and CO 2and to determine the difference in the fuel costs for a period of one
year with the following characteristics:
Table 3. Calculation characteristics
Propulsion power 20 MW MCR
Fuel type MGO and LNG
Steaming 250 days
Ports 30
Duration of each 6 hrs
manoeuvring

2. Emission methodology analysis

To compare the economic factor of exhaust gas emission on LNG fleet propulsion will be used estimation procedure
described by Trozzi& Vaccaro [22], [23], [24]. This methodology follows EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory
guidebook [25], which provides guidance on estimating emissions from both anthropogenic and natural emission
sources. Referred also to Tier III standards of IMO annex VI, using this methodology air pollutant emissions will be
calculated for relevant propulsion types, counting the aforementioned characteristics. According to the methodology,
there are different ship activity phases, namely navigation, manoeuvring and hotelling. The quantity of ship emitted air
pollutants (exhaust gases) will be the sum of all three emission quantities. According to the methodology, every single
activity has different load percentages of Main and Aux. engines. Load percentages are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. ME and AE load percentages at different ship activity profiles [22], [23], [24]
PHASE M/E MCR LOAD (%) M/E OPERATING TIME A/E MCR LOAD
(%) (%)
Cruise 80 100 30
Manoeuvring 20 100 50

The calculation will be based on specific fuel consumption data for a given fuel and engine type given in Table 5.
As the subject of this article is LNG carrier propulsion and exhaust gases emission during loads of 100% (or near) of
MCR load annually, therefore all in-port activities in this calculation will not be taken into consideration. Despite this
note, it has to be highlighted that further benefits can be achieved in port as well, new vessels are also using the same
type of engines in port, causing a decrease in consumption and pollution.

Table 5. Emission factors and SFOC per activity and fuel type [22], [23], [24], [26], [27]. [21]
ENGINE PHASE ENGINE TYPE FUEL TYPE NOx (kg/tonne) SFOC (gr/kWh)

BFO 19.3 305.0

Gas turbines (GT)
MDO/MGO 19.0 290.0
High speed BFO 57.7 213.0
Diesel engine (HSD) MDO/MGO 57.1 203.0
BFO 63.4 213.0
Medium speed Diesel engine (MSD)
Cruise MDO/MGO 63.1 203.0
BFO 89.7 195.0
Slow speed
MDO/MGO 88.6 185.0
Diesel engine (SSD)
LNG 4.71 136.0 - 140.0
BFO 6.6 305.0
Steam turbine (ST)
MDO/MGO 6.6 290.0
Main
BFO 8.9 336.0
Gas turbines
MDO/MGO 8.8 319.0
High speed BFO 39.7 234.0
Diesel engine MDO/MGO 44.3 223.0
BFO 46.2 234.0
Manoeuvrin Medium speed Diesel engine
MDO/MGO 45.7 223.0
g
BFO 65.1 215.0
Slow speed
MDO/MGO 64.2 204.0
Diesel engine
LNG 4.8 336.0
BFO 5.0 319.0
Steam turbine
MDO/MGO 8.9 336.0
High speed BFO 49.4 227.0
Cruise, Diesel engine
Auxi MDO/MGO 48.6 217.0
Manoeuvrin
liary Medium speed Diesel engine BFO 62.5 227.0
g
MDO/MGO 62.0 217.0

As the fuel consumptions per phase are known, emissions of various pollutants will be calculated as the sum for the
complete trip by Equation 1 [13]. In this task, it is assumed that the ship will bunker only MGO fuel complied with
IMO 2020 sulphur content regulation. Ships will not have scrubber installed.

Εtrip i , j , m=Σ p ( FC j , m , p x EF i , j , m , p ) (1)

where is:
E - emission per trip
FC - fuel consumption
EF - emission factor
p - phase/ship activity
i - pollutant
j - engine type
m - fuel type
 CO2 emission for calculation will be taken from Table 6. The cost of fuel is calculated according to prices listed by
Ship & Bunker [28] at the moment of writing this article (beginning of 2022).
Table 6. CO2emission of the propulsion engines for different fuels [26]
PROPULSION SSD MSD HSD GT ST
TYPE
Fuel type MGO BFO MGO BFO MGO BFO MGO BFO MGO BFO
CO2 (gr/kWh) 588 620 645 677 645 677 922 970 922 970

The calculation of the quantity of nitrogen oxides emission for declared parameters uses an equation similar to
Equation 1.

Εcruising i , j ,m =( FC j ,m , x EF i , j ,m , ) (2)
where is:
i- pollutant NOx
j - propulsion type SSDR
m – MGO

The fuel oil consumption in tones per annual trip is calculated using Equation 3:

FOC=c∗P∗g∗l [t/trip] (3)

where:
FOC - fuel oil consumption in tons
c- coefficient of % MCR of propulsion engine power in kW, according to table 3.
g - specific fuel oil consumption in kg⁄kWh
l - sailing time in hours

3. Propulsion options on older LNG carrier fleet

3.1 Steam turbine propulsion

Steam turbine propulsion (ST) is considered a basic propulsion option on the LNG carrier fleet. Even today, ST
plants have up to 25% of the market share according to Figure 3. [7], although with a strong downward trend due to the
development and installation of advanced LSDF, low-speed dual-fuel engines.
The propulsion plant is usually consisting of two high-pressure steam boilers as prime movers of two steam
turbines, with 50 - 70 bar of pressure at 520°C of superheated steam, driving two propeller shaftsthrough the gearbox
[29].
Figure 4. presents one common LNG carrier steam propulsion plant, which consists of the steam boiler as a single
prime mover. In addition to this, mid-speed diesel generators are used for generating electric powerbesides turbo
generators. Diesel generators on this type of LNG carrier plant could give more redundancy in the case when boilers
fail.
 Fig. 4. Steam propulsion plant [29]

The introduction of steam turbine plant as the first choice of LNG ship propulsion happened due to two reasons.
Steam boilers burners can easily run with excessive LNG gases coming from cargo tanks, with a 0.15% boiler off rate
(BOR) of daily cargo capacity with the insulation technology of that time. The second reason is the HFO price was
higher than LNG, therefore besides low efficiency, the steam turbine remained as the main propulsion choice.

3.2 Slow speed two-stroke diesel engine

An example of the LNG carrier propulsion plant with installed two slow speed two-cycle engines for propulsion
with reliquefaction unit (SSDR) is shown in Figure 5.The Reliquefaction unit, created for returning BOG into a liquid,
then pumped to cargo thanks, has 3 - 8 MW of power consumption. For this purpose, those vessels usually have
fourmedium-speed diesel generator setswhich are situated in the engine compartment.
This option with sets of diesel engines has several advantages compared with the ST. Diesel generator has an
excellent response to load change and better thermal efficiency, of over 50% [18], [30] compared to max. 35% of the
efficiency of a steam turbine [31].The downside of this design is the installation of BOG reliquefaction additional
power need to be covered and difficulty in reaching Tier III standard [32].

Fig. 5. SSDR propulsion plant with reliquefaction unit [12]

4. Modern propulsion options on LNG fleet

LOW-PRESSURE(WinGD X-DF) HIGH-PRESSURE(MAN ME-GI)
BMEP: 17.3 bar BMEP: 21 bar
Output approx. 17% lower than the diesel Output comparable with the diesel engine counterpart
Power performance
engine equivalent. Dynamic response poorer Dynamic response comparable with diesel engine
than a diesel engine
Thermal efficiency Approx. 47% Approx. 50%
NO x emission IMO Tier III IMO Tier II
CH 4 slip 3 gr /kWh 0.2 gr /kWh
Methane number MN MN ≥ 65DCC technology Adapt to various MN
Gas consumption 140 - 142 gr /kWh @ 100%MCR 136 - 138 gr /kWh @100%MCR
0.8 gr /kWh @ 100%MCR 5 gr /kWh @ 100%MCR
Pilot fuel consumption
2.7 gr /kWh @ 30%MCR 12 gr /kWh @ 30%MCR
LNG pump: centrifugal pump, with simple Low-pressure vaporizer: low cost and mature
structure and low maintenance requirement. technology. High-pressure gas compressor: few
Low-pressure gas compressor: a large variety of products, large size and heavyweight, high energy
Fuel gas supply system
products, small size and weight, low energy consumption
consumption. Low-pressure vaporizer: low cost
and mature technology

At the beginning ofthe 2000th,the LNG carrier fleet diesel-electric propulsion solution with dual-fuelledmedium-
stroke diesel engines or DFDE become engine design mainstream. First orders of slow-speed two-stroke dual-fuel
engines were signed in December 2012 [12]. The time of orders coincided with solvingthe problem of uncontrolled
cylinder knocking during gas burning. Both LSDF factories (MAN and Wartsila) have secured dynamic response
regardless of load change, the highest thermal efficiency with IMO Tier III or at least II emissions standard achieved
(Table 7).
Table 7. Comparison between ME-GI and X-DF engines [12]

Today, the most frequent new design of the engine room compartment comprises two LSDF engines running two
propeller shafts independently with 4 auxiliary 4 cycle DFDE engines generating electricity to ship the power grid.

4.1. ME-GI LSDF propulsion

LNG ship propulsion plant with ME-GI engines solution [33] is shown inFigure 6. This is a solution provided by the
largest manufacturer of ship propulsions, MAN B&W. The abbreviation ME-GI stands for M-type Electronically
controlled Gas Injected engine. The characteristic of these engines is that the fuel, in this case gas, is injected with high
pressure of 250 - 300 bar, together with a minimum quantity of pilot fuel in the cylinder at an injection angle near TDC.
This provides dynamic response similar to MGO burn of slow speed MAN ME-C engine series with Tier II emission
standard.
To reach the Tier III standard, due to difficulties [34], installation of one of the additional emission treatment
solutions like EGR, exhaust gas recirculation or SCR, selective catalytic reduction would be necessary. Accordingly,
MAN recently is developed a low-pressure ME-GA, gas admission engine which solves these problems and approaches
to achievements of the main opponent X-DF engine.

Fig. 6. LNG ship propulsion plant with ME-GI engines solution [33]
4.2. X - DF LSDF propulsion

Due tothe increasing demand for low-speed dual-fuel engines, the WinGD factory developed the low-pressure
injection of high air-fuel ratio fuel in the cylinder. They used well-proven ex Sulzer slow speed engine design, further
improved with Wartsila’s dual-fuel technology furtheradvanced with burning lean air/gas mixture on Otto cycle,
injected at a mid-stroke when operating in gas mode with injection of a small amount of diesel pilot fuel for ignition at
cylinder TDC. WinGD delivered its first X-DF engine in 2017. Figure 7.showsthe X-DF propulsion design.
 Fig. 7. LNG ship propulsion plant with X-DF engines solution[12]
Due to advanced technology X-DF is Tier III compliant without the need for an expensive exhaust gas cleaning
process [34], [35] such as a scrubber or SCR system, which can be seen inTable 7.

5. Calculation results and discussion

Environmental and financial reasons to purchase more technologically advanced engines can be clearly noted
afterthe emission estimate of propulsion systems methodology developed by Trozzi and Vaccaro [22], [23], [24].
Results are calculated according to the methodology presented in Chapter 2, for the ship with characteristics given in
Table 3. Results are presented in Table 8.
Table 8. Calculation results for one year
ST SSDR LSDF ME-GI LSDF X-DF
FOC (ton) 22 391 14 279 10 552.5 10 805.8
NOx (ton) 147.8 1 264.4 49.7 50.9
CO2 (ton) 71 163.7 45 384. 2 45 385.8 45 385.8
FO cost
($)
19 838 426 12 651194 9 349 515 9 573 939

The comparison of propulsion solutions shows that the ST propulsion system has 13 times less emission of NOx
comparedwith SSDR. At the same time, it is significantly behind in economic criteria, because of much lower thermal
efficiency. Despite the ST system simplicity and reliability of operation, fuel oil consumption and linked costs created
the end of the steam turbine as a propulsion option for LNG vessels. On the other hand, according toTable 2., the steam
turbine is still the most common propulsion device, present on 38% of ships, although older ones.
Environmental concerns, as well as economical gain, caused the newest developments and switch to ME-GI or X-
DF concept, which have better NOx signature than steam turbine and lower fuel costs than SSDR.

6. Conclusion
The results of this article analysis of options in propulsion of LNG fleet clearly presents what the advantages of
modern propulsion are. The benefits are obvious in economic and environmental protection concerning, where the
environmental one in recent years broke through as the most important aspect of managing the shipping fleet.
Although in this review some fleet costs were not taken into account, such are initial and maintenance costs, fuel
with correct grade availability in navigation route, possibility of other propulsion options like DFDE, dual fuel diesel
electric and STaGE, hybrid composed of steam turbine and gas engine and their environmental impact, comparison are
precisely demonstrate between older propulsion installation and latest state of the art low speed engines.
WinGD and MAN B&W as leading companies of developed low speed engines are significantly rebound in
technical solutions of using BOG as propulsion fuel than their predecessors. Although methane as fossil origin fuel is
considered as transitional solution in less nature carbon impact, burned in mentioned engines gives 3 times a smaller
amount of NOx mixture and decreased CO2 footprint to 1,5 times.
The successes of that level are achieved in MAN ME-GI engine with advanced technology of cryogenic gas fuel
preparation, together with pressurising it up to 300 bar of fuel supply. WinGD X-DF technology with combined diesel
and otto cycle in one unique miller cycle of lean fuel mixture, injected at low fuel supply pressure reduces fuel oil
consumption in 30% compared with SSDR technology and 50% in comparison with ST propulsion system. In addition,
due to high air to fuel ratio and because of lower burning temperatures, low pressure X-DF engines reaches Tier III
emissions standard which doesn't required exhaust gas post treatment with additional SCR or scrubber installed.
Nevertheless, engines with that level of development still has significant atmosphere CO2 footprint, which requires
more development improvements in engine design direction. Prediction is that combustible fuels in the research phase
like methanol, ethane, biomethane, ammonium and hydrogen are the fuels which will reach UN 2015 Paris agreement
of net zero strategy by 2050.

References

1. Gkonis, K. G., &Psaraftis, H. N. (2009). The LNG Market: A Game Theoretic Approach to Competition
in LNG Shipping. Maritime Economics & Logistics. Vol. 11(2). pp. 227–246. doi:10.1057/mel.2009.
2. Anyanwu, W. (2010). The Nature of LNG Arbitrage A Study of Its Theoretical Growth in Global
Market. Cyprus International University. Available at: http://www. academia.
edu/2627297/The_Nature_of_LNG_Arbitrage_A_Study_of_Its_Theoretical_Growth_in_Global_Market.
retrieved: 26.01.2022.
3. Engelen, S., &Dullaert, W. (2010). Transformations in gas shipping: Market structure and efficiency.
Maritime Economics & Logistics. Vol. 12(3). pp.295-325. doi: 10.1057/mel.2010.10.
4. Noble, P. G. (2009). A short history of LNG shipping. Texas Section SNAME.
5. Bortnowska, M. (2010). Technological and operational concept of an LNG carrier. Scientific Journals of
the Maritime University of Szczecin. Vol. 21 pp. 28-33. ISSN: 2392-0378.
6. Zanne, M., &Grčić, M. (2009). Challenges of LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) Carriers in 21’ Century.
Promet - Traffic&Transportation. Vol. 21(1). pp. 49-60. doi: 10.7307/ptt.v21i1.912.
7. Stanivuk, T., Mahić, J., Stazić, L., &Perdić-Lukačević, H. (2021). LNG market and fleet analysis.
Transport Problems: an International Scientific Journal. Vol. 16(4). pp.173-183. doi: 10.21307/tp-2021-
069.
8. Alterman, S. (2012). Natural gas price volatility in the UK and North America. Oxford Institute for
Energy Studies. ISBN. 978-1-907555-43-5
9. Hailemariam, A., & Smyth, R. (2019). What drives volatility in natural gas prices?. Energy Economics.
Vol. 80. pp. 731-742. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2019.02.011
10. Ruszel, M. (2022). The development of global LNG exports. In The Future of Energy Consumption,
Security and Natural Gas (pp. 1-20). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-80367-4_1
11. Meza, A., Ari, I., Al-Sada, M. S., &Koç, M. (2021). Future LNG competition and trade using an agent-
based predictive model. Energy Strategy Reviews. Vol. 38. pp. 100734. doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2021.100734.
12. Huan, T., Hongjun, F., Wei, L., &Guoqiang, Z. (2019). Options and Evaluations on Propulsion Systems
of LNG Carriers. Propulsion Systems. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.82154.
13. Fernández, I. A., Gómez, M. R., Gómez, J. R., &Insua, Á. B. (2017). Review of propulsion systems on
LNG carriers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Vol. 67. pp. 1395–1411. doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.095
14. Grzesiak, S.(2018). Alternative Propulsion Plants for Modern LNG Carriers. New Trends in Production
Engineering. Vol. 1(1).pp. 399-407. doi: 10.2478/ntpe-2018-0050.
15. Dosa, I. &Petrilean, C. D. (2013). Efficiency Assessment of Condensing Steam Turbine. Advances in
Environment, Ecosystems, and Sustainable Tourism. ISBN: 978-1-61804-195-1, pp. 203-208.
16. Yeo, D., Ahn, B., Kim, J., & Kim, I. (2007). Propulsion alternatives for modern LNG carriers. In: Gas
Technology Institute, 15th International Conference and Exhibition on Liquefied Natural Gas. pp. 620-
35.
17. Ott, M., Alder, R., &Nylund, I. (2015). Low Pressure Dual-fuel Technology for Low Speed Marine
Engines. ATZextra worldwide. Vol. 20(10). pp. 34-39. doi: 10.1007/s40111-015-0506-3
18. Clausen, N. B. (2009). Marine diesel engines: How efficient can a two-stroke engine be. STG ship
efficiency conference. Copenhagen, DE.
19. Juliussen, L. (2016). ME-GI and ME-LGI Gas Technologies–Development Status and Results.
DieselFacts. Vol. 2
20. Watanabe, E., Tanaka, Y., Nakano, T., Ohyama, H., Tanaka, K., Miyawaki, T., Tsutsumi, M. &
Shinohara, T. (2003). Development of new high efficiency steam turbine. Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. Tech.
Rev. Vol. 40(4). pp. 6.
21. Saito, E., Matsuno, N., Tanaka, K., Nishimoto, S., Yamamoto, R. &Imano, S. (2015). Latest
technologies and future prospects for a new steam turbine. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Technical
Review. Vol 52(2). pp.39-46.
22. Trozzi, C.& Vaccaro, R., 1998. Methodologies for estimating future air pollutant emissions from
ships.Techne Report MEET RF98b; available at: http://www.inrets.fr/infos/cost319/MEETdel25-
ship.pdf. accessed on February 10th 2022.
23. Trozzi, C.& Vaccaro, R., Nicolo, L., 1995. Air pollutants emissions estimate from maritime traffic in the
italian harbours of Venice and Piombino.The Science of the Total Environment 169, 257–263.
24. Trozzi C. & Vaccaro R. (2006). Methodologies for estimating air pollutant emissions from ships: a 2006
update , Environment & Transport 2nd International Scientific Symposium (including 15th conference
Transport and Air Pollution), Reims, France : 12-14 June 2006
25. EMEP/EEA. (2021). Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 – Updated Dec. 2021
26. Entec UK Limited. (2007). Ship Emissions Inventory Mediterranean Sea. Final Report for Concawe.
27. Entec UK Limited. (2002). Quantification of emissions from ships associated with ship movements
between ports in the European Community. European Commission Final Report.
28. Ship & Bunker. (2022). available at: https://shipandbunker.com/.accessed on February 15 th 2022
29. Ito, M., Hiraoka, K., Matsumoto, S., & Tsumura, K. (2007). Development of high efficiency marine
propulsion plant (Ultra Steam Turbine). Mitsubishi Heavy Ind Ltd Tech Rev. Vol. 44(3).
30. BaressiŠegota, S., Lorencin, I., Anđelić, N., Mrzljak, V., & Car, Z. (2020). Improvement of marine
steam turbine conventional exergy analysis by neural network application. Journal of Marine Science
and Engineering. Vol. 8(11). pp. 884. doi: 10.3390/jmse8110884
31. MAN Energy Solutions. (2019) Efficiency of MAN B&W Two-Stroke engines for stationary
application. Copenhagen, Denmark
32. MAN Diesel & Turbo. (2019). Efficiency of MAN B&W two-stroke engines. Augsburg, Germany
33. Svensson, Bo. (2017). Making The Most Of BOG. Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide, Vol. 4/2017. KHL
Group, Southfields, United Kingdom. available at: https://www.dieselgasturbine.com/news/Making-The-
Most-Of-BOG/7004531.article. accessed on February 15th 2022
34. Mitrou, P. (2022). LNG fleet seriously exposed to CII impact. Lloyd's Register, 71 Fenchurch Street,
EC3M 4BS,United Kingdom. available at:https://www.lr.org/en/insights/articles/lng-fleet-seriously-
exposed-to-cii-impact/. accessed on February 15th 2022
35. Herdzik, J. (2021). Decarbonization of Marine Fuels—The Future of Shipping. Energies. Vol. 14(14).
pp. 4311. doi: 10.3390/en14144311