Seca seminar 2013 rolls royce - stein ruben larsen


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Seca seminar 2013 rolls royce - stein ruben larsen

  1. 1. © 2013 Rolls-Royce plcThe information in this document is the property of Rolls-Royce plc and may not be copied or communicated to a third party, or used for anypurpose other than that for which it is supplied without the express written consent of Rolls-Royce plc.This information is given in good faith based upon the latest information available to Rolls-Royce plc, no warranty or representation is givenconcerning such information, which must not be taken as establishing any contractual or other commitment binding upon Rolls-Royce plc orany of its subsidiary or associated companies.LNG propulsion (conversion and new-building)for short-sea.Oslo 20 Juni 2013.Stein Ruben LarsenVice President System Sales and Marketing of Cargo
  2. 2. Agenda Some basic knowledge New-building example Conversions example Different solutions for conversion Financial
  3. 3. Some basic knowledgeTromsø Aug 2012
  4. 4. Why LNG ?0,38000,050,10,150,20,250,30,350,4C-diesel C-gasSO2 (0,1%)5984200100200300400500600C-diesel C-gasCO2 (g/kWh)8,21,20123456789C-diesel C-gasNOx (g/kWh)0,25000,050,10,150,20,25C-diesel C-gasParticles
  5. 5. Vessels to be delivered in 2013/14 Ro-Ro vessel built in China for Norwegian Norlines Winner of “Next Generation Shipping Award” 2011
  6. 6. Case study analysis environshipOperation Diesel LNG UnitAnnual operating hours 5500 5500 hrsInstalled power 4500 3940 kWEngine Speed 750 750 rpmSystem installation cost $10m $15.25mHFO LNGFuel price USD 700/ton USD 700/tonAdd. capex USD 5,25 millFuel consumption 0,198 kg/kWh 0151 kg/kWhLube oil consumption 0,80 g/kWh 0,40g/kWhNPV USD 466.628IRR 28%
  7. 7. Conversions (to LNG propulsion) What needs to be done ? What to chose ? To what cost ? Some examples.
  8. 8. What needs to be done ? Feasibility study Age of vessel Technical issues (Space, stability, classification, redesign etc) Timeframe (technical documentation, yard capacity, off-hire) Business case (Capex, Opex, Charter-agreement) Technical agreement Engine type LNG fuel-tank Backup-systems Scope of design-work Yard-work and testing/verification If NOx fund sopport, testing verification period
  9. 9. What to chose ? Scrubber, SCR, Low-sulphur, MDO Type of engine Lean burn gas engine Dual fuel engine LNG fuel tank C-type (Pressurized) A-type (Atmospheric pressure) Backup system (PTI)
  10. 10. Engines Lean burn gas engines IMO Tier III compliant High efficiency (49%) Low fuel-consumption Good tolerance for low methanenumber Not 1A1 approved (Backup needed) Dual fuel gas engines IMO Tier III compliant Fuel flexibility No need for back-up Complex High maintenance cost Sensitive for methane-number
  11. 11. LNG tanks C-type Handles Boil-off Simple system (Coldbox) References as fuel-tank Take space Expensive A-type Space-friendly Less cost Boil-off issue Few references as fuel-tank Need of submerged pumps
  12. 12. Backup systems LNG Mechanical with PTI Gas-Electric
  13. 13. Cost Between 40 and 65 MNOK Depending on: Size of fuel-tank(s) : 2 * 250 cbm. C-Tank : 16 MNOK Engine type and power: Example : 5 MW engine: 10-15 MNOK New gearbox incl. PTI and HSG : 5 – 10 MNOK Design : 2 – 4 MNOK Yard-work : 10 – 20 MNOK ?
  14. 14. Conversion (Case study Pachuca) GL classed Container feeder Built in 2004/2005 8,4 MW Medium speed engine Trade: Netherland, UK, Norway Member of NOx-fund (MS Lyspoint) Subject for NOx-fund support based onCO2 emission (reduction) in Norwegianwaters
  15. 15. Conversion (Case study Pachuca) Possible LNG tank installation Vertical to avoid sloosh 2 tanks for stability andredundancy Bunkering available in Norway
  16. 16. Conversion (Case study Pachuca) Example of LNG tank sternplaced. MS Høydal
  17. 17. Conversion (Case study Pachuca)
  18. 18. Thank You !