Professional Documents
Culture Documents
495-510
ABSTRACT
Emissions fi'om marine diesel and gas turbine engine's continue to be of interest to both
regulatolT agencies and ship operators. The primal y source of concern is the marine diesel
engine. Although the use of gas ,!urbines is expanding fi'om historical use on board U. S. Naval
ships into high speed ferries and cruise ships, the emission levels are very low in comparison
(considered as environmentally friendly) to marine diesel engine emissions. The difference in the
emissions from these two types of marine engines is documented by data, is substantial, and is
discussed further in this paper. Emission data from medium-speed diesel engines, low-speed
diesel engines, and gas turbine engines are also compared and the differences are clearly
identified.
The N O x emissions data from marine diesel engines, both low-speed and medium-speed,
were taken by Lloyd's Register Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Program. The gas turbine
data were taken from U.S. Navy research laboratories. The diesel engine particulate emissions
data were taken at Massachusetts Institute of Technology by the author (Miller, 1996).
495
burning fuels used in marine engines. Particulate limit SOx emissions to a level equivalent to that
matter, has a solid carbon core and over 18,000 described in option 2 above. A "SOx Emission Control
substances from combustion may be absorbed onto the Area" is defined as coastal / in-port waters, land or sea
particulate which constitute between 15 - 65% of the area where SOx emissions are deemed by the IMO to
particulate mass. Sulfur emissions are predominantly have an adverse impact on the terrestrial and aquatic
sulfur dioxide (SO2). From marine engines, SO2 is the ecosystems, areas of natural productivity, critical
only sulfur emission emitted at sufficiently high levels habitats, water quality, human health and areas of
to be considered for regulation as a pollutant. Sulfur cultural and scientific significance. The U.S. EPA's
emissions are solely a function of the sulfur content of Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
the fuel, and since the marine industry uses fuels having issued on May 22, 1998, "Control of Emissions of Air
sulfur levels between 1.5% and 3.5%, SO2 emissions Pollution from New CI Marine Engines at or above 37
are high. The level of SO2 is generally calculated from Kilowatts," does not address the regulation of SOx
the sulfur content of the fuel rather than being emissions. However, it is expected that if the U. S.
measured in marine engine exhaust, with all of the ratifies the proposed Annex VI to MARPOL, the
sulfur in the fuel assumed to produce SO2 (Hell6n, requirements for SOx emission control will default to
1994). those listed in Annex VI. It is the opinion of the
NOx is relatively high due to the high combustion authors of this paper that burning low sulfur fuel is the
efficiencies of marine engines. NOx is mostly nitric most effective means of control (one of the options of
oxide (NO) with zero to five percent nitrogen dioxide the proposed MARPOL Annex VI). An additional
(NO2) when measured. The NOx analyzer commonly benefit of lowering the sulfur levels of the fuel is that it
detects only NO and unless the NO 2 is driven to NO by also lowers the particulate matter emission levels.
heating the sample, the NO2 content is neglected. Methodologies to reduce sulfur emissions are not
Three types of marine-engine exhaust emissions further discussed in this paper.
warrant examination in the quest to reduce air pollution
from ships (all are covered in the proposed U.S. EPA 1.2 Nitric Oxide
and IMO standards). They are sulfur emissions from Nitric oxide, NO, is the oxide of nitrogen produced
boilers or large diesels using high-sulfur fuel, oxides of by combustion and is the molecule actually measured
nitrogen and particulate emissions. by a gas analyzer. Oxides of nitrogen are reported as
NO x because there are many compounds of oxygen and
1.1 Sulfur Emissions nitrogen in the atmosphere. It was believed early on
Sulfur emissions are primarily a function of the and later confirmed that only nitric oxide is produced
organic sulfur content of the fuel. Rather than by combustion in engines and boilers (Tuttle, 1973,
removing the sulfur from either the fuel or the stack 1976, 1980, and Carlton, 1990).
gases (producing a difficult waste disposal problem), The adverse effects of NOx are diverse. NO2 is of
the best way to deal with the sulfur in fuel is to burn the particular concern with detrimental effects on
fuel and broadcast the emissions over a wide area respiration and vegetation, and also contributes
(Tuttle, 1995) (i.e. while at sea). This is a natural way significantly to acid deposition (Carlton, 1995). Nitric
that sulfur can be returned to the environment. It has oxide is the predominant oxide of nitrogen produced
been put forward that, no other method of dealing with inside the engine cylinder, and the principal source of
high sulfur fuel is known that is as good as burning it in NO is the oxidation of atmospheric (molecular)
ocean-going ship engines. Another viable option is for nitrogen (Heywood, 1988). The oxidation of NO to the
vessels to burn low-sulfur fuels when transiting in more toxic NOR continues at ambient temperatures after
coastal areas or when entering port. The International expulsion from the exhaust system (Carlton, 1995). A
Maritime Organization's MARPOL Annex VI - smaller portion of the NO will also convert to nitrous
"Prevention of Air Pollution form Ships," has opted for oxide (N20). Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) produced by
a similar approach. The new regulation places an upper combustion are primarily a function of temperature
limit on the sulfur content for any fuel oil used on (and therefore engine output) and excess air (Tuttle,
board ships (not to exceed 5.0%) and identifies "SOx 1995). The reduction of these emission levels will be
Emission Control Areas" requiring compliance with at further discussed in the following sections.
least one of the following conditions: 1) sulfur content
of the fuel oil used does not exceed 1.5%, 2) the total 1.3 Particulate Matter
emission of sulfur oxides are reduced via approved Approximately 90 percent of diesel particulate
exhaust cleaning system to 6 g/kW-hr or less, or 3) any matter is encompassed by a size range of 0.0075 to 1.0
other technology that is verified and enforceable to microns. The ability of these particles to be inhaled
corrected to a standardized basis of 15% oxygen for Load, % of Max Continuous Rating
1'~176
I E\_ 1~ T a n k e r , T K 5 v e r s u s Bulk Carrier, B6
,oo / .............................. 1,oo dilution corrected to 15% 0 2
~ooo 2000
,e2~176
-, ~ . . . . . . l~oo
O
/ \ co, Diesel CO, TK5 NO, B6
~ooo/ ~ y ......... lOOO
~" [ \ NO, Diesel .~ 1500
~800 -- / ..... -- 800
o
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 100
Load, % of Max Continuous Rating
Load, % of Max Continuous RaUng
Figure 4
Medium-Speed Diesel versus Marine Gas Turbine
Figure 5
(LM2500) Engine Stack Emissions
Stack Emissions from Medium-Speed Marine Diesel
Engine and Slow-speed Bulk Carrier Engine
3.1.3 Slow-Speed Diesel Engines.
Emissions from another slow-speed diesel engine
Slow-speed diesel engines are two-stroke engines,
in a container ship, designated as ship C2, have also
and those represented here are large diesel engines.
been compared to the tanker, TK5. It has remarkably
They all burn a heavy fuel oil (HFO) that would be
different emissions than the bulk carrier, although run
classified as number six by the American rating system.
on a similar heavy fuel. Figure 6 shows this slow-
The emissions from a bulk carrier, designated as ship
speed engine's emissions compared with the medium-
B6 by Lloyd's, are compared first to a medium-speed
s 2000 2000
o Container, C2 versus Bulk Carrier, B6
o~ dilution corrected to 15% 0 2
1500 1500
~" 2000 2000
g ~ . . . . . . . . . . . NO, C2 ...... o
E
o. 1000 1000
o. I.l')
1500 1500
d ,,---..,,~
0
9. ~ 500 500
E NO, C2
O- 1000 1000
El.
d7 0 0 d
20 40 60 80 100 O
500 500
Load, % of Max ContinuousRating
d
oo, Be... "....
Z 0
20 40 60 80 100
Figure 6 Load, % of Max Continuous Rating
Stack Emissions from Medium-speed Diesel and
Slow-speed Diesel Engine of a Container Ship
'5 ---m . . . .
3.2 Particulate Matter 5Nrn 10 75Nm 15Nm 5Nrn 10 75 Nm 15Nm
2400 2400 2400 3200 3200 3200
The test bed used in this study was an experimental Engine Condition
Ricardo Hydra single cylinder, direct injection, (Load and RPM)
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Figure 10
Lube-Oil Derived Soluble Organic Fraction vs. 4.1 Oxides of Nitrogen
Engine Oil Consumption Oxides of nitrogen, NOx, are produced from the
nitric oxide generated during the combustion process in
Figure 11 shows that the fraction of the engine engines and boilers. The production of nitric oxide
lube-oil consumption that contributes to the SOF depends on the combustion temperature. Hence, NO
follows the same general trend as the TPR. is a function of engine loading. Fortunately ships do
not operate the engines at full power in port or while
entering or leaving port. Organic nitrogen, such as in
008
protein, theoretically contributes to the production of
"~ 07
,~ 0 6
nitric oxide during combustion. Fuels burned by
2 marine engines and boilers are among the lowest in
0,2 fixed nitrogen.
Organic sulfur, and possibly inorganic sulfur, in
LOw Med }-Igh Low Meal PIgh
2400 2400 2400 3200 3200 3200 the fuel is the source of sulfur emissions. The large
Engine Condition diesel engines and boilers that burn high-sulfur fuel oil
may be shut down much of the time or running at low
power while in or near port. The small diesel engines
Figure 11 that power generators or small craft in port do not need
Lubricating Oil Soluble Organic Fraction as a to burn high sulfur fuel oil. If the diesel engines
Fraction of Engine Lube-Oil Consumption operating in port burn low sulfur distillate fuel, sulfur
emissions are very low. Small craft can easily bum
The decrease between low and medium loads may low-sulfur fuel. However, a ship must carry extra fuel,
indicate that additional lube-oil is being oxidized due to if it is to switch to low-sulfur fuel in port. Switching
the increase in combustion temperatures resulting from only the diesel generator would minimize the size of
increased loading. The decrease may also indicate that this penalty - more fuel, less cargo.
less lube-oil is being consumed due to improved ring After treatment of the exhaust has little to offer
performance resulting from increased engine loading, except possibly in ports having severe emissions
and oxidation of consumed lube-oil remains relatively problems. Collecting sulfur solves no problems. After
unchanged. However, these alone do not explain the treatment devices place weight high in the ship and add
subsequent increase between medium and high load. substantial expense. None may be adequately effective
Lube-oil consumption is also a function of ring (Tuttle, 1995) with the possible exception of SCR if
performance (tends to improve with increased engine 90% reduction of NO is confirmed. SCR still may not
loading at a given engine speed), and oxidation is also a be justifiable because of weight, cost, and the use of
function of the excess air present in the exhaust gases. toxic substances such as urea or ammonia. The