International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85 (2019) 1–10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc

Ship-based carbon capture onboard of diesel or LNG-fuelled ships T

a a,⁎ b c
Maartje Feenstra , Juliana Monteiro , Joan T. van den Akker , Mohammad R.M. Abu-Zahra ,
Erwin Gillinga, Earl Goetheera
a
TNO, Leeghwaterstraat 44, 2628 CA Delft, the Netherlands
b
Delft University of Technology, Leeghwaterstraat 39, Delft, 2628CB, the Netherlands
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, Masdar Institute, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 54224, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Total shipping carbon emissions were approximately 938 million tonnes CO2 in 2012. Zero emission shipping
Post-combustion carbon capture options rely on the use of electricity or alternative fuels, such as blue hydrogen or ammonia. However, that
Onboard carbon capture requires major modifications to the ships and the logistics of fuel distribution. As a transition solution, which can
Maritime carbon capture be implemented on much shorter term; this study presents the technical and economic evaluation for ship-based
Zero emission ships
carbon capture (SBCC) on diesel or LNG-fuelled vessels. Two reference ship engines of 1280 kW and 3000 kW
were chosen. The process is simulated using Aspen Plus®, with 30 wt% aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA) and
30 wt% aqueous piperazine (PZ) as solvents. CAPEX and OPEX were reduced by integrating the thermal energy
of the exhaust gas with the stripper reboiler for the diesel and LNG powered ships. For the LNG ships, the cooling
capacity from evaporation of LNG was used for liquefying the captured CO2. By using piperazine, which allows
CO2 to be desorbed at higher pressure than MEA, the minimal cost of CO2 captured achieved was 98 €/tonne CO2
with a corresponding 1.8 million euros equipment cost for the 3000 kW engine ship. Additionally, the feasibility
of SBCC is investigated by adapting an existing cargo ship design (powered by the reference 3000 kW engine) for
including the carbon capture process equipment. The capture, compression and storage units are fitted onboard,
and the design is modified so that the transport capacity remains the same, while maintaining the ship stability.

1. Introduction retrofitting energy-efficient engines, implementing waste heat recovery

Global shipping was responsible for a significant percentage (3.1%)
of total global CO2 emissions in 2012, with 938 million tonnes of CO2
(IMO, 2014). Overall shipping CO2 emissions are still projected to rise
with 50–250% up to 2050 (IMO, 2014). During the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) strategy meeting in April 2018 an initial
strategy was formed to reduce the total amount of annual GHG gases by
50% by 2050, compared to 2008 (IMO, 2018). Up till now, efforts have
focused on cleaner and low carbon fuels, as well as improving the ship’s
efficiency.
For instance, LNG reduces CO2 emissions by about 20% per unit of
energy relative to diesel. A bigger role for LNG as transition fuel is
foreseen. As of March 2017, the in-service and on-order fleet of LNG-
powered seagoing ships has reached the 200 mark. There are currently
over 100 LNG-fuelled ships in service that are not LNG carriers
(Corkhill, 2017).
Technical and operational solutions for improving energy efficiency
and reducing CO2 emissions cited in the literature are: installing or
systems, improving hull design and performance, reducing vessel speed,
and improving routing and scheduling (Zhu et al., 2018). In the period
2010–2014 the energy efficiency per tonne kilometre has significantly
increased by 5.8% (International Energy Agency, 2012). Although the
energy efficiency per tonne kilometre of the global shipping fleet is
increasing, this does not translate into a reduction of the total GHG
emissions due to the steady growth of the shipping sector.
Because of the recent CO2 reduction strategy adopted by IMO, it is
likely that in the near future a tax on CO2 shipping emissions is
adopted. Currently, the EU Monitoring, Reporting and Verification
(MRV) regulation requires ship owners and operators to annually
monitor, report and verify CO2 emissions for vessels larger than 5000
gross tonnage calling at any EU and European Free Trade Association
(EFTA) port (International Energy Agency, 2012). A solution that re-
duces the shipping industry’s CO2 emissions will help achieve global
emission reduction goals for 2050. The use of electric motors, fuel cells
running on blue hydrogen or ammonia, and internal combustion en-
gines running on hydrogen, ammonia or biofuels are suggested in the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Juliana.monteiro@tno.nl (J. Monteiro).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.03.008
Received 3 October 2018; Received in revised form 16 January 2019; Accepted 5 March 2019
Available online 31 March 2019
1750-5836/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Feenstra, et al.
Table 1
Technical data for Wärtsilä 1280 kW 8L20DF engine (The International Council on Combustion Engines CIMAC, 2008).
Exhaust gas at 100% load Temperature after turbocharger at 100% load
(kg/s) (℃)
Diesel 2.7 325
LNG 2.0 350
“Decarbonising Maritime Transport” report from ITF-OECD (The
International Transport Forum, 2018). However, implementing these
solutions requires solving a number of challenges: the availability of
non-food-derived sustainable biofuels, the high cost of batteries (which
deems electrical ships non-competitive for medium to long voyages),
the availability and cost of synthetic fuels, and the adaptation of the
internal combustion and bunkering systems to these fuels (Lloyd’s
Register and Umas, 2017). As a transition solution, post-combustion
carbon capture could lower the CO2 emissions from the maritime in-
dustry in the short term, giving the necessary time for the zero-emission
technologies to be fully developed and implemented.
This work evaluates the feasibility of adapting post-combustion CO2
capture technology for maritime use, herein referred to as ship-based
carbon capture (SBCC). Luo et al. carried out the first study about
solvent-based carbon capture integrated onboard of a marine diesel
powered 17 MW ship, and estimated the cost of capture at 77.50 €/
tonne CO2, with a carbon capture rate of 73% (Luo and Wang, 2017).
For a 90% capture rate, Luo et al. arrived at a cost of 163.07 €/ tonne
CO2, due to the addition of an extra gas turbine. In the current study,
the SBCC is applied to LNG-fuelled ships, as this fuel option allows for
process intensification by extensive heat integration. Both a heat source
(exhaust gas) and a heat sink (LNG) are available to provide energy to
the stripper reboiler and cooling capacity for CO2 liquification, re-
spectively. For comparison purposes, equivalent ships fuelled by diesel
are also included in the investigation.
The SBCC systems are designed using the benchmark amine solvent,
a 30 wt% aqueous solution of monoethanolamine (MEA). Additionally,
the use of a second-generation high-pressure desorption CO2 capture
solvent is proposed to decrease economic cost involved in the com-
pression of captured CO2. For that end, 30 wt% aqueous piperazine (PZ)
is selected, as this solvent has already been demonstrated at pilot scale
(Zhang et al., 2017, 2016; Cousins et al., 2015). The concentration of
piperazine is selected as 30 wt%, since it has been shown to outperform
higher concentration solutions due to improved mass transfer (Zhang
et al., 2017).
Evaluations are carried out for two reference ships. The first is an
inland ship, powered by a 1280 kW 8L20 dual fuel Wärtsilä engine. The
second ship is a 8000 deadweight tonnage general cargo vessel, with a
benchmark cost of 12.1 M€, powered by a 3000 kW Wärtsilä 6L34 dual
fuel engine (van den Akker (2017)). Dual engines can run on both LNG
and marine diesel oil. The process simulation of the different cases was
carried out in Aspen Plus®, which has validated models for the selected
solvents (Zhang et al., 2017, 2011).
The feasibility analysis aims at answering the following questions:
i) Is the intended heat integration with the systems in diesel and LNG
ships technically feasible?
ii) What is the impact of the fuel option (diesel or LNG)?
iii) What is the impact of the capture rate of (60% or 90%)?
Table 2
Technical data for Wärtsilä 6L34DF engine (Wärtsilä, 2017).
Exhaust gas at 100% load Temperature after turbocharger at 100% load
(kg/s) (℃)
Diesel 5.5 381
LNG 4.6 381
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85 (2019) 1–10
Engine Output CO2 percentage
(kW) (%)
1280 4.8
1280 4.8
iv) What is the impact of the CO2 desorption pressure (modified by
studying alternative 1st generation CO2 capture solvents, MEA and
PZ)?
v) Does the necessary equipment for CO2 capture and storage fit on-
board of the selected ships?
vi) What is the impact of SBCC for the ship design and operation?
2. Methodology
Two reference ships are studied in this work, with sizes re-
presentative of the European fleet (PROMINENT (2015)) and of the new
generation of general cargo vessels (UNCTAD, 2017).
2.1. Reference inland ship (1280 kW)
For integrating an inland ship with post-combustion CO2 capture, a
reference ship with a 1280 kW dual fuel Wärtsilä 8L20DF engine was
chosen (Wärtsilä (2017)). For this dual fuel engine, there is technical
data for both diesel and LNG operation (see Table 1). If the engine
operates on diesel, there is more flue gas produced, but with a lower
temperature, when compared to LNG. The CO2 percentage for both
ships is the same.
2.2. Reference cargo vessel (3000 kW)
For the integration of a 3000 kW cargo vessel, technical data for the
Wärtsilä 6L34DF was used (see Table 2). When the engine is diesel
powered it produces more flue gas than the LNG powered engine, at the
same temperature.
The selected design basis for both ships is 100% engine load. This
represents a limit case, as for lower engine loads, the amount of heat
available by mass of CO2 emitted increases (van den Akker, 2017).
Additionally, lower engine loads correspond to less flue gas to be pro-
cessed and smaller equipment sizing (see Table 3).
Depending on the ship design, the operational engine load can be
much smaller than the engine total capacity. For instance, the opera-
tional profile of a cruise ship operating on a daily basis in the Baltic sea
shows that the load of the main engine is typically within 10% and 25%
(Baldi et al., 2015). In this specific case, designing the SBCC for 100%
load would lead to an oversized system. Therefore, designing at 100%
engine load is a conservative choice.
3. Ship-based carbon capture
Effectively capturing CO2 onboard of a ship requires integrating a
post-combustion CO2 capture unit as well as CO2 storage tanks, with the
ship units. While mature technologies for CO2 capture and liquefaction
are industrially available, the concept of installing and operating such
units onboard of a cargo ship is novel and poses several challenges and
Engine Output CO2 percentage
(kW) (%) (The International Council on Combustion Engines CIMAC, 2008)
3000 4.8
3000 4.8
2
M. Feenstra, et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85 (2019) 1–10

Table 3 the compressed CO2

Exhaust gas data for varying loads applied to the 3000 kW engine (Wärtsilä,
2017).
Engine load 100% 75% 50%
Exhaust gas flow (kg/h) 16666 13691 11168
CO2 production (kg/h) 1254 990 724
CO2 concentration in exhaust gas (molar) 4.80% 4.60% 4.20%
Available heat in exhaust gas (kW) 1035 931 763
Heat available per kg CO2 produced (kWh/kg) 0.83 0.94 1.05
opportunities.
In a general post-combustion process, flue gas contacts a CO2 cap-
ture solvent counter-currently in the absorption column. CO2 is trans-
ferred to the liquid phase, where it reacts with the solvent to form
mostly carbamates. The two CO2 absorption solvents in this study are
30 wt% MEA 30 wt% (5 m) PZ. The CO2-depleted gas is released to the
atmosphere from the top of the absorber. The CO2-rich solvent is
pumped to the stripper column. Heat is provided to the reboiler at the
bottom of the stripper column. The heat reverts the carbamate forma-
tion reaction, thus regenerating the amine and freeing up CO2. In SBCC,
this heat is provided by the engine exhaust gas. The free CO2 is pro-
duced at the top of the stripper column as a gas. To store the CO2 in a
cost-effective manner, it must be liquified. In case of LNG-fuelled ships,
the LNG vaporization unit can serve as heat sink for the CO2 liquefac-
tion unit, thus avoiding a refrigeration unit. In case of diesel fuelled
ships, a dedicated refrigeration unit is needed. The lean amine is
pumped back to the absorption column, closing the cycle. A detailed
description of the absorption-desorption cyclic process is found else-
where (Idem et al., 2015; Fosbøl et al., 2014).
Fig. 1 shows the proposed integration of a post-combustion CO2
capture installation with a LNG fuelled ship, with indicative tempera-
ture levels. Here, the hot exhaust gas provides the reboiler heat duty,
and the evaporation of LNG provides the cooling duty for liquifying
CO2. Therefore, the SBCC system is highly integrated to the existing
units. As will be discussed in detail in this work, this integration may
limit the amount of CO2 that can be captured, depending on the solvent
of choice, and on the amount of heat available in the exhaust gas.
4. Model development in Aspen Plus®
The equipment for the post-combustion CO2 capture installation
onboard is modelled in Aspen Plus® V8.8. The process is divided into 5
units:
1 Post-combustion CO2 capture
2 Compression of captured CO2
3 Hot-side heat integration, for thermal energy transfer between ex-
haust gas and reboiler
4 Cold-side heat integration, for using the LNG stream to cool down
5 Ammonia-based refrigeration cycle (for the diesel variants)
Fig. 2 shows the Aspen flowsheet for a post-combustion CO2 capture
installation. All columns (quench, absorber, stripper) are modelled
using the rate-based approach. The columns are packed with structured
Sulzer Mellapak 250 × . The exhaust gas mass flow and temperature
are specified in Table 1 for the inland ship case, and Table 2 for the
cargo ship. The exhaust gas is cooled by a cooler unit (HEAT-REB),
which is specified by matching its duty to that of the stripper reboiler.
Heat exchange between exhaust gas and stripper reboiler is more ex-
tensively modelled in the heat integration flowsheet. After the heat
exchange, the exhaust gases are further cooled down by direct contact
with sea water (QUENCH), and slightly increased in pressure by a
blower to overcome the pressure drop of the absorption column. The
quench column is designed so that the maximum sea water temperature
rise is 5 °C.
It should be noted that the system design criteria are different from
that of a power plant, in which steam use should be minimized. In
SBCC, the heat available is defined by the type of engine used (and the
operational load). When fixing the capture rate and the temperature
approach in the reboiler (10 °C), the available reboiler duty is set. Then,
the L/G is selected so that the necessary lean loading is achieved to
close the heat and mass balances for that level of capture. The absorber
and stripper columns are modelled using rate-based approach.
4.1. Compression of CO2
The captured CO2 must be conditioned for storage as a liquid, which
is the most energy-efficient condition. Typically, a stage near the triple
point is selected, with temperature of -50 °C and pressure of 7 bar (Luo
and Wang, 2017). In this work, a storage pressure of 11 bar was chosen
to leave a safety margin for the operation.
For the MEA case CO2 is desorbed at 2 bar, and two compressor
stages are needed to increase the pressure up to 11 bar. In the variants
where piperazine is used, only one compressor is necessary as the
desorption already takes place at 5 bar. Seawater is used for cooling of
the compressed CO2 in direct contact coolers, example with two com-
pression stages is shown in Fig. 3.
4.2. Thermal integration between ship and post-combustion CO2 capture
installation
There is a hot-side thermal integration between the exhaust gas and
the amine solution in the stripper reboiler. To illustrate the integration
methodology, we include the analysis performed for the LNG powered
3000 kW cargo ship scenario with SBCC using MEA. Fig. 4 shows the
simulated reboiler duty required when varying the CO2 capture rate
from 60% to 100%. In the same graph, the amount of heat available in
the exhaust gas, considering a minimum temperature approach of 10 K

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the proposed SBCC system (variation 10, with compression up to 22 bar).

3
M. Feenstra, et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85 (2019) 1–10

Fig. 2. Aspen process design for the post-combustion CO2 capture installation.

in the reboiler is given. The first horizontal line represents the heat
available in the exhaust when the exhaust gas reaches the reboiler at
381 °C (temperature after turbocharger at 100% load). The second line
considers a temperature loss of 10 K between the exit of the turbo-
charger and the reboiler. In both cases, there is enough heat in the
exhaust gas to achieve more than 90% capture. In only one of the
variants investigated in this study, the capture capacity could not reach
the design value of 90%, as it was limited by the heat availability to
80%, as discussed in the results.
There is a cold-side thermal integration between the compressed
CO2 and the LNG in the vaporizer. In the heat exchanger, CO2 is cooled
down and then liquefied, whereas LNG is vaporized to NG and heated
up. Again, the results of the LNG powered 3000 kW cargo ship scenario
with SBCC using MEA are given for illustrating the methodology. The
amount of available LNG for cooling is calculated based on the fuel
consumption at 100% engine load, which is enough for liquifying CO2
Fig. 4. Hot-side heat integration. Example for the cargo ship scenario with
in all the cases evaluated in this work. It should be noticed that the SBCC using MEA.
engine should receive NG fuel at a temperature between 0 °C and 60 °C.
The CO2 stream has enough heat to both vaporize the LNG and heat the
NG to the desired temperature range (Fig. 5). variants, an additional refrigeration cycle needs to be installed to pro-
For all the LNG variants investigated in this study, the cooling ca- vide cooling capacity to reduce the temperature of the compressed CO2
pacity is derived from the evaporation of the LNG. For the diesel and liquefy it for storage purposes. Therefore, for these variants, the
Aspen simulations include an ammonia-based refrigeration cycle, as

Fig. 3. Aspen simulation flowsheet for compression of the captured CO2 (example with two compression stages).

4
M. Feenstra, et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85 (2019) 1–10

(TIPC), Fixed capital investment (FCI) and Capital Expenditures

(CAPEX) were calculated. This methodology was developed during the
Octavius project for benchmarking large scale CO2 capture and com-
pression plants (Kvamsdal et al., 2015). Previous experience on the
economic evaluation of an onshore plant with capacity for 50 ktonnes
of CO2 per year, has shown that the Octavius methodology gives better
CAPEX predictions than that obtained using APEA.
TDPC= 2.01*TEC (1)

TIPC= 0.14*TDPC (2)

FCI= TDPC+ TIPC (3)

Fig. 5. Cold-side heat integration. Example for the cargo ship scenario with
SBCC using MEA.
FCI
CAPEX=
0.8 (4)
To calculate the annual capital cost (Eq. (5)), the CAPEX is multi-
plied by the capital recovery factor, which contains the project lifetime
in years (n) and the discount rate (i). The selected lifetime is 25 years
and the discount rate is 8%.
i(i+1) n
annualized CAPEX= CAPEX*
(i+1) n − 1 (5)
The Variable OPEX (VOPEX) was estimated based on the electricity
demand of the SBCC system, including pumps and compressors. The
electricity is generated onboard from LNG, and therefore the price of
electricity depends on the fuel price. Table 5 shows the parameters used
to convert the electricity consumption to an annual operational cost.
Fixed OPEX (Eq. (6)) includes long term service agreement, over-
head cost and operating & maintenance cost. It can be calculated using
the annualized CAPEX value (Luo and Wang, 2017).
FOPEX a = 0.03*CAPEX a (6)
Cost of Captured CO2 (Eq. (7)) is calculated by adding the annual
values of CAPEX, FOPEX and VOPEX and dividing this by the amount of
captured CO2.

Fig. 6. NH3 refrigeration cycle for the diesel variants to provide cooling ca-
CAPEXa + FOPEXa + VOPEXa
CCC =
pacity to reduce the temperature of the compressed CO2. Captured CO2 (7)

shown in Fig. 6. 6. Results

4.3. Summary of design criteria 6.1. Results 1280 kW inland vessel

Table 4 gives a summary of design criteria for the 11 variants in- In this section we present the results for all the 8 variations for the
vestigated in this study. For the inland vessel, a total of eight variants inland ship. The variations are based on changing the capture solvent
are investigated by varying the fuel, the capture rate and the solvent, (MEA or PZ) CO2, the capture rate (60 or 90%) and the heat integration
while keeping the storage condition constant. For the cargo ship, 3 scheme, depending on whether the ship is propelled by a diesel or LNG
variants are investigated by varying the storage conditions and the fuelled 1280 kW engine. Table 6 shows the different variations for the
solvent. 1280 kW inland vessel, with their corresponding model parameters. For
variation 7 only 66% of the flue gas stream was used to be able to
5. Economic calculations reduce the capture rate to 60%. These eight variations were chosen to
calculate the CO2 capture cost and their dependence on the ship engine,
For the economic evaluation of the SBCC, Aspen Plus® economic type of fuel, CO2 capture rate and choice of CO2 capture solvent.
analyser (APEA) is used for determining the total equipment cost (TEC). The reboiler duty and available thermal energy flue gas in Table 6
The APEA databased used has cost information from 2016. With Eqs. shows that the heat integration between the hot flue gas and the
(1)–(4) the Total Direct Plant Cost (TDPC), Total indirect Plant cost stripper reboiler is technically feasible for the 1280 kW ship. The re-
boiler duty closely matches the heat available in the exhaust gas for
Table 4 these cases. Therefore, 90% is the upper capture limit within the design
Summary of design criteria for the 11 variants investigated in this study. constrains considered in this work. Only for the second case, the in-
tended 90% capture rate for MEA variation for the 1280 kW diesel
Design criteria Inland vessel Cargo vessel
powered ship was not reached due to lack of thermal energy for the
Fuel LNG or Diesel LNG reboiler. The capture rate was then adjusted to 80%. For the 60%
Capture rate 90% (or maximum) or 60% 90% capture cases, the energy demand in the reboiler is way below that
Solvent MEA or PZ MEA or PZ available in the exhaust gas. For all the investigated LNG cases, the heat
CO2 storage conditions −36 °C at 11 bar −16 °C at 22 or
transfer in the cold side is sufficient for liquefying CO2 (at 11 bar and-
−36 °C at 11 bar
Total number of variants 8 3 36 °C) while vaporizing LNG and heating it to temperatures between 0
and 60 °C, which are acceptable for the engine’s fuel injection system.

5
M. Feenstra, et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85 (2019) 1–10

Table 5
Parameters for calculating VOPEX. Based on electrical duty.
Operational percentage ship (%) LNG consumption power (kg/ Fuel price LNG (€/kg) (Danish Maritime Fuel price Marine Diesel Oil (€/kg)
(Wigforss, 2012) kWh) Authority, 2011) (Bunkerindex, 2019)

57 0.15 0.61 0.57

Fig. 7 shows the calculated capital cost for the eight different var-
iants. The diesel variants have an additional price component for the
NH3 refrigeration, which considerable increases the total equipment
cost when compared to the LNG variants.
The compression cost for all the variants based on the piperazine are
lower than for their MEA counterparts. This is due to the reduced
equipment cost of the compression unit, as piperazine is a high-pressure
desorption solvent.
Additionally, Fig. 7 shows the difference in total equipment cost
between the 60% and 90% CO2 capture. The estimated equipment cost
for 60% is only slightly lower than the 90% CO2 capture. Despite the
substantially lowered flowrates, the difference in the cost of the CO2
compression unit is only marginal. Therefore, the Cost of Captured CO2
(CCC) expressed in €/tonne CO2, is lower for the 90% capture when
compared to the 60% capture (see Fig. 8).
Literature indicates that the inland ship considered in this work Fig. 7. Equipment cost of post-combustion capture for the 1280 kW inland
would cost around 4 M€ (Hekkenberg, 2014). Therefore, the equipment vessel.
cost (1.2–3.0 M€) of the SBCC unit has a large impact on the initial
investment.
FOPEX and VOPEX is dominated by the CAPEX cost, which heavily
Additionally, it was shown that a capture rate of 60% has a sig-
depends on the amount of compression stages and the desorption
nificant higher Cost of Captured CO2, compared to a capture rate of
pressure of the solvent as illustrated by Fig. 9.
90%, but the CAPEX is not that much smaller. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to design the system for allowing 90% capture rate.
6.3. Ship re-design for a 3000 kW cargo vessel
6.2. Results cargo vessel 3000 kW
A summary of the re-design of the ship is presented in this work. A
Given the conclusions taken from investigating the inland ship, it detailed description is available elsewhere (van den Akker, 2017).
was decided to restrict the cargo vessel variations by setting LNG as a Variant 10 (MEA, 90% capture rate, 22 bar CO2 storage) is taken as
fuel and fix the capture rate at 90%. For evaluating the impact of the reference. While this variant gives the worse economic result between
CO2 storage pressure, variation 10 in Table 7 was added, in which CO2 those investigated for the cargo ship, the use of MEA is favourable over
is compressed up to 22 bar (in variations 11 and 12, the storage pres- PZ due to concerns regarding the environmental friendliness of the
sure is kept at 11 bar). The compression to 22 bar allows CO2 to be latter. Besides, the equipment in variant 10 are larger and heavier than
stored at a higher temperature (−16 °C). These conditions are typical of those in variants 11 and 12. Therefore, this is the most conservative
commercial liquid CO2 tanks. choice regarding the ship re-design. Equipment sizes and weight were
The reboiler duty and available thermal energy flue gas in Table 7 estimated using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer v10.
shows that the intended heat integration between the hot flue gas and The ship re-design is based on the principle that the transport ca-
the stripper reboiler is technically feasible for the 3000 kW ship. Fig. 9 pacities of the reference design and the new concept design must be
shows the total equipment cost for the different variations from Table 7. equal. Table 8 shows the equipment that was fitted onboard of the
Fig. 10 shows the Cost of Captured CO2 for the larger 3000 kW powered 3000 kW cargo vessel.
vessel. The variation based on piperazine has the lowest CCC so far, Due to the height of the capture equipment (in special the columns),
with € 9817 €/tonne CO2. The total cost (Fig. 10), composed of CAPEX, it was chosen to place the equipment in the engine casing and funnel.

Table 6
8 different variations for the post-combustion CO2 capture installation. *For variation 7 only 66% of the flue gas stream was used to be able to reduce the capture rate
to 60%.
Variation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7* 8
Solvent MEA MEA MEA MEA PZ PZ PZ PZ
Flue gas (kg/s) 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.7 2.0 2.7
CO2 capture % 90% 80% 60% 60% 90% 90% 60% 60%
Fuel type LNG Diesel LNG Diesel LNG Diesel LNG Diesel
Desorption pressure 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 5
(bar)
L/G 1.84 1.39 1.98 1.25 1.72 2.06 1.63 2.10
Lean/rich CO2 loading 0.31 / 0.49 0.24 / 0.50 0.36 / 0.48 0.33 / 0.50 0.37 / 0.58 0.48 / 0.65 0.37 / 0.58 0.55 / 0.67
Reboiler duty (MWth) 0.44 0.52 0.31 0.38 0.44 0.52 0.29 0.34
Available thermal energy flue gas (MWth) 0.44 0.52 0.44 0.52 0.44 0.52 0.29* 0.52
Number of compression steps 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Compression output pressure (bar) 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Compression power (kW) 18.1 21.1 11.7 15.8 3.0 11.4 8.8 9.8
NH3 refrigeration power (kW) Not required 5.8 Not required 5.2 Not required 6.8 Not required 5.0

6
M. Feenstra, et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85 (2019) 1–10

Fig. 8. The cost of captured CO2 (CCC). Process parameters for all these variants are in Table 6.

Table 7 Table 8
Process design details for the carbon capture process design for the 3000 kW CO2 capture and compression components and their respective sizing, weight
cargo vessel. and cost. These specific items were fitted in the ship designs in Figs. 11–13.
Variation 10 11 12 Component Type Dimensions Weight (ton)
Solvent MEA MEA PZ
Flue gas (kg/s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 Quench Packed tower H =13.9 m 14.2
CO2 capture % 90% 90% 90% D =2.29 m
Fuel type LNG LNG LNG Blower Fan propeller Not specified Not specified
Desorption pressure 2 2 5 Absorber Packed Column H =10 m 4.8
(bar) D =1.5 m
Lean/rich CO2 loading 0.34 /0.47 0.34 / 0.47 0.38 / 0.50 Stripper condenser Shell and tube L =6 m 0.6
L/G 2.46 2.46 3.02 D = 0.2 m
Reboiler duty (MWth) 1,08 1,08 1.17 Condensate Vessel H =2.6 m 1.1
Available thermal energy flue gas 1.17 1.17 1.17 separator D =1 m
(MWth) Lean-rich heat Shell and tube L =6 m 17.1
Amount of compression steps 2 2 1 exchanger D =1.15 m
Compression pressure (bar) 22 11 11 Lean cooler Shell and tube L =6 m 0.94
Compression power (kW) 62.9 22 25 D = 0.25 m
Additional NH3 refrigeration no no no Lean pump Centrifugal pump Not specified 0.19
Rich pump Centrifugal pump Not specified 0.23
Stripper Packed column H = 14 m 6
D = 0.76 m
Reboiler Shell and tube L=4m 0.8
D = 0.35 m
Compressor #1 Reciprocating Casing: 8.5
H = 0.76 m
W = 1.14 m
L = 7.01 m
Compressor #2 Reciprocating Casing: 8.5
H = 0.76 m
W = 1.14 m
L = 7.01 m
DCC1 Packed column D = 0.45 m 1.4
H = 3.5 m
DCC2 Packed column D = 045 m 1.4
H = 3.5 m
HX CO2-LNG reboiler integrated in the 0.87
exhaust pipeline

Fig. 9. Equipment cost for cargo vessel equipped with 3000 kW Wärtsilä
6L34DF engine.

Fig. 10. Cost of Captured CO2 (CCC) for cargo vessel equipped with 3000 kW Wärtsilä 6L34DF engine.

7
M. Feenstra, et al. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85 (2019) 1–10

Fig. 11. Design of reference ship.

Source: (van den Akker (2017)).

Fig. 12. Re-design of the ship showing the main capture equipment placed in the funnel, as well as the CO2 storage tanks.
Source: (van den Akker, 2017).

Most of the other capture equipment is also placed in the funnel to keep
piping length to a minimum. In addition, some space is required be-
tween the main components to allow for inspection, maintenance and
repairs. Because of this, the funnel size is increased, and the accom-
modation was re-designed. Fig. 11 shows the standard design of the
reference ship and Fig. 12 shows the re-design of the ship with added
SBCC equipment. The CO2 storage tanks were sized for a two-week trip
for the 3000 kW powered ship, which corresponds to the ship’s fuel
(LNG) capacity.
The CO2 capture equipment adds 80 tonnes to the ship deadweight.
The empty CO2 tanks weigh 146 tonnes, whereas the design considers
temporarily storing up to 316 tonnes of CO2 onboard. Meanwhile, for
the maximum capacity of CO2 storage to be reached, 122 tonnes of LNG
must be consumed. Hence, the total added weight is 420 tonnes, and to
compensate for that the midship is lengthened by 5.8 m. In Fig. 13 it is
clearly visible is that the proposed concept is longer than the bench-
mark. Due to the added weight, the ship consumes more LNG and
produces more CO2. Overall, emissions are reduced with 87% compared
to the reference ship.
For evaluating the impact of fitting carbon capture equipment on-
board of the ship Van den Akker evaluated deadweight vs. volume, hold
and deck dimensions, deadweight and stability (van den Akker, 2017).
After some design alterations the transport capacities of the ship with
and without the carbon capture equipment. Therefore, it is technically
possible to fit the proposed SBCC equipment onboard of the ship.
7. Discussions
The calculated CO2 capture costs vary from 98 to 389 €/tonne of
CO2, depending on the ship (engine) size, the fuel used, the selected
capture rate and the capture technology (choice of solvent).
A larger ship engine lowers the calculated CO2 capture cost. Fig. 14
shows the overview of the carbon capture costs that were estimated in
this work, for the 1280 kW and 3000 kW engines and the literature

8
M. Feenstra, et al.
Fig. 13. Part of the general arrangement. Main deck. Top is the benchmark design, and below is the concept design.
Source: (van den Akker, 2017).
Fig. 14. General trend of carbon capture cost with an increase in engine ca-
pacity. Results from carbon capture cost calculated in this paper and literature
results from Luo et al. (Luo and Wang, 2017) The result from Luo et al. was for a
73% capture rate diesel operated engine.
result for a 17 MW ship. The literature result from Luo et al. was for a
73% capture diesel ship. To make the literature result comparable with
the 1280 kW and 3000 kW results, the 73% capture rate in the literature
case was extrapolated to 60/90% cases for LNG or diesel ships, based on
the ratio’s known from the 1280 kW case (Luo and Wang, 2017).
The general trend is that the carbon capture cost quickly drops
between 1280 kW and 3000 kW after which the decrease in cost be-
comes less towards the 17 MW engine. This is because of scale of the
carbon capture equipment as the increase in amount of flue gas with
engine capacity is linear.
Increasing the capture rate (from 60% to 90%) decreased the spe-
cific cost of CO2 capture, on average, by 28% (st.dev 3%). In general, it
can be concluded that the design capture rate should be as high as
feasible given the heat available in the exhaust gas. While all the de-
signs in this work were based on 100% engine load, the operational
profile of the target ship must be studied before designing the SBCC
system. It would be beneficial to design the capture system to have a
high capture rate for the most frequent engine load. A dynamic op-
eration strategy for the SBCC plant must consider the dynamic opera-
tion of the engine. Additionally, the effect of the ship’s motion on the
ordinary absorption tower needs to be properly quantified in future
work, and taken into consideration when designing SBCC units.
Alternatively to packed columns, membrane contactors could be used,
which won’t be affected by motion. This, however, would have an
impact on the plant CAPEX. The trade-off is to be investigated in further
research.
A cold-side heat integration is possible for the LNG cases, where CO2
can be cooled by heat exchange with the evaporating LNG stream. In
9
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85 (2019) 1–10
case of the diesel fuelled ships, the need of a dedicated refrigeration
cycle to liquefy CO2 increased the both the CAPEX and OPEX. Another
aspect that also favours LNG-fuelled ships is that burning NG leads to
cleaner exhaust gas. It is well known that the impurities in the gas have
an impact on solvent stability and emissions. Marine diesel oil powered
ships produce flue gas containing NOx and SOx and soot leading to-
wards more solvent degradation (Flø et al., 2016). The presence of
particulate material in the gas can also lead to high amine emissions
due to the formation of aerosols.
In all the cases, the calculated CO2 capture cost is dominated by the
CAPEX. This is a direct result of the design strategy of maximizing heat
integration. Additionally, the equipment cost is considerable when
compared to the benchmark cost of the vessel, in special for the smaller
ship (inland 1280 kW). Therefore, lowering the CAPEX of SBCC is an
important step in the development of the technology. This work in-
dicates that working with solvents capable of stripping CO2 at high
pressures is a good strategy. One important aspect to optimize is the
CO2 storage pressure, taking into consideration the integration to the
SBCC unit. If the solvent and the storage pressure are chosen so that a
compression unit can be avoided, between 27–65% of the equipment
cost can be avoided (depending on the case considered).
8. Conclusion
This work presents the concept of Ship Based Carbon Capture as a
transition solution for significantly lowering the CO2 emissions in the
shipping industry. SBCC is shown to be technically feasible – conceptual
process designs are presented for two reference cases: an inland vessel
and a cargo vessel. The energy and mass balances show the possibility
of capturing up to 90% of the ships’ emissions. It is also concluded that
the equipment weights and sizes are compatible with the design of the
cargo ship, and do not hamper the ship stability.
The SBCC cost onboard of the inland 1280 kW diesel-fuelled ship
using 30 wt% MEA is 389 €/tonne CO2 for 60% capture rate, and 296
€/tonne CO2 for 80%. The capture rate of 90% could not be achieved in
this case because the exhaust gas of the diesel engine could not provide
enough energy for the solvent regeneration. For an equivalent ship
running on LNG, the cost drops to 323 €/tonne CO2 for 60% capture
and 233 €/tonne CO2 for 90% capture. Overall, the total equipment
cost for a capture rate of 60% is lower than for 90%, but the cost of CO2
captured is lower for 60% capture rate.
With a change to piperazine as chemical absorption solvent for a
1280 kW ship, CO2 can be desorbed at higher pressures, leading to
savings on the compression system and overall cost. For diesel-fuelled
ships, the cost is 304 €/tonne CO2 for 60% capture and 207 €/tonne
CO2 for 90% capture. When the ship is running on LNG, the cost drops
to 209 €/tonne CO2 for 60% capture and 159 €/tonne CO2 for 90%
capture.
The cost of SBCC onboard of a 3000 kW LNG-fuelled ship using
M. Feenstra, et al.
30 wt% MEA is 120 €/tonne CO2 and 98 €/tonne CO2 using piperazine
(5 m), both for 90% capture. Furthermore, it was shown how CO2
capture and compression equipment can be fitted onboard of a 3000 kW
cargo vessel.
For both reference ships of 1280 kW and 3000 kW, for almost all
variants thermal integration of the flue gas and the stripper reboiler is
technically feasible. Only for the 90% MEA variation for the 1280 kW
ship the flue gas did not contain enough thermal energy for the reboiler.
Thermal integration between the LNG evaporation and the CO2 liqui-
fication is also technically feasible.
The obtained cost of CO2 captured is lowest for the largest ship,
indicating that the application of Ship Based Carbon Capture may be
more effective on larger LNG ships. While it is technically feasible to
have the SBCC equipment onboard, the strategies indicated in this work
to lower the initial investment must be further developed. In a follow-
up work, the authors are currently studying the application of other
solvents, as well as designing the SBCC system for a specific ship. This
means that the operational profile is known, and the SBCC design can
be optimized to, for instance, minimize the cost of transportation of
goods in a cargo ship in a context with a CO2 emission tax.
References
Baldi, F., Ahlgren, F., Nguyen, T.-V., Gabrielii, C., Andersson, K., 2015. Energy and Exergy
Analysis of a Cruise Ship.
Bunkerindex, 2019. Marine Diesel Oil. [Online]. Available: http://bunkerindex.com/
prices/bixfree.php?priceindex_id=4%0A. [Accessed: 01 October 2018]. .
Corkhill, M., 2017. LNG-fuelled fleet hits 200 ship mark. LNG World Shipping.
Cousins, A., Huang, S., Cottrell, A., Feron, P.H.M., Chen, E., Rochelle, G.T., 2015. Pilot-
scale parametric evaluation of concentrated piperazine for CO 2 capture at an
Australian coal-fired power station. Greenh. Gases Sci. Technol. 5 (February (1)),
7–16.
Danish Maritime Authority, 2011. North European LNG Infrastructure Project.
10
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85 (2019) 1–10
Flø, N.E., et al., 2016. Results from MEA degradation and reclaiming processes at the
CO2Technology centre mongstad. Energy Procedia 114 (November), 1307–1324
2017.
Fosbøl, P.L., et al., 2014. Benchmarking and comparing first and second generation post
combustion CO2 capture technologies. Energy Procedia 63, 27–44.
Hekkenberg, R.G., 2014. A building cost estimation method for inland ships. European
Inland Waterway Navigation Conference.
Idem, R., et al., 2015. Practical experience in post-combustion CO2 capture using reactive
solvents in large pilot and demonstration plants. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 40, 6–25.
IMO, 2014. Third IMO greenhouse gas study 2014. Int. Marit. Organ. 327.
IMO, 2018. Press Briefing IMO: Climate Change Strategy.
International Energy Agency, 2012. Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013. Technology.
pp. 1–82.
Kvamsdal, H., et al., 2015. Octavius- Deliverable N ° D13. 2 Report on Methodology for
Benchmarking of Large Scale Capture Plants.
Lloyd’s Register and Umas, 2017. Zero-Emission Vessels 2030. How Do We Get There?.
Luo, X., Wang, M., 2017. Study of solvent-based carbon capture for cargo ships through
process modelling and simulation. Appl. Energy 195, 402–413.
PROMINENT, 2015. D1.1 List of Operational Profiles and Fleet Families.
The International Council on Combustion Engines CIMAC, 2008. Guide to Diesel Exhaust
Emissions Control of NOx, SOx, Particulates, Smoke and CO2. no. 28. .
The International Transport Forum, 2018. Decarbonising Maritime Transport. Pathways
to Zero-carbon Shipping by 2035. pp. 86.
UNCTAD, 2017. Review of Maritime Transport 2017.
van den Akker, J.T., 2017. Carbon Capture Onboard LNG- Fueled Vessels - a Feasibility
Study.
Wärtsilä, 2017. Product Guide Wärtsilä 34DF. [Online]. Available: https://www.wartsila.
com/products/marine-oil-gas/engines-generating-sets/dual-fuel-engines/wartsila-
34df. [Accessed: 14 November 2017].
Wigforss, J., 2012. Benchmarks and Measures for Better Fuel Efficiency.
Zhang, Y., Que, H., Chen, C.-C., 2011. Thermodynamic modeling for CO2 absorption in
aqueous MEA solution with electrolyte NRTL model. Fluid Phase Equilib. 311, 67–75.
Zhang, Y., Freeman, B., Hao, P., Rochelle, G.T., 2016. Absorber modeling for NGCC
carbon capture with aqueous piperazine. Faraday Discuss. 192, 459–477.
Zhang, Y., Sachde, D., Chen, E., Rochelle, G., 2017. Modeling of absorber pilot plant
performance for CO2 capture with aqueous piperazine. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 64,
300–313.
Zhu, M., Yuen, K.F., Ge, J.W., Li, K.X., 2018. Impact of maritime emissions trading system
on fleet deployment and mitigation of CO2 emission. Transp. Res. Part D Transp.
Environ. 62, 474–488.