Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies
for Category 3 Marine Engines
Final Report
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies
for Category 3 Marine Engines
Final Report
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for EPA by
ICF International
EPA Contract No. EP-C06094
Work Assignment No. WA1 -8
NOTICE
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or
positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data
that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to
facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
technical developments.
Protection
EPA-420-R-09-008
May 2009
-------
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1-1
2. Technology Description 2-3
2.1. Baseline Technologies 2-3
2.11 Low-Speed Engines 2-4
2.1.2. Medium-Speed Engines 2-4
2.1.3. Typical Ship Characteristics 2-4
2.2. Advanced Technologies 2-5
2.2.1. Tier I Retrofit Technologies 2-5
2.2.2. Tier II Technologies 2-6
2.2.3. Tier III Technologies 2-11
2.3. Fuel Switching 2-23
2.3.1. Vessel fuel systems 2-23
2.3.2. Potential vessel modifications associated with fuel switching 2-25
2.3.3. Modifications for fuel switching 2-28
2.3.4. Scenarios analyzed and cost methodology 2-29
3. Economic Impact 3-1
3.1. Cost Estimation Methodology 3-1
3.1.1. Hardware Cost to Manufacturer 3-1
3.1.2. Fixed Cost to Manufacturer 3-1
3.1.3. Fuel Economy 3-2
3.2. Retrofit Tier I Technology Costs 3-3
3.3. Tier II Technology Costs 3-4
3.4. Tier III Technology Costs 3-6
3.4.1. Engine Modifications 3-6
3.4.2. Fumigation 3-7
3.4.3. Fuel Emulsification 3-9
3.4.4. Direct Water Injection 3-11
3.4.5. Exhaust Gas Recirculation 3-73
3.4.6. Selective Catalytic Reduction 3-75
3.4.7. Sea Water Scrubbers 3-77
3.5. Fuel Switching Hardware Costs 3-19
3.6. Differential Fuel Consumption 3-22
3.7. I MO Testing Costs 3-23
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Proposed IMO Standards 1-2
Figure 2-1. Cross-Sectional diagrams of Different Nozzle Sac Designs 2-8
Figure 2-2. Wartsila Common Rail Fuel Injection System 2-10
Figure 2-3. Comparison between SCR and HAM 2-12
Figure 2-3. HAM System 2-13
Figure 2-4. SAM System 2-14
Figure 2-5. Wetpac H System 2-15
Figure 2-6. Pressurized Fuel Emulsification System 2-16
Figure 2-7. DWI Unit for Pressurizing Water and injectors 2-17
Figure 2-8. MAN Diesel EGR Scrubber 2-19
Figure 2-9. Example of Urea SCR System for a 4-stroke engine with the reactor placed downstream of turbocharger
2-20
Figure 2-10. Urea SCR system with Reactor Installation before Turbocharger 2-21
Figure 2-11. Seawater Scrubbing System with EcoSilencer® for a "Super Yacht" design for engines up to 3.5MW2-22
Figure 2-12. Typical Shipboard Unifuel Delivery System 2-24
Figure 2-13. Typical Fuel Tank and Delivery Systems 2-25
Figure 2-14. MAN B&W's Fuel Oil System No. 1 2-30
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Engine Modifications Currently In-Use to Meet MARPOL Emission Levels 2-3
Table 2-2. Average Engine Characteristics Used in this Study 2-4
Table 2-3. Average Ship Characteristics by Ship Type 2-5
Table 2-4. Average Auxiliary Engine Load Factors and Hotelling Times by Ship Type 2-5
Table 2-5. Key Attributes and Benefits to the Sulzer RT-flex Common Rail System 2-10
Table 2-6. Benefits and Limitations of Wartsila's DWI Technology 2-18
Table 2-7. Typical on-board storage for heavy fuel oil and distillate fuels by vessel type 2-27
Table 2-8. Fuel Use per Call forVarious EGA Distances (Metric Tonnes) 2-27
Table 3-1. Labor Rates 3-1
Table 3-2. Annual Research and Development Costs 3-2
Table 3-3. Average Load Factors 3-2
Table 3-4. Cost of Retrofit Kits 3-3
Table 3-5. Differential Costs for Engine Modifications to Meet Tier II Emission Levels 3-4
Table 3-6. Common Rail Fuel Injection Costs for Mechanically Injected Engines 3-5
Table 3-7. Common Rail Fuel Injection Costs for Electronic Engines 3-6
Table 3-8. Differential Engine Modifications Costs to Meet Tier III Emission Levels 3-7
Table 3-9. Fumigation Costs 3-8
Table 3-10. Fumigation Water Tank Costs 3-9
Table 3-11. Fumigation Distilled Water Costs 3-9
Table 3-12. Fuel Emulsification Costs 3-10
Table 3-13. Emulsification Water Tank Costs 3-11
Table 3-14. Emulsification Distilled Water Costs 3-11
Table 3-15. Direct Water Injection Costs 3-12
Table 3-16. DWI Water Tank Costs 3-13
Table 3-17. DWI Distilled Water Costs 3-13
Table 3-18. Exhaust Gas Recirculation Costs 3-14
Table 3-19. Sludge Tank Costs 3-15
Table 3-20. Selective Catalytic Reduction Costs 3-16
Table 3-21. Urea Tank Costs 3-17
Table 3-22. Urea Costs 3-17
Table 3-23. Sea Water Scrubber Costs 3-18
Table 3-24. Sludge Tank Costs 3-19
Table 3-26. Case 1 Fuel Switching Costs (New Construction) 3-20
Table 3-27. Additional Fuel Tank Storage Costs 3-21
Table 3-28. Case 2 Fuel Switching Costs (Retrofits) 3-22
Table 3-29. Hourly fuel use change estimated for a one percent change in brake specific fuel consumption 3-23
ICF International M U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
1. Introduction
In December 2007, EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to enact more
stringent exhaust emission standards for engines on ocean going vessels.1 New NOx and SOx
exhaust emission standards were discussed for engines on Category 3 marine vessels.2
Two new tiers of NOx standards have recently been adopted by the I MO. Tier II NOx standards
are roughly 20 percent lower than the existing Tier I NOx standards set by the International
Maritime Organization in Annex VI.3 To meet these standards, in-cylinder emission control
approaches such as electronically controlled high pressure common rail fuel systems,
turbocharger optimization, compression ratio changes and electronically controlled exhaust
valves could be used. Tier III NOx standards which only apply in designated Emission Control
Areas are roughly 80 percent below Tier I NOx standards and would likely require exhaust
aftertreatment such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Other approaches that may be
considered to reduce NOx emissions from Category 3 vessel engines are exhaust gas
recirculation and water technologies such as direct water injection or fumigation.
In addition to these NOx standards for new Category 3 marine vessel engines, standards were
adopted by the IMO for NOx limits for existing engines due to the very long life of ocean going
vessels and the availability of known in-cylinder technical modifications such as slide valve fuel
injectors and injection timing retard that provide significant and cost-effective NOx reductions. It
is believed that engines built in 1990 through 1999 are compatible with these lower NOx
components. The standards require that engines would need to be modified to achieve a 20
percent reduction in NOx emissions from their existing baseline emission rates.
Reductions in SOx and PM are expected to be met primarily through two approaches. The first
would be to operate the engines on a lower sulfur distillate fuel. Category 3 marine engines
typically operate on heavy fuel oil with a sulfur content of 2.7 percent. Significant SOx and PM
reductions could be achieved using distillate fuels with a sulfur content of 0.1 percent. Fuel
costs will be estimated through a separate effort. However, costs due to vessel modifications
will be considered here. For instance, if a lower sulfur fuel is used only near U.S. coasts, the
vessel must be capable of switching between heavy fuel oil and distillate fuel. In the case of a
vessel converting exclusively to distillate fuel, cost savings may be achieved with a greatly
simplified fuel treatment system on board the vessel. Alternatively, the vessel could continue to
operate on high sulfur fuel if it were equipped with an exhaust gas scrubber to remove SOx from
the exhaust.
This report includes descriptions of baseline and likely emission control technologies expected
to be used to meet Tier II and Tier III emission standards, the lower sulfur fuel requirement for
designated Emission Control Areas, as well as the related costs for application, usage, and
maintenance of these technologies.
1 Environmental Protection Agency, "Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or
Above 30 Liters per Cylinder; Proposed Rule," Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 235/Friday, December/, 2007.
Available at http://www.epa.qov/fedrqstr/EPA-AIR/2007/December/Dav-07/a23556.pdf
Category 3 marine vessel refers to ocean going vessels which have at least one Category 3 marine diesel engine
with a displacement of at least 30 liters per cylinder. The standard will apply to all engines on a Category 3 marine
vessel including auxiliary engines which are typically Category 2 (5 to 30 liters per cylinder).
3 Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78: Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships and NOx Technical Code
from the IMO (ISBN 92-801-6089-3) (IMO Sales Number IMO-664E)
ICF International 1-1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Introduction
Figure 1-1. Proposed IMO Standards
20
18
16
14
•12
6
4
2
c;
Tier
Tit
Tier I
n < 130 rpm -* 17.0 g/kWh
130 < n < 2000 rpm ^ 45 x n*3 g/kW
n < < 2000 rpm -» 9.B g/kWh
Tier II
n < 130 rpm -+ 14.36 g/kWh
130 < n< 2000 rpm -» 44 x n M g/kWh
n < < 2000 rpm ^ 7.668 g/kWh
Cofresponds to 80% reduction of Tier I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Rated engine speed (rpm)
Source: MAN Diesel SE
4 MAN Diesel, "Exhaust Gas Emission Control Today and Tomorrow," August 19, 2008, available at
http://www.manbw.com/article 009187.html
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
1-2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
2. Technology Description
Category 3 marine diesel engines are currently being built to meet Tier I IMO MARPOL Annex
VI emission standards. A brief description of the baseline technologies is given below as well
as descriptions of the various technology improvements used to obtain lower emission levels.
2.1. Baseline Technologies
Current engines built to meet MARPOL Tier I emission levels are considered baseline
technologies for this analysis. Generally Tier I NOx emission levels are estimated as 11 percent
below Tier 0 emission levels.5 Engine modifications currently being used by manufacturers are
listed in Table 2-1. To assess the costs of new technologies needed to reduce emissions below
future MARPOL levels, average engine characteristics have been defined. In order to account
for different technology costs that are associated with different size and/or types of engines, a
number of 'average engines' were developed; these engines with 'typical' characteristics are
listed in Table 2-2. Both low-speed and medium-speed Category 3 engines are represented.
Estimated costs would need to be adjusted for larger or smaller engines of each type.
Table 2-1. Engine Modifications Currently In-Use to Meet MARPOL Emission Levels6
Component or
Operation Changed
turbocharger
Intercooler
air inlet port
cylinder head
piston crown
injection pressure
injectors
nozzle
injection timing
exhaust valve timing
Change
improved efficiency,
schemes for variable flow
improved efficiency
redesigned shape
redesign shape
redesigned piston crown
shape
increase
redesign
smaller holes, more holes,
cleaner holes, etc.
retard and/or vary with
load
"Miller cycle" timing
Parameter Affected
SFC, intake pressure
air inlet temperature
swirl
swirl, compression ratio
swirl, compression ratio
atomization
sac volume, injection
rate shaping
spray pattern changes
peak cylinder
temperature
peak cylinder
temperature
Low-Speed
Engines
yes
yes
maybe
maybe
no
yes
yes
possibly
yes
yes
Medium-Speed
Engines
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
5 Conversation with Michael Samulski of EPA, May 2007.
6 Melvin Ingalls and Steven Fritz, "Assessment of Emission Control Technologies for EPA Category 3 Commercial
Marine Diesel Engines," Southwest Research Institute Report, September 2001.
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Table 2-2. Average Engine Characteristics Used in this Study
Engine Type
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
BSFC (g/kWh)
Medium-Speed
4,500 9,500 18,000
9 12 16
35 65 95
650 550 500
210
Low-Speed
8,500
6
380
130
15,000 48,000
8 12
650 1400
110 100
195
2.1.1. Low-SpeedEngines
Low-speed engines are usually two-stroke engines with large displacements up to 2000
L/cylinder and are used for propulsion on bulk carriers, container ships, larger tankers, general
cargo and roll-on/roll-off ships. They are typically turbo-charged with aftercooling and have four
exhaust valves per cylinder. Scavenge air enters the cylinder through a series of intake ports
arranged around the bottom of the cylinder. Intake is controlled by the piston as it uncovers or
covers the intake ports. Fuel injection is typically mechanical with 3 injectors per cylinder. They
typically have 4 to 20 cylinders.
2.1.2. Medium-Speed Engines
Medium-speed engines are usually four-stroke engines with significantly smaller cylinder
displacement (30 to 200 L/ cylinder) than low-speed engines. They are typically used as
propulsion engines on smaller tankers, general cargo, roll-on/roll-off ships, ferries, cruise ships,
and as auxiliary engines on large ships for power generation or refrigeration. They are
commonly turbo-charged and aftercooled, have two intake and two exhaust valves per cylinder
and are mechanically injected with one injector per cylinder. They typically have 6 to 18
cylinders.
2.1.3. Typical Ship Characteristics
In order to better understand various ship types as they approach U.S. ports, average ship
characteristics were determined for each ship type based upon the 2002 Category 3 Marine
Vessel Port Inventory.7 This information is used to determine average time per port call as well
as average auxiliary to propulsion power ratios.
ICF International, "Commercial Marine Port Inventory Development-2002 and 2005 Inventories," September
2007. Available at
http://www. regulations.qov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?obiectld=090000648037139b&disposition=attachment&cont
entType=pdf
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Table 2-3. Average Ship Characteristics by Ship Type
Ship Type
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RoRo
Tanker
Average
Average
Propulsion
Power
(kW)
11,155
8,350
26,211
6,709
34,800
10,060
11,687
9,667
15,244
Service
Speed
(knots)
18.7
14.5
21.6
15.2
20.9
19.5
16.8
14.8
17.4
Auxiliary
Power
Ratio8
0.266
0.222
0.220
0.191
0.278
0.406
0.259
0.211
0.227
Average
Auxiliary
Power
(kW)
2,967
1,854
5,747
1,281
9,674
4,084
3,027
2,040
3,533
2002
Calls
3,306
9,600
14,703
7,391
3,623
1,447
2,137
13,310
55,517
Average auxiliary engine load factors and average hotelling time by ship type are given in Table
2-4 for ships calling on U.S. ports in 2002.
Table 2-4. Average Auxiliary Engine Load Factors and Hotelling Times by Ship Type
Ship Type
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RoRo
Tanker
Average
Auxiliary Load Factors
Cruise
13%
17%
13%
17%
80%
15%
20%
13%
19%
Transit
30%
27%
25%
27%
80%
30%
34%
27%
30%
Maneuver
67%
45%
50%
45%
80%
45%
67%
45%
51%
Hotel
24%
22%
17%
22%
64%
30%
34%
67%
35%
Hotel
(hrs)
45.0
88.0
48.0
88.0
11.0
60.0
45.0
38.0
55.5
2.2. Advanced Technologies
Technologies that can be used to meet Tier II and Tier III emission levels are discussed in this
section along with those that would be used to retrofit engines built between 1990 and 1999 to
meet Tier I emission levels.
2.2.1. Tier I Retrofit Technologies
The October 2008 amendments to MARPOL Annex VI include regulations on ships constructed
on or after January 1, 1990 but prior to January 1, 2000 for marine diesel engines with a per
cylinder displacement of at least 90 liters and with a power output of over 5,000 kW. Such
engines must be retrofit and be certified confirming the engine meets Tier I standards. Most
manufacturers will comply with the regulation by providing retrofit kits which contain modified
Ratio of total auxiliary engine power to total propulsion power. These were determined from a survey of 327 ships
in January 2005 by the California Air Resources Board.
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
fuel injectors and possibly modified injection timing. Approximately all Category 3 ships with
slow speed diesel engines constructed between 1990 and 1999 have engines with over 90 liters
per cylinder while approximately 35 percent of Category 3 ships with medium speed diesel
engines constructed between 1990 and 1999 have engines with over 90 liters per cylinder.
Retrofit kits for slow speed diesel engines will include low-NOx slide valves. Slide valves have
zero sac volume so fuel dribbling into the engine cylinder after injection is minimized. This leads
to lower HC and CO emissions as well as lower PM emissions because any fuel that dribbles
into the engine cylinder after combustion will tend not to burn completely. In addition, low-NOx
slide valves have optimized spray patterns which minimize NOx formation. Low-NOx slide
valves have been shown to reduce NOx from 20 to 25 percent with a 1 to 2 percent fuel
consumption penalty.9
Retrofit kits for medium speed engines would likely include injectors modified for low NOx
performance and injection timing retard. By locating the flame zones closer to metal surfaces
(cylinder head, piston) NOx can be reduced in medium speed engines.10 Cooling of the flame
and/or burnt gases by surfaces reduces NOx. Too much cooling, or impingement of unburnt fuel
on metal surfaces would increase smoke. By changing the spray cone angle, NOx can also be
reduced. It is expected that NOx optimized nozzles could provide a 20 to 25 percent drop in
NOx with in a 1 to 2 percent fuel consumption penalty.
2.2.2. Tier II Technologies
Most engine manufacturers can reach Tier II levels with engine modifications. Some of the
older mechanically injected engines will be replaced with common rail fuel injection systems.11
However, it is estimated that approximately 20 percent of low speed engines and 60 percent of
medium speed engines may still be mechanically injected. Engine modifications include
retarded fuel injection timing, higher compression ratios, lower excess air ratios, lower inlet air
temperatures, better fuel distribution, improved nozzle sac design, and use of Miller cycle
valving. MAN Diesel estimates a 4 to 6 g/kWh increase in specific oil fuel consumption (SOFC)
to meet Tier II regulations.11
2.2.2.1 Fuel Injection Timing
By injecting later in the engine cycle, maximum cylinder pressure is reduced, thereby lowering
peak cylinder temperatures and thus NOx production. However, lowering maximum cylinder
pressure also reduces engine efficiency and increases particulate emissions. In one instance,
by retarding the injection by 2° crank angle, cylinder pressures were reduced by about 10 bar
and NOx emissions were reduced by about 10 percent; however, fuel consumption was
increased by about 1.5 percent.12 Maximum NOx reductions through this method are about 25
percent, but can be limited by turbocharger speed, because more energy escaping the exhaust
will provide more energy to the turbocharger, thereby increasing cylinder pressures.
Goldsworthy, L, "Design of Ship Engines for Reduced Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen," in Engineering a
Sustainable Future Conference Proceedings. July 2002. Available at
http://www.amc.edu.au/svstem/files/shipNOx.pdf
10 Paro, D., "Development of the Sustainable Engine," 23rd CIMAC Congress, 2001.
11 MAN Diesel, "Exhaust Gas Emission Control Today and Tomorrow," August 19, 2008," available at
http://www.manbw.com/article 009187.html
12 Geist et al., "Marine Diesel NOx Reduction Technique- A New Sulzer Diesel Ltd Approach," SAE paper 970321.
ICF International 2-6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Retarding fuel injection timing also increases the exhaust temperature. Exhaust valves need to
be kept below 450°C to prevent excessive damage and short operational life. In many cases,
exhaust valves are additionally cooled and exhaust valve faces are clad with erosion-resistant
materials. Higher grade cylinder liners are used to reduce wear. Pistons are also additionally
cooled with oil jets and clad to prevent hot spots and piston damage.
2.2.2.2 Higher Compression Ratio
The effective compression ratio of an engine can be increased by increasing the geometric
compression ratio by installing piston rod shims, varying the valve timing or by increasing the
scavenge air pressure. Raising compression ratio generally increases NOx while reducing PM
and BSFC. When higher compression ratios are used with fuel injection timing retard, the
compression pressure increase due to combustion is minimized and thereby NOx emissions are
reduced. Varying valve timing or increasing the scavenge air pressure; however, influence the
excess air ratio so NOx formation rates are affected as well (see Section 2.2.1.3 below). The
maximum achievable NOx reductions of 25 percent from fuel injection timing retard can be
achieved without a fuel consumption penalty if the compression ratio is raised. The maximum
compression ratio is limited by the structural strength of the engine. Additional strengthening of
the rods, crankshaft, piston, head, and cylinder liner are sometimes needed to handle the
additional combustion pressures and temperatures.
2.2.2.3 Excess Air Ratio
Oxygen concentration in the fuel/air mixture affects NOx emission formation. Lowering the air
excess ratio from 2.2 to 1.9 by adjusting the valve timing and compression ratio at the same
time to keep the effective compression ratio constant can reduce NOx emissions by about 15
percent and result in a slight reduction in fuel consumption12 Lowering the excess air ratio
increases the thermal load on the engine, thereby limiting the amount of NOx reduction possible
from this method.
2.2.2.4 Inlet Air Temperature
By lowering the scavenge air temperature, NOx emissions can be decreased. In most engines,
the scavenge air temperature is limited by the cooling water temperature. However, use of a
separate circuit aftercooling system (which utilizes an additional heat exchanger for the
aftercooler) can further reduce the air temperature and provide substantial reductions in NOx
emissions while providing a reduction in fuel consumption. Some engines already use separate
circuit aftercooling, while others install the aftercooler prior to the engine cooling circuit, ensuring
it receives cooler water than the after the engine water jacket. Separate circuit aftercooling
provides larger benefits than just plumbing the aftercooler first in the engine cooling circuit
because lower inlet temperatures can be achieved with separate circuit aftercooling.
2.2.2.5 Fuel Distribution
Fuel distribution in the cylinder is influenced by intake air swirl, the number of injection nozzles,
the fuel spray pattern, droplet size and to a lesser degree, injection pressure. The interaction
between the sprays from individual nozzle holes has a significant impact on NOx. There exists
an optimum number of nozzle holes for minimum NOx. In addition the angle of the spray cone
can also affect NOx. By directing the spray near the piston, there is less air entrainment in the
earlier stages of injection leading to lower NOx emissions. This can also enhance turbulence
and mixing during the latter stage of combustion which reduces emissions and fuel
ICF International 2-7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
consumption. NOx reductions of 30 percent have been achieved in some engines, but in most
cases there is a strong trade-off between NOx reductions and fuel consumption.9
2.2.2.6 Nozzle Sac Design
By reducing nozzle sac volume, particulate and hydrocarbon emissions are reduced. The
nozzle sac is the small volume at the end of the nozzle that can contain trapped fuel after the
injector valve closes. This fuel tends to dribble into the cylinder later in the cycle and tends to
result in both hydrocarbon and particulate emissions. By eliminating the sac volume,
hydrocarbon emissions can be reduced up to 75 percent at full load.13 Most low speed engines
already use slide valve nozzles to meet Tier I emission levels. Diagrams of nozzle sacs are
shown in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1. Cross-Sectional diagrams of Different Nozzle Sac Designs
Nov.- used as
standard
Solid
Mini-sac
Sac 520 mm
Slide-type fuel valve
Sac volume 01
Conventional fuel valve
Sac volume 1690 mm
Source: Man B&W14
2.2.2.7 Miller Cycle Valving
By using high pressure turbocharging and closing the intake valve before the piston reaches
bottom dead center (BDC) during the intake stroke, the entrapped air charge will be expanded
and reach the pressure of a normal turbocharged engine at BDC, but at a significantly cooler
temperature due to the expansion. This leads to the bulk cylinder temperature being lower
13 Ole Gr0ne and Kjeld Aabo, "How to meet local and international marine emission legislation," presented to the
Institute of Marine Engineers in Rotterdam, September 2001
14 Kjeld Aabo, "Marine Transport Fuels and Emissions," presented at the Third Nordic-Japan Environmental Conference in
Nagano, Japan, November 2002.
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-8
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Miller
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
during the entire combustion process, which directly reduces NOx emissions.
supercharging can reduce NOx by 20% without increasing fuel consumption.9
2.2.2.8 Common Rail Injection/Electronic Fuel Injection
The common rail refers to a rail or tube running the length of the engine below the level of the
cylinder cover. Heated fuel is supplied to the common rail injection system at high pressure,
ready for injection. Injection occurs under constant fuel pressure via electronic/hydraulic high-
pressure pumps running on multi-lobe cams.
One manufacturer's heavy fuel common rail system is constructed from a series of inter-
connected accumulators. Each common rail injection pump supplies two accumulators. The
design can be retrofitted to existing engines by simply removing the current injection pumps and
replacing them with a common rail delivery pump and an accumulator. Each accumulator is
connected directly to two injectors and each line contains a flow fuse for safety. A flow control
valve regulates the rail pressure on each of the rail pumps. The regulation signal to the flow
control valve comes from the electronic control system. The fuel oil injection timing and duration
are electronically controlled as well. High pressure engine lubricating oil is used to open the fuel
injection valve.
NOx reductions from common rail systems are mostly due to the ability to control the amount
and rate of fuel injection at low loads as opposed to mechanical injection systems. Mechanical
systems generally do not have the flexibility to provide the right amount of fuel for all load
settings. Because the right amount of fuel can be injected at all loads, fuel consumption is
reduced. Outside of its utility for NOx reductions, this technology also reduces visible smoke
from unburned excess fuel from cruise ships because it limits over-fueling during maneuvering.
This technology is currently being demonstrated on a low-speed diesel engine constructed by
Sulzer, called the Sulzer R-T flex engine. It has been estimated that use of the Sulzer R-T flex
engine, and its common-rail fuel injection system, can provide 20% lower NOx emissions over
current Tier I standards. Table 2-5 presents key features and benefits of the Sulzer design.15 A
diagram of a Wartsila common rail system is shown in Figure 2-2.16
15 Stefan Fankhauser, "World's first common-rail low-speed engine goes to sea," Marine News, No. 3-2001, pg 12-15
16 Wartsila Corporation, "Wartsila Common Rail - A Super Efficient Fuel Injection System," February 2007, available at
http://www.wartsila.com/Wartsila/qlobal/docs/en/about us/twentvfour7/2 2007/common rail injection system info
qraphics.pdf
ICF International 2-9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Table 2-5. Key Attributes and Benefits to the Sulzer RT-flex Common Rail System
Key Features
System Benefits
o Precise volumetric control of fuel
injection, with integrated flow-out
security
o Variable injection rate shaping and free
selection of injection pressure
o Ideally suited for heavy fuel oil
o Proven, high-efficiency supply pumps
o Lower levels of vibration and internal
forces and moments
o Steady operation at very low running
speeds with precise speed regulation
o Reduced maintenance requirements
o Full electronic common-rail control with
integrated monitoring functions
o Better fuel economy (currently due mainly to
part-load operation)
o Easier compliance with the NOx emission
limit in Annex VI of the MARPOL 73/78
convention
o Lower steady running speeds, down to 12
rpm
o No visible smoke at any operating speed
Figure 2-2. Wartsila Common Rail Fuel Injection System
Accumulator
Low pressure
Fuel Feed
SSV (Start-up and Safety Valwl
Injector
,,NC
Fuel
Return
Pump
(Camshaft
Driven)
Camshaft
Common Rail
Source: Wartsila Corporation
15
Crankshaft Speed Sensor
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
A second manufacturer has installed an electronically controlled cam-less engine using an in-
house developed electronic-hydraulic platform on a 37,500 DWT deep sea chemical carrier.17
The system allows for electronically controlled fuel injection and exhaust valve actuation which
permit individual and continuous adjustment of the timing for each cylinder. Parts that are
removed from the mechanical system include the chain drive for camshaft, camshaft with fuel
cams, exhaust cams and indicator cams, fuel pump actuating gear, including roller guides and
reversing mechanism, conventional fuel injection pumps, exhaust valve actuating gear and roller
guides, engine driven starting air distributor, electronic governor with actuator, regulating shaft,
mechanical engine driven cylinder lubricators, and engine side control console. The items
added to the engine include a hydraulic power supply, hydraulic cylinder unit with electronic fuel
injection and electronic exhaust valve activation, electronic alpha cylinder lubricator,
electronically controlled starting valve, local control panel, control system with governor, and
condition monitoring system. Two electronic control units are used to control the system with
one being a backup for the first. The manufacturer claims that the electronic version of the
engine was very easy to adjust to the prescribed setting values and was able to keep the very
satisfactory setting values without further adjustments since the vessel's sea trials in November
of 2000.
A third manufacturer has further developed mechanically-actuated electronically-controlled unit
injectors and hydraulically actuated electronically-controlled unit injectors to provide the flexible
fuel injection characteristics needed to optimize engine performance and emissions.18 The
manufacturer states that the design approach in both injector concepts is to utilize a Direct
Operated Check (DOC) to precisely control the pressure, timing and delivery of fuel. The DOC
is applicable to electronic unit injector or unit pump configurations with either mechanical or
hydraulic actuation of the pressurizing units. The manufacturer has claimed the technology
eliminates spray distortion and minimizes parasitic losses which may be seen in common rail
fuel systems. The manufacturer includes discussion on closed loop NOx control in the
reference paper. They state that ultra fast NOx sensors are a key part to closed-loop control of
NOx emissions. The sensors provide the benefits of minimized engine to engine variations,
minimized cylinder to cylinder variations and improved transient response with reduced
emission and reduced operational costs.
2.2.3. Tier III Technologies
Tier III emission levels will require large reductions in NOx and SOx emissions. Most engine
manufacturers believe they will use SCR in combination with lower sulfur marine diesel oils
(MDO) or marine gas oils (MGO) to meet Tier III standards. However, other NOx reduction
techniques include introduction of water into the combustion chamber either through fumigation,
fuel emulsions or direct water injection and exhaust gas recirculation. . In fact, Viking Line
produced simillar NOx reductions to SCR using a HAM system as shown in Figure 2-3.19 While
SCR outperformed the HAM system on all five ships, the reductions were close. With EGR and
a HAM system, NOx reductions approaching those for SCR could be achieved.
17 Sorensen.Per andPedersen, Peter, "The Intelligent Engine Design Status and Service Experience," International
Council on Combustion Engines, CIMAC Congress 2001
18 Moncelle, M.E., "Fuel Injection System & Control Integration," International Council on Combustion Engines,
CIMAC Congress 2001.
19 Presentation of Ulf Hagstrom, Marine Superintendent, Technical sector, Viking Line Apb, "Humid Air Motor (HAM)
and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Viking Line," at Swedish Maritime Administration Symposium/Workshop
on Air Pollution from Ships (May 24-26, 2005)
ICF International 2-11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Figure 2-3. Comparison between SCR and HAM
VIKING LINE
COMPARISION BETWEEN SCR & HAM
REDUCTION of Noi DUREN'G ONE YEAR
WITH TODAYS SCHEDULE
I
I
30
nSCR
DHAM
AMORELLA. ISABELLA
90
75
ROSELLA
SO
74
CiABRTFT T A
SS
S2
M.ARIFT.T.A
91
82
CINDERELLA
82
75
SHIP
Other techniques to reduce emissions will include compound or two-stage turbocharging as well
as electronic valving to enhance performance and emission reductions. To meet low SOx
requirements, shipping fleets will either use sea water scrubbers or fuel switching to lower sulfur
fuels or run full time on lower sulfur fuels.
2.2.3.1 Engine Modifications
Engine modifications to meet Tier III emission levels will most likely include a higher percentage
of common rail fuel injection systems coupled with the use of two-stage turbocharging and
electronic valving. Engine manufacturers estimate that practically all low speed engines and 80
percent of medium speed engines will use common rail fuel injection. Two stage turbocharging
will probably be installed on at least 70 percent of all engines produced to meet Tier III emission
levels. Electronically (hydraulically) actuated intake and exhaust valves for medium speed
engines and electronically actuated exhaust valves for low speed engines are necessary to
accommodate two-stage turbocharging.
Two-stage turbocharging is set up in various fashions. The most popular set up is to use one
smaller and one larger turbo. The larger turbo's compressor stage blows into the smaller one's
compressor stage. The exhaust is set up the other way round: it first enters the turbine of the
smaller turbo, and then the turbine of the larger turbo. Two-stage turbocharging systems were
shown to improve considerably the performance of four-stroke engines, showing potentials for
reducing NOX emissions by up to 50 percent at certain load ranges together with some savings
in fuel consumption. Good part-load performance was ensured by using a variable inlet valve
closure (VIC) system which enables the Miller effect to be varied according to engine mean
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-12
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
effective pressure (BMEP).20 Electronically actuated valves allow variable intake and exhaust
valve opening and closing which enhances the Miller effect.
2.2.3.2 Fumigation
There are currently three types of fumigation systems, namely the Humid Air Motor (HAM), the
Scavenged Air Moisturizing (SAM) system and the Wetpac H.
The HAM process was developed by Munters Europe AB, and has undergone trials for 4000
hours on the MS Mariella in the Viking Line. The HAM system uses heated charge air enriched
with evaporated seawater to reduce NOx emissions during the combustion process. The HAM
system is used to replace the conventional engine air intercooler. Since it uses engine heat to
heat the seawater, additional boiler capacity may be needed for other ship needs.
The central part of the HAM system is a special humidification unit, which is effectively a heat
exchanger. This must be mounted very near the engine. Other equipment include a circulation
pump and filter, a heat exchanger (to heat the incoming water), a "bleed-off" system (to control
the contents of salt and minerals in the water) and a water tank as shown in Figure 2-3.
Figure 2-4. HAM System
Compressor I I | Turbine
HAM Unit
Pump
Source: Viking Line19
Water, which has already been heated by the engine cooling system, is additionally heated and
vaporized using hot air from the turbocharger. This humidified charge air is directed into the
combustion chamber after filtration for debris. The system has been reported to reduce NOx by
70-80% with water to fuel ratios of 2.8 at normal operating speeds and loads.21 While MAN
B&W has tested HAM units on smaller engines typically on ferries, no tests to date have been
done on engines the size used on container or bulk carrier vessels.
In contrast to SCR, no warm-up time is necessary with HAM and NOx reduction commences
more or less once the motor is engaged. As a precaution to minimize possible corrosion in the
20 Wartsila Corporation, "Joint diesel research project completed," Trade & Technical Press release, 6 September
2007 available at http://www.wartsila.com/ch,en,press,0,tradepressrelease,3D5201D4-5D37-4E26-B7E8-
D4E6F592CE6A,5B771063-161A-4942-810E-5329B81B3565,,.htm
21 Peter Mullins, "The H.A.M. System Approach to Reducing NOx," Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide. November
2000.
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-13
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
humidification unit, it is advised that the water flow is turned off around 15 minutes before
engine shut down to dry out the exhaust tower. Although MS Mariella operates using a lower
sulfur heavy fuel oil (IF 220), an additional claimed advantage over SCR is that HAM is suitable
for residual oils with higher sulfur contents of up to 4.5 percent.22
The SAM system is being developed by MAN B&W and has been tested on the MA/ Mignon of
the Wallenius-Wilhelmsen Lines. The SAM installed on a B&W 8S60MC engine on the MA/
Mignon has a sea water injection stage, where a surplus of sea water is injected for saturation
and cooling of the hot air from the compressor. The sea water (SW) stage provides nearly 100%
humidification of the scavenge air and supplies all of the water for humidification.11 The SAM
system is shown in Figure 2-4. The SAM components in the compressor air cooler arrangement
(i.e. SW spray, transition piece, S-bend and inlet box for the fresh water stages [FW1 and FW2])
are manufactured in austenitic stainless 254SMO because of its excellent resistance against
corrosion from salt water.
Figure 2-5. SAM System
SW Spray Unit
Transition piece
S-bend for separation
of residue SW
SW mist catcher
Box with FW1
and FW2 stages
Air Cooler with
Water Mist Catcher
Sea Water Inlet
Sea Water Outlet
FW Stagel Inlet
FW Stagel Outlet
FW Stage2 Inlet
FW Stage2 Outlet
Source: MAN B&W
.11
The Wetpac H is developed by Wartsila. The principle of Wetpac H technology is to introduce
pressurized water into the combustion process to reduce NOx formation. The pressurized water
is added to the intake air after the turbocharger compressor. Due to the high temperature of the
compressed air, the water evaporates immediately and enters the cylinders as steam, thus
lowering the combustion temperatures and the formation of NOx. Wetpac H technology has so
far been developed for the Wartsila 20, 32 and 46 engine types, and the first pilot installation
was commissioned in 2003. The anticipated NOx reduction is up to 50%, and the water
consumption is expected to be about two times the fuel oil consumption. The Wetpac H system
is shown in Figure 2-5.
22
Entec UK Ltd, "Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market Based Instruments -
Task 2b - NOx Abatement," August 2005 available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/task2 nox.pdf
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-14
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Figure 2-6. Wetpac H System
Compressor
Evaporated water is partly re-condensing
in the charge air cooler
Water injection 130-135 bar
Injected water mist is evaporated
and hot air after compressor is
cooled to saturation point
Saturated air
40...70
°C
Heat from cooling water
is reducing re-condensation
N on-evaporated water
Is captured in the
water mist catcher and
re-circulated
13 -eanarj 3XT PnKniBtw. nans.' Ajrcr,
WARTSILA
Source: Wartsila Corporation
23
2.2.3.3 Fuel Emulsification
Another method of introducing water into the combustion chamber to reduce NOx production is
through water-in-fuel emulsions. MAN B&W has been testing water-in-fuel emulsions since the
early 1980s. Formation of the emulsion is achieved within the standard fuel module, which has
to be slightly modified. Given that a fuel injector delivers a fixed volume of fuel for a particular
power output, the addition of water increases the volume that must be injected. This fact
requires that the injector assembly - specifically the atomizer design, must be adapted to the
increased injection volume. Fuel emulsification can be used on either mechanical or electronic
injection system. A schematic of a pressurized water emulsion system is shown in Figure 2-6.
23 German Weisser, "Emission Reduction Solutions for Marine Vessels - Wartsila Perspective," presented at the Clean Ships -
Advanced Technology for Clean Air Conference, February 2007. Available at
http://www.cleanshipsconference.com/pdfs/Weisser.pdf
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-15
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Figure 2-7. Pressurized Fuel Emulsification System
• r^^~-~- I IUIM
_! centrifuges
To sludge tank
Water in oil measuring
(MBD supply)
Safety pump
To HFO service
or setting tank
Source: MAN B&W
,11
Water emulsion systems require modification to the fuel pump, camshaft and control system to
handle additional water for full load operation. A pressurized system is also needed to avoid
cavitation and boiling off in the low pressure part of the fuel system. In addition, a water dosage
system and homogenizer is needed. Water's higher viscosity requires the mixture be heated
further by about 20°C to properly flow through the injection system. In addition the fuel pressure
needs to be raised to keep the water from boiling.
MAN B&W reports no effect on specific fuel consumption. They estimate that with 10%
water/fuel ratio, a NOx reduction of 10% can be achieved but the maximum reduction is about
50%.11 However, in practice NOx reduction is limited by the maximum delivery capacity of the
fuel injection pumps. At low ratings or at low load, higher NOx reductions can be achieved. In
addition, water emulsification in combination with an electronically controlled engine offers the
following additional flexibility advantages:
o Optimal injection rate shaping can be achieved both without and with any water content.
o "Free rate shaping" allows the use of large water amounts even at low engine load as
pre-injection can be used to compensate for ignition delay.
Water-in-fuel emulsification is currently being tested on an 11K90MC engine installed on an
APL container vessel. The test is expected to be finalized at the beginning of 2009.
11
2.2.3.4 Direct Water Injection
Direct Water Injection (DWI) is another method to reduce cycle temperatures and therefore
lower NOx emissions. This method has been under development for Sulzer low-speed engines
since 1993. Unlike other water techniques, DWI enables water to be injected at the right time
and place to obtain the greatest reductions in NOx emissions. The water is injected into the
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-16
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
cylinder using a fully independent, second common rail injection system under electronic
control. Also in comparison to emulsification, it allows water to be injected into the engine
without derating the engine and allows the fuel and water to be injected at different times.
Injection can occur either during the compression stroke or with fuel injection so that injection
timing can be optimized to both reduce NOx and other emissions without affecting engine
reliability. Water injection can be turned off or on without affecting fuel injection behavior. NOx
emissions can be reduced 50% using a 0.7 water/fuel ratio.24 Water is fed to the cylinder head
at high pressure (210-400 bar depending on the engine type). High water pressure is generated
in a high-pressure water pump module. A low-pressure pump is also necessary to ensure a
sufficiently stable water flow to the high-pressure pump. Water entering the low pressure pump
needs to be filtered to remove all solid particles. The pumps and filters are built into a module to
enable easy installation as shown in Figure 2-7. NOx reduction is most efficient from 40% load
and higher of nominal engine output.
DWI requires that fresh water be generated onboard the ship and stored. Currently, a 20 to 50
percent water addition is anticipated, meaning substantial quantities of water must be generated
and stored. Fresh water generators can be heated using engine cooling water or using steam
from an exhaust gas economizer. In addition, there must be sufficient tank capacity for the
water with the necessary handling system.
Figure 2-8. DWI Unit for Pressurizing Water and injectors
Source: Wartsila Corporation25,23
24 H. Schmid and G. Weisser, "Marine Technologies for Reduced Emissions," Wartsila Corporation, April 2005.
Available at
http://www.wartsila.com/Wartsila/qlobal/docs/en/ship power/media publications/technical papers/sulzer/marine te
chnoloqies for reduced emissions.pdf
25 Wartsila, "The EnviroEngine Concept," 2004.
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-17
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
DWI is one of the technologies currently being employed by Wartsila, which has provided
extensive information on the method, as presented in Table 2-6.
Table 2-6. Benefits and Limitations of Wartsila's DWI Technology
Key Benefits
o NOx emissions are reduced by 50-60%
o NOx emissions when running MDO are
typically 4-6 g/kWh
o NOx emissions when running Residual
Oil are typically 5-7 g/kWh
o The engine can also be operated without
water injection, if necessary
o The engine can be transferred to "non-
water" operational mode at any load
o In alarm situations, transfer to "non-water"
mode is automatic and instant
o Space requirements for the equipment are
minimal and therefore the system can be
installed in all installations
o Investment and operational costs are low
o Ratio of injected water to injected fuel
typically 0.4 to 0.7
o Can be installed while the ship is in
operation
System Limitations
o Cannot be used at its maximum at low loads
o Increases fuel consumption
o Clean water supply needed
2.2.3.5 Exhaust Gas Recirculation
MAN Diesel originally tested a simplified exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system which
consisted of a loop from the exhaust gas receiver that went past the last charge air cooler, but
connected just before the last water mist catcher on a low speed engine. This was thought to
prevent fouling of sensitive engine parts due to high particulate and sulfur oxide levels in the
exhaust from burning residual oil. It was originally thought that cleaning the exhaust was
necessary to prevent fouling of the air cooler and receiver components. The system had two
water injection stages with a simple water separator unit after both. The tests showed a
substantial NOx reduction but confirmed that the exhaust gas could not be cleaned sufficiently
before entering the air cooler and scavenge air system. More recently, MAN diesel tested EGR
with a scrubber and water treatment, obtaining a 70 percent reduction in NOx emissions with a
relatively small increase in brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC).11 MAN diesel used an
EcoSilencer® to clean the exhaust gas before reintroducing it into the air cooler and scavenge
air. The scrubber removed 90 percent of the PM emissions and 70 percent of the SOx with no
water carry over. The EGR scrubber is shown in Figure 2-8.
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-18
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Figure 2-9. MAN Diesel EGR Scrubber
Source: MAN B&W
2.2.3.6 Selective Catalytic Reduction
The Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) process involves injecting a reagent, such as ammonia
or urea, into an exhaust flow, upstream of a reactor, to reduce NOx compounds into nitrogen
and water. The system effectiveness is strongly dependent on the type of catalyst and the
reactor temperature which generally needs to be from 210°C to 500°C.26 For 4-stroke engines
with relatively high exhaust temperatures, the reactor unit can be placed downstream from the
exhaust manifold as shown in Figure 2-9. Main system components are: an SCR reactor,
aqueous urea injection/dosing, and monitoring/control systems. The SCR system does require
storage of urea solution on-board in a separate tank.
In order to control ammonia slip (urea that is not used in the SCR unit, escaping to the exhaust)
and reach optimal operation of the SCR unit, temperatures, pressures, and other parameters
need to be carefully monitored and controlled. In addition, the urea injected into the exhaust
stream before the SCR reactor, needs to be well mixed with the exhaust gases before entering
the reactor for optimal performance.
26 The minimum temperature of 210°C requires 1000 ppm sulfur fuel. The minimum rises to approximately 300°C when 2.5
percent sulfur residual oil is used. While the SCR reactor can handle temperatures of 500°C, engine manufacturers tend to
limit exhaust temperatures to 450°C to protect valves from fouling due to vanadium and sodium present in residual oil.
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-19
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Figure 2-10. Example of Urea SCR System for a 4-stroke engine with the reactor placed
downstream of turbocharger
Coinsact SCR
Aqueeua U'*a inaction
Aqueous Urea
Solution Sloraoe Taik
Source: Wartsila Corporation
Low-speed and large medium-speed engines operate at relatively low exhaust temperatures
such that the SCR reactors need to be located between the turbocharger inlet and the engine's
exhaust manifold in order to get enough heat (see figure below).
27 http://www.wartsila.com/Wartsila/qlobal/docs/en/service/Leaflets/enviro/COMPACT SCR.pdf
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-20
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Figure 2-11. Urea SCR system with Reactor Installation before Turbocharger
Sulzer
6RTA52U
with
SCR
system
Source: Wartsila Corporation23
The urea SCR systems have successfully been used for large stationary source applications
where loads are fairly constant. In the marine sector, a majority of the installations of SCR
technology have taken place on smaller four-stroke engines as opposed to the larger two-stroke
main engines. There are more than 300 marine SCR systems currently in operation developed
by Argillon, Wartsila, Munters, and other companies. In certain marine engine applications, this
technology can be used in conjunction with a diesel oxidation catalyst to reduce PM emissions.
There are reports that a properly designed Urea SCR system can reduce NOx emission by
more than 98% but this is most likely with significantly lower sulfur fuel. Clean Diesel
Technologies is one company that markets diesel exhaust aftertreatment technologies for
various applications including marine and claims that typical NOx conversion efficiency is
between 70 to 90 percent in reactors that maintain temperatures above 320°C28. Argillon
consistently reports that their best designs can maintain 95 percent efficiency under most
conditions.29 Most companies suggest that for analysis purposes 90 to 95 percent NOx
reduction efficiency can be assumed for properly designed systems.
In addition to operating temperature sensitivity to high sulfur fuels, high sulfur fuels can also
create large amounts of SOx which keep urea SCR reactors from operating effectively. Sulfur
oxides can react with oxygen in the exhaust and form sulfuric acid, which can cause corrosion
and reduce SCR system life. Also high levels of SOx can interfere with the NOx reduction
reaction decreasing the SCR system effectiveness. In addition if the exhaust temperature is too
low, ammonia salts will form on the SCR unit which can essentially plug the reactor. This is
more a problem with low speed engines than medium speed engines. In those cases, the SCR
unit will be shut off to prevent ammonia salt formation.
28 Clean Diesel Technologies corporate website http://www.cdti.com/content/technoloqv/overview.htm
29 Argillon Website, http://www.arqillon.com/business-seqments/svstems/industrial-applications/overview.html
ICF International 2-21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
2.2.3.7 Sea Water Scrubbers
Seawater scrubbing technology is designed to reduce SOx and PM emissions from large marine
and stationary engines situated near a shoreline. The technology uses wet Flue Gas
Desulphurization, which is the mixing of hot exhaust flue gases with seawater. Seawater is
alkaline by nature and rich in calcium sulfates which react well with acidic gases like SO2. The
reaction forms products which are soluble in water and can be discharged overboard in open
sea operation. For areas where acidic water discharge is a concern, for example port operation,
the water from a scrubber is diluted with additional seawater before discharge.
Figure 2-11 provides a simplified schematic of one seawater scrubber design (by MES). These
systems are very effective at removing SO2 and the direct sulfate component of the exhaust
PM. Carbonaceous PM in the engine exhaust is removed through impaction; however, much of
the carbonaceous PM can be trapped in bubbles and may pass through the scrubber, so PM
treatment efficiency in the seawater scrubber is highly dependent on the design. The captured
PM can be removed from the stream exiting the scrubber by filtering and is kept in a settling or
sludge tank for later disposal.
Figure 2-12. Seawater Scrubbing System with EcoSilencer®fora "Super Yacht" design for
engines up to 3.5MW
SOOT SETTLING
TANK '
SEA
INTAKE
1 ^J
ENGINE \ At
DISPOSAL
WATER
CLEAN
EXHAUST
OUTLET
Eco Silencer
30
Source: Marine Exhaust Solutions, Inc.
While the scrubber design parameters such as reactor volume will greatly impact its
effectiveness, the technology efficiency also depends on the SOx concentration in engine
exhaust, as well as factors such as seawater temperature or salinity. Marine Exhaust
Hamid Hefazi and Hamid R. Rahai, Center for Energy and Environmental Research and Services, California State
University, Long Beach, "Emissions Control Technologies for Ocean Going Vessels," Final Report Submitted to
State of California ARE, June 2008
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-22
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Solutions31, a Canadian company, for example, claims that for engines burning up to 4.5
percent sulfur fuel, their EcoSilencer® system will reduce SO2 emissions by up to 90 percent
(higher with lower sulfur fuel). It will also eliminate up to 90 percent of visible PM (up to 50
percent by mass), as well as reduce approximately 3 to 5 percent NOx. The company claims
that the system can be used in wide range of engines from 0.1 to 100MW.
Various scrubber designs are marketed by different companies. There are industry claims that
properly designed systems are capable of nearly complete removal of sulfur compounds from
engine exhaust, as well as up to 80 percent PM removal.32
The seawater scrubbing systems do result in a fuel economy penalty in terms of pumping power
since large amounts of wash water needs to be circulated through the system. Industry
estimates of the penalty vary but generally fall within 1 to 3% range depending on operating and
fuel quality conditions.
2.3. Fuel Switching
Switching from a heavy fuel oil (HFO) with an average sulfur content of 2.7 percent to a distillate
fuel, such as marine distillate oil (MDO) or marine gas oil (MGO) with a sulfur content of 0.1
percent, either permanently or temporarily, can provide significant SOx and PM reductions.
However in some cases, vessel modifications may be necessary to achieve this, as it means
either migrating from the unifuel model or use of the more expensive distilled fuel all the time.
The following section discusses the systems needed to deliver these fuels. The next section
discusses technical obstacles of fuel switching. The final section discusses modifications
needed for fuel switching.
2.3.1. Vessel fuel systems
Some current marine vessels are powered by low-speed, 2-stroke, marine diesel engines,
operating in a unifuel mode on heavy fuel oil.33 Unifuel refers to operating essentially all
engines on the same fuel type - typically HFO34. Note that, in this system, both main and
auxiliaries are powered by HFO but relatively small amounts of lighter distillate oil are also
carried for long term shutdown and emergency use.35 Prior to long term shutdown, the engines
are operated on distillate fuel to purge the HFO from the fuel system.
HFO contains contaminants and other residual fuel components that must be treated, purified,
and/or removed and heated to obtain appropriate viscosity onboard before injection into a
compression ignition engine. Although, generally heavier fuels require more complex fuel
treatment systems, all systems prevent heavy fuel oils from solidifying in the fuel system,
31 Marine Exhaust Solutions, Inc. Corporate website http://www.marineexhaustsolutions.com/
32 Krystallon, "Sea Water Scrubbing, Facts and Fantasy," Presentation at Clean Ships Conference, Sand Diego, CA,
February 9, 2007.
33 Global Trade and Fuels Assessment "Future Trends and Effects of Requiring Clean Fuels in the Marine Sector,"
Prepared for EPA by RTI International, EPA420-R-08-021, November 2008, available at:
http://www.epa.qov/oms/reqs/nonroad/marine/ci/420r08021.pdf. This report, in turn, is based largely on the Fuel
Switching presentations to the California ARB, 7/27/08, available at
http://www.arb.ca.qov/ports/marinevess/presentations.htm. First order references are provided where appropriate.
34 Also referred to as residual oil (RO). Intermediate fuel oil (IFO) is used commonly.
35 Keith Michel, Herbert Engineering Corp., "California Maritime Technical California Maritime Technical Working
Group Focus on Fuel Switching: Fuel Oil Systems," July 24, 2007, available at
http://www.arb.ca.qov/ports/marinevess/presentations/072407/072407herpres.pdf.
1CF International 2-23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
improve operational efficiency, and maintain the fuel circulation, injection, and combustion
systems. These systems consist of storage and settling tanks, filters, and purifiers.
Fuel is transported from heated bunker tanks to the settling tank by transfer pumps. Settling
tanks hold enough fuel for approximately 2 days of travel and have coils to heat the fuel, if
heating is not maintained, the fuel will become too viscous to pump. In the settling tanks, heavy
fuel solids settle to the bottom while fuel to be burned is drawn from the top of the tank. Fuel is
then pumped from the settling tank through a pre-heater and into one or more centrifugal
separators by feed pumps. This fuel is then pumped to the day tank, where approximately one
day's reserve of pre-treated and cleaned fuel is maintained at an appropriate temperature to
maintain fuel viscosity for use in the engine. The engine fuel supply system then draws fuel
beyond that necessary for combustion from the day tank to the injection system and circulates
the additional fuel back to the day tank to prevent solidification throughout the supply system.
Sets of supply and circulating pumps pressurize the system and transfer fuel from the day tank,
the final engine fuel filter, and injectors while a pre-heater and viscosity meter maintain fuel
viscosity throughout the fuel system. Figure 2-12 shows a typical shipboard fuel delivery
system. Figure 2-13 shows a fuel system as a layout onboard the vessel.
Figure 2-13. Typical Shipboard Unifuel Delivery System
Source: RTI International
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-24
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Figure 2-14. Typical Fuel Tank and Delivery Systems
Containership Tanker
t
HFO Service
HFO Storage
Bunter Station Tarks
(PIS)
36
Source: Herbert Engineering Corp
2.3.2. Potential vessel modifications associated with fuel s witching
Technical concerns regarding use of low-sulfur distillate fuels in Category 3 vessel engines
relate to either steady-state operation on distillate fuels or the process of switching fuels.
Steady-state distillate fuel use may raise issues of cylinder lubricants and feed rates and fuel
viscosity and temperature control. Low-speed, 2-stroke engines inject lubricating oil into the fuel
prior to combustion, potentially requiring separate fuel-feed systems to implement fuel switching
so that the proper oil is used with the fuel in use. Cylinder lubricating oils contain alkaline
additives to counteract the acidity caused by sulfur oxides and must be mated appropriately to
the sulfur content of the fuel used to control the deposition of acids in the cylinders and reduce
wear. Wartsila recommends use of 70 base number (BN) cylinder oil when using fuels with 1.5
percent or more sulfur and 40BN oil for fuels with lower sulfur levels.37 During periods of fuel
switching, the BN to sulfur ratio (BN/S) can be out of balance. While unbalanced BN/S ratios
cause excess engine wear, it is believed that changing lube oil is only necessary if the engines
are to operate on fuel that is 1 percent sulfur or less for more than one week.38 For longer
periods, ships may require two cylinder lubricating oil systems. However, there is an oil that has
36 Herbert Engineering Corp., http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/presentations/072407/072407herpres.pdf
37 Wartsila Switzerland Ltd, LOW SULPHUR GUIDELINES: Guidelines for design, modification and operation of new
buildings and existing ships to comply with future legislation related to low sulphur content in the fuel, Updated: 9th
January, 2006. Available at:
http://www.wartsila.eom/Wartsila/qlobal//docs/en/ship power/media publications/technical papers/low sulphur qu
idelines.pdf.
38 MAN B&W, Operation on Low-Sulphur Fuels Two-Stroke Engines, available at:
http://www.manbw.com/article 005271.html.
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-25
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
been recently developed for use with distillate or residual, so this might not be the case
anymore.
In addition to BN/S matching, long term use of distillate fuels must consider viscosity matches
between the fuel and the injection system design, as MDO and MGO are significantly less
viscous than HFO. Although use of low viscosity fuels in medium speed, 4-stroke engines is
generally not a concern, severe cases may lead to damaged fuel injection equipment and power
loss. For low-speed, 2-stroke engines viscosity effects are typically minor, but may be affiliated
with failed fuel treatment system pumps. Both cases may be mitigated by installation and use of
a fuel cooler, associated piping, and viscosity meters to the fuel treatment system if fuel
switching is done on a frequent basis.
Although all the above mentioned concerns are legitimate, it should be noted that in its
presentation to ARE, Maersk39 illustrated that all its vessels switch both main and auxiliary
engines to MDO with less than 0.2 percent sulfur within 24 nautical miles of their California
destination port for main engines and within 24 nautical miles of the California border for
auxiliary engines. They have noted no problems to date on their vessels from this program.
The Maersk study included 78 vessels and 298 switches consuming 23.9 MT of MDO per switch
from April 2006 to April or May 2007. The resulting total emissions reduction has been
calculated at 800 tons per year, including a 95 percent SOx, 87 percent PM, and 12 percent
NOx reduction (which includes low-NOx auxiliary mode). These reductions are greater than
anticipated by the program. In the Maersk study, all vessels used separate service tanks for
high- and low-sulfur fuels (DMA and DMB, with DMX for lifeboat engines and emergency
generator use) to minimize compatibility issues. Also, as all fuel switching in this program is
considered short term, they made no cylinder lube oil BN change. Maersk noted that fuel
switching is considered "normal engineering practice" and provides no special training.
Some ships may not have sufficient onboard storage capacity to accommodate temporary fuel
switching since the minimum space practical is devoted to fuel and machinery to maximize
cargo and, of the space devoted to fuel, a minimal amount is provided for distillate oil tanks on
unifuel ships. Some dual fuel ships have two fuel oil tank systems—one for residual and one for
lower sulfur distillate oil. This arrangement may be preferred for fuel switching, since it avoids
many issues with using dissimilar fuels in the same fuel system while still meeting lower sulfur
requirements. The common arrangement is for one HFO tank system with multiple HFO tanks
and associated fuel system and another distillate oil system with one or more MDO or MGO
storage tanks and a corresponding day tank.
At their presentation to ARE, Herbert Engineering36 surveyed a range of vessels and their ability
to switch fuels. They found that, for tanker ships varying from a 50,000 DWT Panamax to a
300,000 DWT VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) vessels, while the HFO capacity and number of
tanks and ancillary system components varied, the total capacity for distillate fuels remained at
one settling and one service tank of varying volume with sufficient capacity for between 3.3 and
3.6 days operating range using distillate fuels in both main and auxiliary engines and in at-sea
cruising mode with a 15 percent reserve. Typical containerships profiled ranged from a 2,500
TEU Feedership to a 9,000 TEU Post-Panamax containership. All cases have one storage tank
and one service tank for distillate fuels except the largest containership, which had two storage
tanks and one distillate service tank. Again, while total distillate storage volumes varied, the at-
39 Maersk Pilot Fuel Switch Initiative, A.P. Moller-Maersk Group, Regulatory Affairs Technical Organisation, 26 July
2007, available at http://vwvw.arb.ca.qov/ports/marinevess/presentations/072407/072407maepres.pdf.
ICF International 2-26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
sea cruising range using distillate fuels in both the main and auxiliary systems varied from 1.7 to
2.6 days. This study concluded that existing distillate oil tank capacities should be sufficient to
accommodate main and auxiliary engine operation in SECAs. Typical onboard storage volumes
and number of tanks by fuel type are shown in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7. Typical on-board storage for heavy fuel oil and distillate fuels by vessel type
Ship Type/Size
Tank
Description
Volume
(m3)
Tank
Description
Volume
(m3)
Container Vessels
2500 TEU Feedership
4000 TEU Panamax Containership
6000 TEU Post-Panamax Containership
9000 TEU Post-Panamax Containership
6 HFO Storage
+ 1 Settling
+ 1 Storage
8 HFO Storage
+ 1 Settling
+ 1 Storage
10 HFO Storage
+2 Settling
+ 1 Storage
12 HFO Storage
+2 Settling
+2 Storage
3,200
7,000
8,000
10,000
1 DO Storage
+ 1 Service
1 DO Storage
+ 1 Service
1 DO Storage
+ 1 Service
2 DO Storage
+ 1 Service
300
350
400
800
Tanker Vessels
50,000 DWT Panamax Tanker
1 10,000 DWT Aframax Tanker
160,000 DWT Suezmax Tanker
300,000 DWT VLCC
2 HFO Storage
+ 1 Settling
+ 1 Storage
4 HFO Storage
+ 1 Settling
+ 1 Storage
4 HFO Storage
+ 1 Settling
+ 1 Storage
4 HFO Storage
+2 Settling
+ 1 Storage
1,500
3,000
4,000
5,500
1 DO Storage
+ 1 Service
1 DO Storage
+ 1 Service
1 DO Storage
+ 1 Service
1 DO Storage
+ 1 Service
150
250
350
450
Source: Herbert Engineering Corp.
36
Fuel use for a typical call for an average container ship and an average tanker are shown in
Table 2-8 as a function of EGA distance from shore. Assuming the typical container ship is a
4000 TEU Panamax and the typical tanker is a 110,000 DWT Aframax, current fuel storage of
distillate fuel is 343 metric tonnes and 245 metric tonnes respectively based upon a MGO fuel
density of 980 kg/m3. Thus even if the EGA is set at 200 nautical miles, a typical ship can make
three to four calls into and out of a port before needing to refuel with existing distillate tanks. It
should be noted that the fuel amounts in Table 2-8 represent average vessels, therefore, some
vessels may require additional capacity to accomplish fuel switching.
Table 2-8. Fuel Use per Call for Various EGA Distances (Metric Tonnes)
EGA
Distance
25
50
100
200
Container
25.10
35.31
55.74
96.59
Tanker
19.98
25.46
36.44
58.40
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-27
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
If a new or segregated tank is desired, ancillary equipment such as pumps, piping, vents, filing
pipes, gauges, and access would be required, as well as tank testing.40 In addition, fuel
processing systems include settling tanks, filters, and centrifuges may also be necessary. While
some vessel operators may be able to use their existing processing systems, other operators
have reported that they will need to add to these systems, along with increased fuel capacity or
other modifications.41
Also, should full-time switching from the use of high- to low-sulfur fuels be implemented, the
Herbert Engineering study concluded that existing engines and fuel oil systems are suitable for
continuous operation on distillate fuels, although will require use of lubricating oil with a different
BN.
2.3.3. Modifications for fuel s witching
In its March 2008 presentation,42 ARE documented results from its 2006 vessel survey. ARB's
results showed that approximately 22 percent of vessels surveyed needed some modifications
to adequately perform main engine fuel switching, but the modifications needed and vessels
requiring the modifications varied both with distance and vessel type. For main engine fuel
switching, the required modifications included:
o Fuel tanks
Cylinder lube oil systems
Fuel valves
Fuel piping and pumps
o Engine fuel pumps
o Fuel injectors
The ARE survey also found that 94 percent of vessels could participate in an auxiliary engine-
only fuel switching program without any modifications. Of those that did require modifications,
the required retrofits included the following:
o Fuel oil system
o Fuel tanks and lines
o Fuel injection/oil pump modifications
o Fuel oil micronizer
o Storage tanks
o Diesel fuel cooler
o Change lube oil BN and add cooling lines for fuel oil pumps
o
o
o
40 Entec UK Limited. Quantification of Emissions from Ships Associated with Ship Movements between Ports in the
European Community, July 2002, pps. 86-87.
41 Air Resources Board, "Fuel Sulfur And Other Operational Requirements For Ocean-Going Vessels Within
California Waters And 24 Nautical Miles Of The California Baseline - Initial Statement of Reasoning," June 2008.
422006 Ocean-Going Vessel Survey Results, Cal EPA Air Resources Board, 4th Public Workshop to Discuss
Development of Regulations for Ocean-going Ship Main Engines and Auxiliary Boilers, March 5, 2008,
Sacramento, CA.
ICF International 2-28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
A small number of survey participants reported the need to modify engine components such as
fuel pumps, injectors, and nozzles. However, engine manufacturers have stated that, with
certain caveats, the engines they designed for heavy fuel oil can also operate on MGO without
these modifications.41 In most cases, the need for fuel injection pumps and nozzles arises from
the fact that older ship engines used nitrile rubber seals and o-rings which are susceptible to
shrinking when a hydrogenated lower sulfur distillate fuel is used after running for long periods
on heavy fuel oils. This causes leaks in both the fuel injector pumps and nozzles. Newer
pumps and injectors use Viton® o-rings, which are much less susceptible to fuel changes. In
some cases, replacement of old o-rings and seals will be necessary as an early maintenance
item to prevent problems.
2.3.4. Scenarios analyzed and cost methodology
Three fuel switching cases are analyzed here for costs in Section 3, namely:
• Case 0: Vessels meet all requirements of a EGA and require no modifications or
retrofits (baseline).
• Case 1: A newly built vessel requires additional equipment to meet EGA
requirements over comparable new vessels.
• Case 2: Existing vessels will require retrofits to meet EGA requirements.
In all cases here, we have assumed that both propulsion and auxiliary engines will operate on
the same distillate fuel when near the coastline for a continuous period of less than 1 week and
that the distillate fuel will be 0.1 percent sulfur MGO. This analysis does not attempt to
determine the number of ships that would require these modifications.
As discussed above, for short periods of operation on lower sulfur fuel for low speed, 2-stroke
engines, a switch to lower cylinder lube oil TEN is not necessary. We have assumed that within
the one week period considered here is within that range. Note that this switch is not applicable
to 4-stroke engines.
We have based all calculations on the estimate that any retrofit distillate tanks would be
designed to hold 250 hours of fuel under normal operation. This is larger than is currently
available on most ships that currently carry distillate fuel as noted in the Herbert Engineering
presentation (see Table 2-7). In building these tanks, we have assumed that they will be
composed of cold rolled steel 1 mm thick and double walled.
Because fuel treatment systems vary by vessel and the fuel switching program will vary with the
vessel treatment system, characterizing general costs is difficult. However, most ships have
distillate systems onboard, although fuel switching may require modifications to accommodate
the distillate usage envisioned here. The system envisioned here is most like MAN B&Ws Fuel
Oil System No. 1 with one distillate and one heavy fuel oil settling tank, shown by Figure 2-14.
Here, both HFO and MDO have a dedicated bunkering, settling, centrifuging, and service tank
system. The distillate and residual systems are independent until fuel supply pressurization, and
the injection systems are shared. If MGO is used instead, the settling tank and centrifuge might
not be necessary.
ICF International 2-29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Technology Description
Figure 2-15. MAN B&W's Fuel Oil System No. 1
©
MDO Storage Tank (25°C)
MGO
! (Boiler Support) J-—
| (Inert Gasjeto}
Centrifuge(s)
(40°C)
Bunker Storage Tank 1 (45°C)
Bunker Storage Tank 2 (45°C)
Bunker Storage Tank 3 (45°C)
HFO Supply HFO Circulating
pump pump
Centrifuge(s)
(95-100°C)
Source: MAN B&W38
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
2-30
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
3. Economic Impact
3.1. Cost Estimation Methodology
In order to determine the estimated cost of compliance with potential future emission
regulations, representative models of low- and medium-speed Category 3 marine diesel engines
were chosen among several manufacturers' engine lines and costs were estimated for each.
No single model's costs were used to develop the estimates presented in this report. Once cost
information was developed, cost spreadsheets were shared with engine and emission control
equipment manufacturers for comment. Presented costs for each technology represent a best
estimate based upon all the input received.
Costs for the technologies discussed in Section 2 are presented in this section. These costs
include hardware costs and fixed costs. Costs for changes in fuel consumption are also
discussed. All costs represent the incremental costs for engines to meet the proposed emission
standards.
Typically, Category 3 engines and emission reduction technologies are built outside the United
States. All costs have been converted to 2006 U.S. dollars.
3.1.1. Hardware Cost to Manufacturer
Component costs were developed for each technology discussed in Section 2. Separate costs
were derived for each of the various engines shown in Table 2-2. Manufacturer costs of
components were estimated from various sources including information from marine diesel
engine manufacturers, and previous work performed by the author of this document.43 Labor
rates used in this study were taken from Salary.com44 for New Jersey and include a 60 percent
fringe rate as shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Labor Rates
Labor Category
Annual
Salary
60% Fringe
Annual
Rate
Hourly
Rate
Design Engineer II $75,000 $45,000 $120,000 $57.69
Mechanic Technician II $50,000 $30,000 $80,000 $38.46
Floor Assembler II $31,000 $18,600 $49,600 $23.85
Hardware costs provided by a supplier other than the engine manufacturer are subject to a 29
percent mark up, which represents an average supplier mark up of technologies on new engine
sales.45
3.1.2. Fixed Cost to Manufacturer
The fixed costs to the manufacturer consist of the cost of researching, developing and testing a
new technology. They also include the cost of retooling for the production of new parts.
Research and development costs reflect the need for manufacturers to focus on adapting
43 L.Browning and R. Barnitt, "Emission Reduction Technology Costs for Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines," April
2002
44 http://www.salarv.com
45 Jack Faucett Associates, "Update of EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Control Equipment Retail Price Equivalent
(RPE) Calculation Formula," Report No. JACKFAU-85-322-3, September 1985.
ICF International 3-1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
emission controls to specific marine diesel engine applications, with significant engine
calibration needed to optimize these controls over a large range of ship types and operating
conditions.
Each year of research and development has been defined as 1 engineer and 2 technicians plus
24 engine tests per year at $10,000 per test. Total R&D costs per year are shown in Table 4-1.
Table 3-2. Annual Research and Development Costs
1 engineer
2 technician
40% overhead
24 Tests @ $10,000 per test
$120,000
$160,000
$168,000
$240,000
$688,000
In addition, a $5,000 fee is added for Marine Society approval of the technology. All real costs
calculated in this report are in 2006 dollars with future costs discounted at 7 percent per annum.
R&D costs are expected to occur over a three year period ending one year prior to engine
production. Tooling costs are expected to occur one year prior to engine production. Both R&D
and tooling costs are expected to be recovered over the first five years of engine sales. Cost of
money was assumed to be 7 percent per annum for these calculations. The estimated number
of units per year was supplied by EPA.
3.1.3. Fuel Economy
As discussed in Section 2, many of the technologies can lead to either a fuel cost savings or
cost penalty for the user. An estimate of these changes in fuel consumption is developed in this
report by using engine characteristics such as brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) and load
factors.
The BSFC used in the analysis is listed in Table 2-2. For an average call, assuming that the
Emission Control Area (EGA) starts 200 nautical miles (nm) from U.S. shores, average load
factors for propulsion and auxiliary engines are given in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3. Average Load Factors
Mode
Cruise
Transit
Maneuver
Hotel
Total/Average
Speed
(knots)
17.4
12
5
-
One-Way
Distance
(nm)
200
12
5
-
Time per
Call
(Hours)
23.0
2.0
2.0
55.5
82.4
Propulsion
Load Factor
83%
27%
2%
73%
Auxiliary
Load
Factor
19%
30%
51%
35%
31%
Using the following formula, an estimate of the yearly fuel consumption for a 1% change in fuel
consumption is determined. Actual fuel use can be scaled from this value using the ratio of
actual fuel consumption change to the 1% change calculated here.
Annual Fuel Use = (Avg BSFC) * (Nominal hp) * (Load Factor) * (Annual hr of operation)
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
3.2. Retrofit Tier I Technology Costs
The costs for the retrofit kit include new fuel injectors plus 3 months R&D to modify timing. A
Marine Society approval certificate is also included. As part of the IMO regulations, the retrofit
kit cannot exceed $375 Special Drawing Rights (SDR)/metric tonne of NOx reduced. The
currency value of the SDR is determined by summing the values in U.S. dollars, based on
market exchange rates, of a basket of major currencies (the U.S. dollar, Euro, Japanese yen,
and pound sterling). The SDR currency value is calculated daily and the valuation basket is
reviewed and adjusted every five years. Current conversion rates are $1.49129 per SDR. As
can be seen from Table 3-4, the cost effectiveness of the retrofit kits described above are
significantly less than the maximum cost allowed in Annex VI.
Table 3-4. Cost of Retrofit Kits
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Hardware Cost to Engine Manufacturer
Component Costs
Number of Injectors
Improved Fuel Valves (each)
Total Component Cost
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (0.25 year R&D)
Marine Society Approval
Engines/yr.
Years to recover
Fixed cost/engine
Total Costs
Cost/kW
Estimated Emission Reduction (MT NOx)
Cost Effectiveness (SDR/MT NOx)
16
$235
$3,760
18
$235
$4,230
24
$375
$9,000
$172,000
$5,000
40
5
$1,233
$11,251
$0.6
638.67
$11.8
$172,000
$5,000
40
5
$1,233
$13,925
$1.6
389.92
$23.8
$172,000
$5,000
40
5
$1,233
$22,145
$1.5
688.09
$21.5
36
$470
$16,920
120
$2,862
$1,145
$4,006
$7,766
$2,252
$10,018
168
$4,006
$1,602
$5,609
$9,839
$2,853
$12,692
216
$5,151
$2,060
$7,211
$16,211
$4,701
$20,912
312
$7,440
$2,976
$10,416
$27,336
$7,927
$35,263
$172,000
$5,000
40
5
$1,233
$36,496
$0.8
2,201.89
$11.1
For estimated emission reduction, emission reductions are calculated at 11 percent of baseline
emissions for 6000 hours per year for 5 years with a load factor of 0.768. Baseline NOx
emission rates are 14 g/kWh for medium speed engines and 18.1 g/kWh for slow speed
engines. Emission reductions in metric tonnes are thus calculated as follows:
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Slow Speed Engines: 18.1 g/kWh x Power (kW) x 0.768 x 6000 hours/yrx5 years/1000000 g/metric tonne x 11%
Medium Speed engines: 14 g/kWh x Power (kW)x 0.768 x 6000 hours/yrx 5 years/1000000 g/metric tonne x 11%
3.3. Tier II Technology Costs
As discussed in Section 2, Tier II technology costs include engine modification costs and
common rail fuel injection system costs. Engine modification costs to meet proposed Tier II
emission levels are given in Table 3-5. These costs include modification of fuel injection timing,
increasing the compression ratio, fuel injection nozzle optimization and Miller cycle effects.
Retooling costs include cylinder head and piston rod shim modifications to increase
compression ratios as well as to accommodate different injection nozzles.
Table 3-5. Differential Costs for Engine Modifications to Meet Tier II Emission Levels
Engine Speed Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low
Engine Power (kW) 4,500 9,500 18,000 8,500 15,000 48,000
Cylinders 9 12 16 6 8 12
Liters/cylinder 35 65 95 380 650 1400
Engine Speed (rpm) 650 550 500 130 110 100
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (1 year R&D) $688,000 $688,000 $688,000 $688,000 $688,000 $688,000
Retooling Costs $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,250,000
Marine Society Approval $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Engines/yr. 40 40 40 40 40 40
Years to recover 55 55 5 5
Fixed cost/engine $8,103 $9,734 $11,365 $9,734 $11,365 $12,996
Total Costs $8,103 $9,734 $11,365 $9,734 $11,365 $12,996
Cost per kW $1.8 $1.0 $0.6 $1.1 $0.8 $0.3
Differential costs for new common rail fuel injection engines that replace engines that were
mechanically injected are given in Table 3-6. Differential costs for common rail fuel injection
engines that replace engine that were previously electronically controlled are given in Table 3-7.
Retooling costs include modification of the cylinder head to accommodate common rail fuel
injection systems.
ICF International 3-4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-6. Common Rail Fuel Injection Costs for Mechanically
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Hardware Cost to Engine Manufacturer
Component Costs
Electronic Control Unit
Common Rail Accumulators (each)
Number of Accumulators
Low Pressure Pump
High Pressure Pump
Modified injectors (each)
Number of injectors 9
Wiring Harness
Total Component Cost
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (1 year R&D)
Retooling Costs
Marine Society Approval
Engines/yr.
Years to recover
Fixed cost/engine
Total Costs
Cost per kW
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
$3,500
$2,000
3
$2,000
$3,500
$2,500
$2,500
$40,000
120
$2,862
$1,145
$4,006
$44,006
$12,762
$56,768
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$68,133
$15.1
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
$3,500
$2,000
6
$3,000
$4,500
$2,500
12
$2,500
$55,500
160
$3,815
$1,526
$5,342
$60,842
$17,644
$78,486
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$89,850
$9.5
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
$3,500
$2,000
8
$4,000
$6,000
$2,500
16
$2,500
$72,000
200
$4,769
$1,908
$6,677
$78,677
$22,816
$101,493
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$112,858
$6.3
Injected Engines
Low
8,500
6
380
130
$5,000
$2,000
9
$2,500
$4,500
$3,500
18
$3,000
$96,000
200
$4,769
$1,908
$6,677
$102,677
$29,776
$132,453
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$143,818
$16.9
Low
15,000
8
650
110
$5,000
$2,000
12
$3,500
$6,000
$3,500
24
$3,000
$125,500
250
$5,962
$2,385
$8,346
$133,846
$38,815
$172,662
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$184,026
$12.3
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
$5,000
$2,000
18
$4,500
$8,000
$3,500
36
$3,000
$182,500
300
$7,154
$2,862
$10,015
$192,515
$55,829
$248,345
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$259,710
$5.4
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
ledium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
$500
$2,000
3
$1,000
$1,500
$500
9
$500
$14,000
$500
$2,000
6
$1,000
$1,500
$500
12
$500
$21,500
$500
$2,000
8
$1,000
$1,500
$500
16
$500
$27,500
$500
$2,000
9
$1,500
$2,000
$750
18
$650
$36,150
$500
$2,000
12
$1,500
$2,000
$750
24
$650
$46,650
$500
$2,000
18
$1,500
$2,000
$750
36
$650
$67,650
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-7. Common Rail Fuel Injection Costs for Electronic Engines
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Hardware Costs to the Manufacturer
Component Costs
Electronic Control Unit
Common Rail Accumulators (each)
Number of Accumulators
Low Pressure Pump
High Pressure Pump
Modified injectors (each)
Number of injectors
Wiring Harness
Total Component Cost
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost ($23.85/hr)
Overhead @40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (0.5year R&D)
Retooling Costs
Marine Society Approval
Engines/yr.
Years to recover
Fixed cost/engine
Total Costs
Cost per kW
3.4. Tier III Technology Costs
As discussed in Section 2, several options have been discussed to meet proposed Tier III
emission levels. These include engine modifications, fumigation, fuel emulsions, direct water
injection, exhaust gas recirculation, selective catalytic reduction and seawater scrubbing. Fuel
switching costs are discussed in Section 3.4.
3.4.1. Engine Modifications
Engine modifications to meet proposed Tier III emission levels include use of two stage
turbochargers and electronic valve actuation. Table 3-8 shows incremental costs for engine
40
$954
$382
$1,335
$15,335
$4,447
$19,783
60
$1,431
$572
$2,003
$23,503
$6,816
$30,319
80
$1,908
$763
$2,671
$30,171
$8,750
$38,920
40
$954
$382
$1,335
$37,485
$10,871
$48,356
60
$1,431
$572
$2,003
$48,653
$14,109
$62,762
80
$1,908
$763
$2,671
$70,321
$20,393
$90,714
$344,000
$500,000
$5,000
40
5
$5,698
$26,700
$5.9
$344,000
$500,000
$5,000
40
5
$5,698
$34,868
$3.7
$344,000
$500,000
$5,000
40
5
$5,698
$41,535
$2.3
$344,000
$500,000
$5,000
40
5
$5,698
$48,850
$5.7
$344,000
$500,000
$5,000
40
5
$5,698
$60,018
$4.0
$344,000
$500,000
$5,000
40
5
$5,698
$81,685
$1.7
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
modifications to meet the proposed Tier III emission levels.
turbocharger redesign and valve actuation modifications.
Retooling costs represent
dium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
$16,250
$285
2
$285
2
$3,750
$2,800
$33,060
$9,587
$42,647
$20,900
$285
2
$285
2
$3,750
$2,800
$41,130
$11,928
$53,058
$46,750
$285
2
$285
2
$3,750
$2,800
$71,540
$20,747
$92,287
$28,000
$425
4
$3,750
$2,800
$44,750
$12,978
$57,728
$42,000
$425
4
$3,750
$2,800
$62,150
$18,024
$80,174
$61,000
$425
4
$3,750
$2,800
$87,950
$25,506
$113,456
Table 3-8. Differential Engine Modifications Costs to Meet Tier III Emission Levels
Speed Mi
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Hardware Costs to the Manufacturer
Component Costs
2 Stage Turbochargers
(Incremental)
Electronic Intake Valves (each)
Intake Valves per Cylinder
Electronic Exhaust Valves (each)
Exhaust Valves per Cylinder
Controller
Wiring
Total Component Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (1 year R&D)
Retooling Costs
Marine Society Approval
Engines/yr.
Years to recover
Fixed cost/engine
Total Costs
Cost per kW
3.4.2. Fumigation
Fumigation costs include costs for the water storage tank, the humidifier, the heat exchanger
and various pumps and piping and are shown in Table 3-9. Water tank cost details are shown
in Table 3-10 and estimate storage of water for 250 hours of normal operation when operating in
the emission control area (EGA). It is envisioned that the water tank is constructed of cold rolled
steel 1 mm thick. Cold rolled steel prices are estimated at $686 per metric tonne and represent
average steel prices in 2006.46 Water usage costs are shown in Table 3-11 and are estimated
assuming a cost of $0.25/gallon for distilled water. For systems that use seawater, these costs
should not be considered. Retooling costs are for redesign of the air intake system.
$688,000
$700,000
$5,000
40
5
$9,407
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$688,000
$1,300,000
$5,000
40
5
$13,322
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$688,000
$1,300,000
$5,000
40
5
$13,322
$688,000
$1,650,000
$5,000
40
5
$15,605
$52,055
$11.6
$64,422
$6.8
$105,608
$5.9
$69,092
$8.1
$93,495
$6.2
$129,061
$2.7
MEPS Steel Prices On-line at http://www.steelonthenet.com/prices.html.
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-7
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-9. Fumigation Costs
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
Hardware Costs to the Manufacturer
Component Costs
Water Tank
Humidifier
Heat Exchanger
Pump/Piping
Total Component Cost
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (1 year R&D)
Retooling Costs
Marine Society Approval
Engines/yr.
Years to recover
Fixed cost/engine
Total Costs
Cost per kW
$2,036
$70,000
$37,500
$5,600
$109,536
400
$9,538
$3,815
$13,354
$122,890
$35,638
$158,528
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$169,892
$37.8
$3,253
$120,000
$47,000
$7,500
$170,253
600
$14,308
$5,723
$20,031
$190,284
$55,182
$245,466
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$256,831
$27.0
$4,885
$240,000
$56,000
$9,500
$300,885
800
$19,077
$7,631
$26,708
$327,592
$95,002
$422,594
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$433,959
$24.1
$2,775
$190,000
$47,000
$7,500
$239,775
750
$17,885
$7,154
$25,038
$264,813
$76,796
$341,609
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$352,974
$41.5
$3,939
$310,000
$56,000
$9,500
$369,939
1000
$23,846
$9,538
$33,385
$403,323
$116,964
$520,287
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$531,652
$35.4
$8,071
$700,000
$75,000
$11,300
$783,071
1250
$29,808
$11,923
$41,731
$824,802
$239,192
$1,063,994
$688,000
$1,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$11,365
$1,075,359
$22.4
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-8
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-10. Fumigation Water Tank Costs
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Water Tank Costs
Fuel Amount (kg)
Density (kg/mA3)
Tank Size (mA3)
Tank Material (mA3)
Tank Material Cost ($)
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost ($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup® 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
240,996
1,000
289
0.26
$1,411
508,769
1,000
611
0.43
$2,321
963,984
1,000
1,157
0.66
$3,553
422,699
1,000
423
0.34
$1,817
745,940
1,000
746
0.49
$2,653
2,387,008
1,000
2,387
1.07
$5,756
5
$119
$48
$167
$1,578
$458
$2,036
6
$143
$57
$200
$2,522
$731
$3,253
7
$167
$67
$234
$3,787
$1,098
$4,885
10
$238
$95
$334
$2,151
$624
$2,775
12
$286
$114
$401
$3,053
$885
$3,939
15
$358
$143
$501
$6,257
$1,814
$8,071
Table 3-11. Fumigation Distilled Water Costs
ledium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Distilled Water Costs
BSFC (g/kWh)
Load factor
Water/Fuel Ratio
Water Use (kg/hr)
Water Cost per kg
Water cost per hour
3.4.3. FuelEmulsification
Fuel emulsification costs include costs for the water storage tank, the ultrasonic homogenizer,
the heat exchanger, and various pumps and piping. These are shown in Table 3-12. Water
tank cost details are shown in Table 3-13 and estimate storage of water for 250 hours of normal
operation when operating in the emission control area (EGA). It is envisioned that the water
tank is constructed of cold rolled steel 1 mm thick. Water usage costs are shown in Table 3-14
and are estimated assuming a cost of $0.25/gallon for distilled water. Retooling costs are for
redesign of the fuel system to accommodate fuel emulsification.
210
73%
1.40
964
$0.0264
$25
210
73%
1.40
2,035
$0.0264
$54
210
73%
1.40
3,856
$0.0264
$102
195
73%
1.40
1,691
$0.0264
$45
195
73%
1.40
2,984
$0.0264
$79
195
73%
1.40
9,548
$0.0264
$252
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-12. Fuel Emulsification Costs
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
Hardware Costs to the Manufacturer
Component Costs
Water Tank
Ultrasonic Homogenizer
Heat Exchanger
Pump/Piping
Total Component Cost
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (1 year R&D)
Retooling Costs
Marine Society Approval
Engines/yr.
Years to recover
Fixed cost/engine
Total Costs
Cost per kW
$1,132
$37,500
$9,400
$4,700
$52,732
240
$5,723
$2,289
$8,012
$60,745
$17,616
$78,361
$688,000
$500,000
$5,000
40
5
$8,103
$86,463
$19.2
$1,767
$56,000
$11,700
$5,600
$75,067
320
$7,631
$3,052
$10,683
$85,750
$24,867
$110,617
$688,000
$500,000
$5,000
40
5
$8,103
$118,720
$12.5
$2,610
$75,000
$14,000
$6,600
$98,210
400
$9,538
$3,815
$13,354
$111,564
$32,354
$143,918
$688,000
$500,000
$5,000
40
5
$8,103
$152,020
$8.4
$1,611
$56,000
$11,700
$5,600
$74,911
320
$7,631
$3,052
$10,683
$85,595
$24,822
$110,417
$688,000
$500,000
$5,000
40
5
$8,103
$118,520
$13.9
$2,240
$75,000
$14,000
$6,600
$97,840
400
$9,538
$3,815
$13,354
$111,194
$32,246
$143,441
$688,000
$500,000
$5,000
40
5
$8,103
$151,543
$10.1
$4,386
$112,200
$16,400
$7,500
$140,486
480
$11,446
$4,578
$16,025
$156,511
$45,388
$201,899
$688,000
$500,000
$5,000
40
5
$8,103
$210,001
$4.4
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-13. Emulsification Water Tank Costs
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Water Tank Costs
Fuel Amount (kg)
Density (kg/mA3)
Tank Size (mA3)
Tank Material (mA3)
Tank Material Cost ($)
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost ($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Distilled Water Costs
BSFC (g/kWh)
Load factor
Water/Fuel Ratio
Water Use (kg/hr)
Water Cost per kg
Water cost per hour
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
86,070
1,000
103
0.13
$711
5
$119
$48
$167
$878
$255
$1,132
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
181,703
1,000
218
0.22
$1,169
6
$143
$57
$200
$1,370
$397
$1,767
Table 3-14. Emulsification
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
210
73%
0.50
344
$0.0264
$9
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
210
73%
0.50
727
$0.0264
$19
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
344,280
1,000
413
0.33
$1,790
7
$167
$67
$234
$2,023
$587
$2,610
Distilled Water
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
210
73%
0.50
1,377
$0.0264
$36
Low
8,500
6
380
130
150,964
1,000
151
0.17
$915
10
$238
$95
$334
$1,249
$362
$1,611
Costs
Low
8,500
6
380
130
195
73%
0.50
604
$0.0264
$16
Low
15,000
8
650
110
266,407
1,000
266
0.25
$1,336
12
$286
$114
$401
$1,737
$504
$2,240
Low
15,000
8
650
110
195
73%
0.50
1,066
$0.0264
$28
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
852,503
1,000
853
0.54
$2,899
15
$358
$143
$501
$3,400
$986
$4,386
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
195
73%
0.50
3,410
$0.0264
$90
3.4.4. Direct Water Injection
Direct water injection costs include costs for the water storage tank, a low pressure module, a
high pressure module, flow fuses, water injectors, related piping, and the control unit and wiring
and are shown in Table 3-15. Water tank cost details are shown in Table 3-16 and estimate
storage of water for 250 hours of normal operation when operating in the EGA. It is envisioned
that the water tank is constructed of cold rolled steel 1 mm thick. Water usage costs are shown
in Table 3-17 and are estimated assuming a cost of $0.25/gallon for distilled water. Retooling
costs are for redesign of the cylinder head to accommodate the direct water injectors.
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-11
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-15. Direct Water Injection Costs
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
Hardware Costs to the Manufacturer
Component Costs
Water Tank
Low Pressure Module
High Pressure Module
Flow Fuses (each)
Water Injectors (each)
Number per cylinder
Piping
Control Unit/Wiring
Total Component Cost
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (2 years R&D)
Retooling Costs
Marine Society Approval
Engines/yr.
Years to recover
Fixed cost/engine
Total Costs
Cost per kW
$1,132
$4,700
$9,500
$1,900
$2,400
1
$5,600
$9,500
$69,132
500
$11,923
$4,769
$16,692
$85,825
$24,889
$110,714
$1,376,000
$10,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$74,891
$185,605
$41.2
$1,767
$7,000
$14,000
$1,900
$2,400
2
$7,500
$11,300
$144,767
750
$17,885
$7,154
$25,038
$169,805
$49,244
$219,049
$1,376,000
$10,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$74,891
$293,940
$30.9
$2,610
$9,500
$19,000
$1,900
$2,400
3
$9,500
$13,000
$260,010
1000
$23,846
$9,538
$33,385
$293,395
$85,084
$378,479
$1,376,000
$10,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$74,891
$453,371
$25.2
$1,611
$9,500
$19,000
$1,900
$2,400
3
$9,500
$11,300
$128,311
1000
$23,846
$9,538
$33,385
$161,696
$46,892
$208,588
$1,376,000
$10,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$74,891
$283,479
$33.4
$2,240
$19,000
$38,000
$1,900
$2,400
6
$14,000
$13,000
$292,640
1500
$35,769
$14,308
$50,077
$342,717
$99,388
$442,105
$1,376,000
$10,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$74,891
$516,997
$34.5
$4,386
$3,800
$75,000
$1,900
$2,400
12
$19,000
$15,000
$736,386
2000
$47,692
$19,077
$66,769
$803,155
$232,915
$1,036,070
$1,376,000
$10,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$74,891
$1,110,962
$23.1
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-12
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-16. DWI Water Tank Costs
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Water Tank Costs
Fuel Amount (kg)
Density (kg/mA3)
Tank Size (mA3)
Tank Material (mA3)
Tank Material Cost ($)
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost ($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
86,070
1,000
103
0.13
$711
181,703
1,000
218
0.22
$1,169
344,280
1,000
413
0.33
$1,790
150,964
1,000
151
0.17
$915
266,407
1,000
266
0.25
$1,336
852,503
1,000
853
0.54
$2,899
7
$167
$67
$234
$2,023
$587
$2,610
Table 3-17. DWI Distilled Water Costs
5
$119
$48
$167
$878
$255
$1,132
6
$143
$57
$200
$1,370
$397
$1,767
10
$238
$95
$334
$1,249
$362
$1,611
12
$286
$114
$401
$1,737
$504
$2,240
15
$358
$143
$501
$3,400
$986
$4,386
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Distilled Water Costs
BSFC (g/kWh)
Load factor
Water/Fuel Ratio
Water Use (kg/hr)
Water Cost per kg
Water cost per hour
3.4.5. Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Exhaust gas recirculation costs include a supply pump, a sludge tank, piping, a waste pump, a
recirculation pump, a scrubber unit, a separator, an EGR valve, and the control unit and wiring.
Costs for an EGR system are given in Table 3-18. Retooling costs are for exhaust system
redesign. Table 3-19 provide details on the sludge tank. Sludge is estimated to build up at 0.05
g/kWh with a sludge density of 1,300 kg/m3 based upon an average 20 percent EGR rate. The
sludge tank is envisioned to be constructed of cold rolled steel 1 mm thick. The tank will hold
sludge generated from 500 hours of engine operation.
210
73%
0.50
344
$0.0264
$9
210
73%
0.50
727
$0.0264
$19
210
73%
0.50
1,377
$0.0264
$36
195
73%
0.50
604
$0.0264
$16
195
73%
0.50
1,066
$0.0264
$28
195
73%
0.50
3,410
$0.0264
$90
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-13
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Table 3-1 8.
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
Exhaust Gas
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Recirculation Costs
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
Hardware Costs to the Manufacturer
Component Costs
Supply Pump
Sludge Tank
Piping
Waste Pump
Recirculation Pump
Scrubber Unit
Separator
EGR Valve
Control UnitAA/iring
Total Component Cost
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (1 year R&D)
Retooling Costs
Marine Society Approval
Engines/yr.
Years to recover
Fixed cost/engine
Total Costs
Cost per kW
$1,900
$268
$2,800
$1,900
$1,900
$23,500
$1,900
$7,000
$4,700
$45,868
200
$4,769
$1,908
$6,677
$52,545
$15,238
$67,783
$688,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$17,889
$85,672
$19.0
$2,600
$345
$3,800
$2,800
$2,800
$35,000
$2,800
$9,500
$4,700
$64,345
300
$7,154
$2,862
$10,015
$74,361
$21,565
$95,925
$688,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$17,889
$113,814
$12.0
$3,600
$435
$4,700
$3,800
$3,800
$56,000
$3,800
$11,700
$4,700
$92,535
400
$9,538
$3,815
$13,354
$105,888
$30,708
$136,596
$688,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$17,889
$154,485
$8.6
$2,600
$511
$3,700
$2,800
$2,800
$32,700
$2,800
$9,500
$4,700
$62,111
300
$7,154
$2,862
$10,015
$72,127
$20,917
$93,044
$688,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$17,889
$110,932
$13.1
$4,400
$635
$4,700
$4,700
$4,700
$56,000
$3,800
$11,700
$4,700
$95,335
400
$9,538
$3,815
$13,354
$108,689
$31,520
$140,208
$688,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$17,889
$158,097
$10.5
$7,000
$859
$5,600
$7,500
$7,500
$112,200
$4,700
$14,000
$4,700
$164,059
500
$11,923
$4,769
$16,692
$180,751
$52,418
$233,169
$688,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$17,889
$251,058
$5.2
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-14
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-19. Sludge Tank Costs
Speed Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low
Engine Power (kW) 4,500 9,500 18,000 8,500 15,000 48,000
Cylinders 9 12 16 6 8 12
Liters/cylinder 35 65 95 380 650 1400
Engine Speed (rpm) 650 550 500 130 110 100
Sludge Tank Costs
Sludge Rate, g/kWh 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Sludge Amount (kg) 112.50 237.50 450.00 212.50 375.00 1,200.00
Sludge Tank size (mA3) 0.104 0.219 0.415 0.196 0.346 1.108
Tank Material (mA3) 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03
Tank Material Cost ($) $41 $67 $103 $63 $91 $198
Assembly
Labor (hours) 5 6 7 10 12 14
Cost($23.85/hr) $119 $143 $167 $238 $286 $334
Overhead @ 40% $48 $57 $67 $95 $114 $134
Total Assembly Cost $167 $200 $234 $334 $401 $467
Total Variable Cost $208 $268 $337 $396 $492 $666
Markup® 29% $60 $78 $98 $115 $143 $193
Total Hardware RPE $268 $345 $435 $511 $635 $859
3.4.6. Selective Catalytic Reduction
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) costs include the urea tank, the reactor, dosage pump, urea
injectors, piping, bypass valve, the acoustic horn, a cleaning probe and the control unit and
wiring. Detailed costs are shown in Table 3-20. Retooling costs are for redesign of the exhaust
system to accommodate the SCR unit. Detailed costs for the urea tank are shown in Table 3-21
and estimate storage of urea for 250 hours of normal operation when operating in the emission
control area (EGA). Because of the corrosive nature of urea, it is envisioned that the urea tank
is constructed of 304 stainless steel 1 mm thick at a cost of $2,747.20 per metric tonne.47 Urea
usage costs are shown in Table 3-22 and are estimated assuming a cost of $1.52/gallon for
urea with a density of 1.09 grams per cubic centimeter.
47 http://vwvw.metalprices.com/FreeSite/metals/stainless product/product.asp#Tables for 2006.
ICF International 3-15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-20. Selective Catalytic Reduction Costs
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
Hardware Costs to the Supplier
Component Costs
Aqueous Urea Tank
Reactor
Dosage Pump
Urea Injectors (each)
Number of Urea Injectors
Piping
Bypass Valve
Acoustic Horn
Cleaning Probe
Control UnitAA/iring
Total Component Cost
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost ($23.85/hr)
Overhead @40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (2 years R&D)
Retooling Costs
Marine Society Approval
Engines/yr.
Years to recover
Fixed cost/engine
Total Costs
Cost per kW
$1,194
$200,000
$9,500
$2,400
3
$4,700
$4,700
$9,500
$575
$14,000
$251,369
1000
$23,846
$9,538
$33,385
$284,753
$82,578
$367,332
$1,376,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$22,699
$390,031
$86.7
$1,868
$295,000
$11,300
$2,400
6
$5,600
$5,600
$11,300
$575
$14,000
$359,643
1200
$28,615
$11,446
$40,062
$399,704
$115,914
$515,618
$1,376,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$22,699
$538,317
$56.7
$2,765
$400,000
$13,000
$2,400
8
$6,600
$6,600
$13,000
$575
$14,000
$475,740
1500
$35,769
$14,308
$50,077
$525,816
$152,487
$678,303
$1,376,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$22,699
$701,002
$38.9
$1,690
$345,000
$11,300
$2,400
12
$5,600
$5,600
$11,700
$700
$19,000
$429,390
1200
$28,615
$11,446
$40,062
$469,452
$136,141
$605,593
$1,376,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$22,699
$628,292
$73.9
$2,356
$560,000
$13,000
$2,400
16
$7,500
$6,600
$14,000
$700
$19,000
$661,556
1600
$38,154
$15,262
$53,415
$714,971
$207,342
$922,313
$1,376,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$22,699
$945,012
$63.0
$4,636
$1,400,000
$15,000
$2,400
24
$9,500
$7,500
$16,400
$700
$19,000
$1,530,336
2000
$47,692
$19,077
$66,769
$1,597,106
$463,161
$2,060,266
$1,376,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$22,699
$2,082,965
$43.4
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-16
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-21. Urea Tank Costs
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Urea Tank Costs
Urea Amount (kg)
Density (kg/mA3)
Tank Size (mA3)
Tank Material (mA3)
Tank Material Cost ($)
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost ($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
12,910
1,090
14
0.04
$758
27,255
1,090
30
0.06
$1,248
51,642
1,090
57
0.09
$1,909
22,645
1,090
21
0.05
$977
39,961
1,090
37
0.07
$1,426
127,875
1,090
117
0.14
$3,093
7
$167
$67
$234
$2,143
$621
$2,765
Table 3-22. Urea Costs
5
$119
$48
$167
$925
$268
$1,194
6
$143
$57
$200
$1,448
$420
$1,868
10
$238
$95
$334
$1,310
$380
$1,690
12
$286
$114
$401
$1,826
$530
$2,356
15
$358
$143
$501
$3,594
$1,042
$4,636
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Aqueous Urea Costs
BSFC (g/kWh)
Load factor
Aqueous Urea Rate
Aqueous Urea (kg/hr)
Aqueous Urea Cost per kg
Aqueous Urea Cost per hour
3.4.7. Sea Water Scrubbers
Sea water scrubber costs include the supply pump, the sludge tank, piping, a waste pump, a
recirculation pump, the scrubber unit, an oil/water separator, an SO2 monitor, and the control
unit and wiring. Retooling costs are for redesign of the exhaust system to accommodate the
scrubber unit. Detailed costs are given in Table 3-23. Detailed costs for the sludge tank are
given in Table 3-24 and assume a sludge buildup rate of 0.25 g/kWh48 and a sludge density of
1,300 kg/m3. The sludge tank is envisioned to be constructed of cold rolled steel 1 mm thick.
The tank will hold sludge generated for 500 hours of engine operation.
210
73%
7.5%
52
$0.3684
$19
210
73%
7.5%
109
$0.3684
$40
210
73%
7.5%
207
$0.3684
$76
195
73%
7.5%
91
$0.3684
$33
195
73%
7.5%
160
$0.3684
$59
195
73%
7.5%
512
$0.3684
$188
1 Entec UK Ltd, "Service Contract on Ship Emissions: Assignment, Abatement and Market Based Instruments - Task
2c - SO2 Abatement," August 2005 available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/task2 so2.pdf.
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-17
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-23. Sea Water Scrubber Costs
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
Hardware Costs to the Supplier
Component Costs
Supply Pump
Sludge Tank
Piping
Waste Pump
Recirculating Pump
Scrubber Unit
Separator
SO2 Monitor
Control UnitAA/iring
Total Component Cost
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (1 year R&D)
Retooling Costs
Marine Society Approval
Engines/yr.
Years to recover
Fixed cost/engine
Total Costs
Cost per kW
$9,500
$350
$4,700
$9,500
$9,500
$215,000
$7,000
$9,500
$28,000
$293,050
600
$14,308
$5,723
$20,031
$313,081
$90,794
$403,875
$688,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$17,889
$421,763
$93.7
$14,000
$481
$5,600
$11,300
$11,300
$355,000
$8,000
$9,500
$28,000
$443,181
800
$19,077
$7,631
$26,708
$469,888
$136,268
$606,156
$688,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$17,889
$624,045
$65.7
$19,000
$641
$6,600
$13,000
$13,000
$550,000
$9,000
$9,500
$28,000
$648,741
1000
$23,846
$9,538
$33,385
$682,126
$197,817
$879,943
$688,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$17,889
$897,831
$49.9
$14,000
$637
$5,600
$11,300
$11,300
$340,000
$8,000
$9,500
$28,000
$428,337
1000
$23,846
$9,538
$33,385
$461,722
$133,899
$595,621
$688,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$17,889
$613,510
$72.2
$23,500
$818
$7,500
$13,000
$13,000
$500,000
$9,000
$9,500
$28,000
$604,318
1500
$35,769
$14,308
$50,077
$654,395
$189,774
$844,169
$688,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$17,889
$862,058
$57.5
$37,500
$1,256
$9,500
$15,000
$15,000
$1,125,000
$10,000
$9,500
$28,000
$1,250,756
2000
$47,692
$19,077
$66,769
$1,317,525
$382,082
$1,699,608
$688,000
$2,000,000
$5,000
40
5
$17,889
$1,717,497
$35.8
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-18
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-24. Sludge Tank Costs
Speed Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low
Engine Power (kW) 4,500 9,500 18,000 8,500 15,000 48,000
Cylinders 9 12 16 6 8 12
Liters/cylinder 35 65 95 380 650 1400
Engine Speed (rpm) 650 550 500 130 110 100
Sludge Tank Costs
Sludge Rate, g/kWh 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Sludge Amount (kg) 562.50 1,187.50 2,250.00 1,062.50 1,875.00 6,000.00
Sludge Tank size (mA3) 0.519 1.096 2.077 0.981 1.731 5.538
Tank Material (mA3) 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.09
Tank Material Cost ($) $105 $172 $264 $160 $233 $506
Assembly
Labor (hours) 5 6 7 10 12 14
Cost ($23.85/hr) $119 $143 $167 $238 $286 $334
Overhead @ 40% $48 $57 $67 $95 $114 $134
Total Assembly Cost $167 $200 $234 $334 $401 $467
Total Variable Cost $272 $372 $497 $494 $634 $974
Markup® 29% $79 $108 $144 $143 $184 $282
Total Hardware RPE $350 $481 $641 $637 $818 $1,256
3.5. Fuel Switching Hardware Costs
In this section, hardware costs related to fuel switching are discussed. Fuel cost differentials
have been discussed in another EPA report.33 Three cases are discussed in Section 2.3,
namely:
• Case 0: Vessels meet all requirements of a EGA and require no modifications or
retrofits (baseline).
• Case 1: A newly built vessel requires additional equipment to meet EGA
requirements over comparable new vessels.
• Case 2: Existing vessels will require retrofits to meet EGA requirements.
Case 0 assumes that the vessels have sufficient storage tank capacity currently for fuel
switching and all the proper equipment necessary to accomplish fuel switching in a EGA area.
Based upon their survey, ARE estimates that 78 percent of all ships fall into this category.
However, ARE believes that this is an underestimation and that the vast majority of ships fall
into this category.41 There is no hardware costs associated with Case 0.
Case 1 assumes that new vessels will be built with additional distillate fuel storage capacity and
systems over existing ships. Costs include additional distillate fuel storage tanks, an LFO fuel
separator, an HFO/LFO blending unit, a 3-way valve, an LFO cooler, filters, a viscosity meter,
and various pumps and piping. These costs are shown in Table 3-25. Details on additional
tank costs are shown in Table 3-26. Distillate tanks are assumed to be constructed of cold
rolled steel 1 mm thick and double walled and will hold an additional 250 hours of propulsion
and auxiliary engine operation while within a EGA.
ICF International 3-19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-25. Case 1 Fuel Switching Costs (New Construction)
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Hardware Cost to Supplier
Component Costs
Additional Tanks
LFO Separator
HFO/LFO Blending Unit
3-Way Valve
LFO Cooler
Filters
Viscosity Meter
Piping/Pumps
Total Component Cost
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (0.25 year R&D)
Marine Society Approval
Engines/yr.
Years to recover
Fixed cost/engine
Total Costs
Cost per kW
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
$3,409
$2,800
$4,200
$950
$2,400
$950
$1,400
$2,000
$18,109
240
$5,723
$2,289
$8,012
$26,121
$7,575
$33,696
$172,000
$5,000
40
5
$1,233
$34,929
$7.8
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
$5,511
$3,300
$4,700
$1,400
$2,800
$950
$1,400
$2,000
$22,061
320
$7,631
$3,052
$10,683
$32,744
$9,496
$42,240
$172,000
$5,000
40
5
$1,233
$43,473
$4.6
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
$8,341
$3,800
$5,600
$1,900
$3,300
$950
$1,400
$2,000
$27,291
480
$11,446
$4,578
$16,025
$43,316
$12,562
$55,877
$172,000
$5,000
40
5
$1,233
$57,110
$3.2
Low
8,500
6
380
130
$4,562
$3,800
$4,700
$1,400
$2,800
$950
$1,400
$2,000
$21,612
320
$7,631
$3,052
$10,683
$32,295
$9,366
$41,661
$172,000
$5,000
40
5
$1,233
$42,894
$5.0
Low
15,000
8
650
110
$6,548
$4,200
$5,600
$1,900
$3,800
$950
$1,400
$2,000
$26,398
480
$11,446
$4,578
$16,025
$42,423
$12,303
$54,725
$172,000
$5,000
40
5
$1,233
$55,958
$3.7
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
$13,733
$4,700
$6,600
$2,800
$4,700
$950
$1,400
$2,000
$36,883
600
$14,308
$5,723
$20,031
$56,914
$16,505
$73,419
$172,000
$5,000
40
5
$1,233
$74,652
$1.6
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-20
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-26. Additional Fuel Tank Storage Costs
Speed Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low
Engine Power (kW) 4,500 9,500 18,000 8,500 15,000 48,000
Cylinders 9 12 16 6 8 12
Liters/cylinder 35 65 95 380 650 1400
Engine Speed (rpm) 650 550 500 130 110 100
Propulsion
BSFC(g/kWh) 210 210 210 195 195 195
Load factor 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73%
Auxiliary
Power (kW) 1,022 2,158 4,090 1,931 3,408 10,906
BSFC(g/kWh) 227 227 227 227 227 227
Load factor 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31%
Combined
Fuel Amount (kg) 190,001 401,114 760,006 335,666 592,352 1,895,528
Density (kg/mA3) 960 960 960 960 960 960
Tank Size (mA3) 238 501 950 350 617 1,975
Tank Material (mA3) 0.46 0.75 1.15 0.59 0.87 1.88
Tank Material Cost ($) $2,476 $4,072 $6,232 $3,203 $4,675 $10,145
Assembly
Labor (hours) 5 6 7 10 12 15
Cost($23.85/hr) $119 $143 $167 $238 $286 $358
Overhead@40% $48 $57 $67 $95 $114 $143
Total Assembly Cost $167 $200 $234 $334 $401 $501
Total Variable Cost $2,642 $4,272 $6,466 $3,537 $5,076 $10,646
Markup® 29% $766 $1,239 $1,875 $1,026 $1,472 $3,087
Total Hardware RPE $3,409 $5,511 $8,341 $4,562 $6,548 $13,733
Case 2 is for retrofitting ships with equipment to allow fuel switching. It is similar to Case 1
costs, however, additional labor is allocated to installing the systems on a ship and additional
R&D is provided to test systems on existing ships. Case 2 costs are given in Table 3-27.
ICF International 3-21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Speed
Engine Power (kW)
Cylinders
Liters/cylinder
Engine Speed (rpm)
Table 3-27. Case 2 Fuel Switching Costs (Retrofits)
Medium
4,500
9
35
650
Hardware Cost to Supplier
Component Costs
Additional Tanks
LFO Separator
HFO/LFO Blending Unit
3-Way Valve
LFO Cooler
Filters
Viscosity Meter
Piping/Pumps
Total Component Cost
Assembly
Labor (hours)
Cost($23.85/hr)
Overhead @ 40%
Total Assembly Cost
Total Variable Cost
Markup @ 29%
Total Hardware RPE
Fixed Costs
R&D Costs (0.33 year R&D)
Marine Society Approval
Engines/yr.
Years to recover
Fixed cost/engine
Total Costs
Cost per kW
Medium
9,500
12
65
550
Medium
18,000
16
95
500
Low
8,500
6
380
130
Low
15,000
8
650
110
Low
48,000
12
1400
100
$3,409
$2,800
$4,200
$950
$2,400
$950
$1,400
$2,000
$18,109
$5,511
$3,300
$4,700
$1,400
$2,800
$950
$1,400
$2,000
$22,061
$8,341
$3,800
$5,600
$1,900
$3,300
$950
$1,400
$2,000
$27,291
$4,562
$3,800
$4,700
$1,400
$2,800
$950
$1,400
$2,000
$21,612
$6,548
$4,200
$5,600
$1,900
$3,800
$950
$1,400
$2,000
$26,398
$13,733
$4,700
$6,600
$2,800
$4,700
$950
$1,400
$2,000
$36,883
480
$11,446
$4,578
$16,025
$34,133
$9,899
$44,032
640
$15,262
$6,105
$21,366
$43,427
$12,594
$56,021
960
$22,892
$9,157
$32,049
$59,340
$17,209
$76,549
640
$15,262
$6,105
$21,366
$42,979
$12,464
$55,442
960
$22,892
$9,157
$32,049
$58,447
$16,950
$75,397
1200
$28,615
$11,446
$40,062
$76,945
$22,314
$99,259
$227,040 $227,040 $227,040 $227,040 $227,040 $227,040
$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
40 40 40 40 40 40
555555
$1,618 $1,618 $1,618 $1,618 $1,618 $1,618
$45,265 $57,254 $77,782 $56,675 $76,630 $100,492
$10.1 $6.0 $4.3 $6.7 $5.1 $2.1
3.6. Differential Fuel Consumption
Fuel consumption increases/decreases were calculated for a 1 percent change in BSFC. The
values shown in Table 3-28 can be scaled up or down relative to the amount of fuel
consumption benefit or penalty.
ICF International
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08
3-22
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
Table 3-28. Hourly fuel use change estimated for a one percent change in brake specific fuel
consumption
Speed Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low
Engine Power (kW) 4,500 9,500 18,000 8,500 15,000 48,000
Cylinders 9 12 16 6 8 12
Liters/cylinder 35 65 95 380 650 1400
Engine Speed (rpm) 650 550 500 130 110 100
Load Factors, % of hp 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73%
Avg BSFC, g/kWh 210 210 210 195 195 195
HFO Fuel Usage Tonnes per hour 0.69 1.45 2.75 1.21 2.13 6.82
3.7. IMO Testing Costs
IMO testing is done on a representative engine for an engine family. This engine represents the
worst case specification (i.e., the highest NOx emissions). It is emission tested on a test bed
before sending it to the customer. Other similar engines are referred to as an engine family and
are not tested.
A technical file is submitted with the engine. It would contain the identification of the
components, settings and operating values of the engine that influence NOx emissions. The
critical components are marked with I MO-ID numbers and relevant parameters are identified,
providing an easy means of compliance checking onboard the ship. Identification of the full
range of allowable adjustments or alternatives for the components of the engine are also listed
along with a system of onboard NOx verification procedures (component and setting checks) to
verify compliance with the IMO NOx emission limits during onboard verification surveys.
The cost of Marine Society approval is estimated at $5,000.
ICF International 3-23 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
-------
Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for Category 3 Marine Engines
Economic Impact
page
ICF International 3-24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Contract EP-C-06-094, WA 2-08 April 20099
------- |