Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Total Life Cycle Analysis of Private Costs and Externalities for Marine Fuels
Similar to Total Life Cycle Analysis of Private Costs and Externalities for Marine Fuels (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Total Life Cycle Analysis of Private Costs and Externalities for Marine Fuels
- 1. Total Life Cycle Analysis of Private Costs and Externalities for Marine Fuels Dott. Ing. Giulio Gennaro Singapore, 12th - 13th September 2019 1888 GENNARO CONSULTING
- 2. What is TLCA and why IMO should use it LNG: best fuel for IMO2020, not ok IMO2050 LFTR: a solution for IMO2020 and IMO2050 SUMMARY 1888GC
- 3. EXTERNALITIES WHO: 7 million deaths in 2012 due to air pollution Shipping < 3% IMO2020, IMO2050 IMO SGD 2030 Agenda 1888GC
- 4. “Zero emission” is not possible Every activity generates emissions! We must minimize externalities! NO ZERO EMISSIONS 1888GC
- 5. WHICH SHIP IS BEST? 1888GC
- 6. Select the ship with minimum CAPEX? Still very common choice It leads to substandard ship 8% savings on fuel are possible for most NB! CAPEX 1888GC
- 7. Select the ship with minimum private cost? ( CAPEX + OPEX ) It maximizes internal profit At the expense of externalities! PRIVATE COST 1888GC
- 8. The “right” choice is to minimize TLCC TLCC = Private Costs + External Costs (CAPEX + OPEX) (HSE Ext + CC Ext) TOTAL LIFE CYCLE COST 1888GC
- 9. IMO, WE HAVE A PROBLEM 1888GC IMO GHG STUDY: Only direct emissions Only air emissions → Bias No cost of emissions → Cannot compare
- 10. BEYOND IMO GHG 1888GC To get the complete picture we combined: Third IMO GHG Study, 2014 + Studies on external cost of electricity (on shore power generation)
- 11. TLCC Private Cost HSE IMO2020 CC IMO2050 HFO 100 80 17 2.2 HFO post 2020 103 88 13 1.8 ULS FO 118 104 12 1.6 LNG (Otto) 90 84 2.7 3.7 LNG is the best fuel for IMO2020 IMO 2020 & TLCC 1888GC We calculated TLCC for a VLLC and an ULCS Results were almost identical
- 12. TLCC Private Cost HSE IMO2020 CC IMO2050 LNG vs HFO -10% +5% -84% +68% IMO 2050 requires -50% GHG We need a better solution IMO 2050 & GHG 1888GC However LNG is not ok for CC due to high CH4 emissions / methane slip (here Otto cycle, high pressure LNG is better)
- 13. Safe, clean, cheap, large power Does not need refueling Fits on ships > Panamax First prototype in 2025 First delivery in 2030 LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTOR FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES 1888GC
- 14. Today about 200 nuclear vessels, very high safety Several recent studies on nuclear ship propulsion N/S Savannah: touched 77 ports, 1.4 million visitors NUCLEAR IS FEASIBLE! 1888GC
- 15. LFTR Molten Salt Reactor Stable & walk away safe 99% fuel efficient: little waste Short lived transuranic waste No proliferation issues Relatively cheap “Old” Nuclear Pressurized Water Reactor Unstable 1% fuel efficient: large waste Long lived transuranic waste Proliferation issues Moderately expensive NUCLEAR “OLD” VS “FUTURE” 1888GC
- 16. TLCC Private Cost HSE IMO2020 CC IMO2050 LFTR vs HFO -47% -36% -93% -94% LFTR vs LNG -41% -38% -58% -96% LFTR will meet IMO2050 soon and cheaply LFTR TLCC 1888GC LFTR applied to a VLLC or an ULCS, note that “old” nuclear externalities are used for LFTR
- 17. IMO to adopt Total Life Cycle Cost method Operation / Fuel & Energy Supply Chain / Construction / Decommissioning Fundamental to prevent bias (e.g. biofuel, ammonia, hydrogen, batteries…) IMO to create an inventory of emissions / external costs Not only for air emissions (e.g. wastewater of scrubbers, disposal of batteries, disposal of solar panels, disposal of wind turbines, use of land for biofuel...) RECOMMENDATIONS 1888GC
- 18. HSE Externalities >> Climate Change Externalities We must use TLCA to select the best ship LNG: best fuel for IMO2020, not ok for IMO2050 LFTR will be an excellent long term solution for both decarbonization and sustainability of shipping CONCLUSIONS 1888GC
- 19. THANK YOU For further information and to receive copy the full paper please contact Dott. Ing. Giulio Gennaro 1888@GennaroConsulting.com wvw.GennaroConsulting.com 1888 GENNARO CONSULTING