The document discusses the potential of energy storage systems to improve fuel economy in marine propulsion by optimizing engine performance and enabling downsizing. It presents various technologies, cost-benefit analyses, and the importance of selecting appropriate battery packs based on lifecycle cost rather than just purchase price. The conclusion highlights further opportunities in renewable energy and efficiency improvements through system simulation and optimization.

1. o
rd
Ricardo plc ica
R
IMarEST Conference
e on
bl
Ship Propulsion Systems Conference 2010
a ila
Yann Rageul - Marine Sector av
ils
ta
t de e
ac e: ar
in
nt it
co bs m
/m
d e
an w .co
es) r do
lid ca
1s .ri
n
(3
w ww
s io
er
ll V
Fu
www.ricardo.com
RD.10/37501.1 © Ricardo plc 2010

2. Ship Propulsion Systems Conference 2010
Agenda
1. Ricardo’s background & Marine projects
2. Requirements vs. Commercial pressure for the Marine sector
– Legislation, Environmental pressure
– Ricardo process for New Technology Introduction
3. Selecting & optimising technologies for Marine Application
– Opportunities for fuel economy
– Implementation of energy storage system and cost benefit
– System optimisation and Waste Heat Recovery
– Saving assuming a holistic energy management leading to input power
reduction
– Sub-Systems simulation for efficiency improvement
4. Conclusion
– Further opportunities from renewable energies
RD. 10/37501.1 © Ricardo plc 2010 2

3. Energy storage system offers potential for fuel economy
by running engine at optimum point and potential engine dowsizing
System simulation &
Baseline Introduction of Optimisation of
architecture Typical Diesel engine specific fuel
Non optimised propulsion energy storage sub-systems
optimisation
consumption (g/kWh)
350
An engine’s efficiency varies widely depending on the speed /
Specific Fuel Consumption (g/kWh)
Engine idling
load operating range 300
/ low load
250
Typically efficiency is poor under low load and idling conditions
200
An energy storage system improves fuel economy by: 150
Force engine to more
– Enabling engine downsizing 100 efficient point by
generating electricity Maximum efficiency
– Run the engine at optimum load and store the power surplus 50
for use when required 85% load
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Various energy storage system can be considered such as
Percentage of Maximum out power under normal conditions (%)
Batteries, Flywheel, etc.
2000
Li-ion very
The key criteria for the selection of the energy storage device 1800 high power
Ultracapacitors
Li-ion high
are: 1600
Flywheel
power
Specific power (W/kg)
– High energy density resulting in low weight 1400
– Low Power/Energy ratio 1200
– Durability for 80% Depth of Discharge (DOD) 1000 NiMH
high
– Cost of cells 800 power
– Cooling requirements 600 NiCd
Li-ion high
– Safety 400 energy
NiMH
200 Lead Acid high Zebra
energy
0
0 30 60 90 120 150
Specific energy (Wh/kg)
Source: Ricardo, Marintek
RD. 10/37501.1 © Ricardo plc 2010 3

4. Electric demand and Diesel Generator efficiency - Energy Storage installed
Energy storage system covers peak demand reducing the fuel consumption of running a
2nd Diesel Generator inefficiently at part load and adding potential for engine downsizing
Cruise Ship – Electric demand and production with Energy
Assumption: management
– Maximum energy to be stored to 14000
cover peak demand is 7MWh
Electricity demand (in KW)
– The peak power demand is 3MW 12000
which will be covered by most m
fro ck
type of battery even with a er pa
10000
ow ry
power/energy ratio of 1 P
tte
Ba
Consequences: 8000
– 3MW will no longer be required
to cover the electric peak to
r 6000
e ra
demand enabling Diesel en
l G .1
Generator downsizing ie
se No W 4000
D 9M Energy is stored in
2000 battery to be used to
cover peak demand
0
Battery supply Power
:4 AM
:0 M
00 M
:0 PM
AM
0 M
00 M
00 M
0 M
: M
1 M
15 M
00 M
0 M
: M
3: A
5: 0 A
7: A
8: A
10 0 A
3: P
4: 5 P
6: P
8: P
10 0 P
12 5 A
2: 0 P
10 0 0
12 0 0
0
00
Diesel Engine Power (kw)
1:
Electric demand (kw)
Time of Day
RD. 10/37501.1 © Ricardo plc 2010 4

5. Saving from energy storage & engine downsizing depends on duty cycle
and application
Battery pack selection based on adjusted cost from system life
Cost of 7MWh Battery (+25% Cells for 80% DOD)
Battery pack selection: 10
in Millions US Dollars $
9
– The cost comparison of 4 different battery pack of 8
Cost of 7MWh Battery Pack
(in Millions US Dollars $)
7
7MWh shows that the purchase cost is the wrong 6
criteria to select the battery pack as it ignore the duty 5
4
cycle and the life of the battery 3
2
Running Cost of 7MWh Battery adjusted with battery life
in US Dollars $/Hour
1
– Adjusted figures in $/hours shows that NiMH and Li- - 1,400
Lead-Acid NiMh batteries Zebra Batteries Li-ion Batteries
Ion can be more cost effective due to their longer life 1,200
Hourly Cost of 7MWh Battery Pack
1,000
(in US Dollars $/Hour)
Savings: 800
600
– Engine downsizing from 9MW to 6MW generating a 400
purchase cost saving: 200
• 600k $ -
Lead-Acid NiMh batteries Zebra Batteries Li-ion Batteries
– Fuel saving from downsizing: 770k $ /year* Potential cost saving per year adjusted with systems life
(*HFO price 480$/Tons, FC improvement of 40%) for architecture with 7MWh Battery & downsized 7MW engine
3
Additional cost:
2
Potential saving per year adjusted to system life
– Battery pack ranging from 1.3Mio $ to 8.7 Mio $
1
(in Million US Dollars $)
-
Lead-Acid NiMh batteries Zebra Batteries Li-ion Batteries
-1
Selected battery pack combined with engine -2
downzising gives a potential saving of -3
2 Million $ over 5 years -4
-5
RD. 10/37501.1 © Ricardo plc 2010 5

6. Ship architecture simulation enable to select the best trade-off between cost
and benefits using sensitivity analyses
System simulation &
Baseline Introduction of Optimisation of
architecture
Non optimised propulsion energy storage sub-systems
optimisation Area with good heat
Ship Duty Cycle
recovery potential
Based on the ship duty cycle and 1000
Time spent at this speed (in
900 Generic Cruise Ship
monitoring of the demand the fuel 800 Duty Cycle
hours per year)
700
consumption compared to baseline 600
500
can be simulated. 400
300
Cruise Ship - Electricity demand and Production
with Energy Management
200 Fuel Consumption Reduction [%] compared to Baseline during NEDC Cycle for Strategy 3
Various architectures can be 100 14000 16
Electricity demand (in KW)
0 12000 24.5
compared and the optimum solution 10000
24
0
11
13
15
7
19
21
23
25
Energy Storage
23.5
<1
1
8000
Auxiliaries Power
selected. 6000
Ship speed in Knots
24
Demand (in KW)
23
4000
2000
12 .5
0 24 23
22
Battery Capacity [Ah]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
Fuel consumption reduction over NEDC
01
04
07
09
11
13
15
18
20
22
Time of Day 23 .
5
23.5
23
22
35% Concept 1 Concept 2 23
Concept 1 - Strategy 5 Concept 2 - Strategy 5 8
22.5
23 22.5
22.5 22
21
22 22
21.5 21.5
30% 21
21.5
21 21
20.5 20.5
20
4 20.5
20 20
25% 18.5 19
19.5
19.5 19.5
19
3
30 40 50 60 70 80
Motor Power [kW]
20%
15%
Sensitivity analyses play a vital role in
assessing costs vs. benefits trade-offs
10%
Battery cost in £
RD. 10/37501.1 © Ricardo plc 2010 6