Ships propelled by traditional marine fuels can benefit from enhancements such as hull form optimization and structural weight reduction; however, these have limited effect on the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI). Dual-fuel power solutions are increasingly used in new ship builds. In this study, a 154,000-ton shuttle tanker powered by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), and fossil-based methanol as low-carbon fuels is considered to evaluate dual-fuel power solutions. The decarbonization effect of each solution is determined using a tank-to-wake approach based on EEDI, without considering the well-to-tank phase of fuel types. When using low-carbon fuels as non-primary fuels, the LNG–diesel combination reduces EEDI by 9.97% compared to the diesel solution, outperforming the LPG–diesel and methanol–diesel solutions by 4 and 14 times, respectively. When using low-carbon fuels as primary fuels, the LNG–diesel solution reduces EEDI by 20.80% compared to the diesel solution, significantly outperforming the other two solutions.
BorénCGrifollMCastells-SanabraM.Emissions assessment of container ships sailing under off-design conditions. J Mar Sci Eng2023; 11: 1983.
2.
ElkafasAGElgoharyMMShoumanMR.Numerical analysis of economic and environmental benefits of marine fuel conversion from diesel oil to natural gas for container ships. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2021; 28: 15210–15222.
International Maritime Organization. Report of the marine environment protection committee on its sixty-second session: MEPC 62. London: International Maritime Organization Marine Environment Protection Committee, 2011.
7.
International Maritime Organization. The International Maritime Organization’s initial greenhouse gas strategy. London: International Maritime Organization Marine Environment Protection Committee, 2018.
8.
HuQZhouWDiaoF.Interpretation of initial IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships. Ship Build China2019; 60: 195–201.
9.
LiZSetaM.The expanding role of classification societies in conserving the marine environment: the case of the 2004 BWM Convention. Ocean Dev Int Law2022; 53: 318–345.
10.
WangNSunYWangT.Application and development of green ship technology. Ship Eng2022; 44: 54–57.
11.
ZhuY.Green ships and their energy power technology development. Ship Eng2021; 43: 13–19.
12.
VladimirNAnčićIŠestanA.Effect of ship size on EEDI requirements for large container ships. J Mar Sci Technol2018; 23: 42–51.
13.
ZongZHongZWangY, et al. Hull form optimization of trimaran using self-blending method. Appl Ocean Res2018; 80: 240–247.
14.
MollandAFTurnockSRHudsonDA, et al. Reducing ship emissions A review of potential practical improvements in the propulsive efficiency of future ships. Int J Marit Eng2021; 156: 175–188. DOI: 10.5750/ijme.v156iA2.925.
15.
WeiJWangSSuJ, et al. Tracking study of minimum propulsion power for new ship. Ship Build China2014; 55: 20–25.
16.
RenHDingYSuiC.Influence of EEDI (energy efficiency design index) on ship–engine–propeller matching. J Mar Sci Eng2019; 7: 425.
17.
DereCDenizC.Load optimization of central cooling system pumps of a container ship for the slow steaming conditions to enhance the energy efficiency. J Clean Prod2019; 222: 206–217.
18.
NorlundEKGribkovskaiaI.Reducing emissions through speed optimization in supply vessel operations. Transp Res D Transp Environ2013; 23: 105–113.
19.
KumarYHKumarRV.Development of an energy efficient stern flap for improved EEDI of a typical high-speed displacement vessel. Def Sci J2020; 70: 95–102.
20.
AdlandRCariouPJiaH, et al. The energy efficiency effects of periodic ship hull cleaning. J Clean Prod2018; 178: 1–13.
21.
XuDSuYYeB.Structural weight reduction design and EEDI impact assessment of 15,000 ton shuttle tanker. Mar Technol2023; 51: 12–16.
22.
ZhouJHanZZhuH, et al. Comparative analysis of ship optimization application effect on EEDI of a shuttle tanker. Ship Ocean Eng2023; 52: 77–82.
23.
DingJWuS.The influence of dual fuel application on general design for large oil tanker. Ship Eng2021; 43: 39–43.
24.
LiSZhangPSunZ.Optimization of fuel supply strategy for LNG dual-fuel ships. J Phys Conf Ser2023; 2491: 012014.
25.
PhamVCChoiJHRhoBS, et al. A numerical study on the combustion process and emission characteristics of a natural gas-diesel dual-fuel marine engine at full load. Energies2021; 14: 1342.
26.
HuangMWangGLiuK, et al. Research on gas injection system and propulsion characteristic of dual fuel gas diesel engine. Ship Build China2015; 56: 87–94.
27.
WeiLGengP.A review on natural gas/diesel dual fuel combustion, emissions and performance. Fuel Process Technol2016; 142: 264–278.
28.
KangGIKwakSYParkCS.Design and evaluation of the thermal capability to secure a working time of cryogenic explosion-proof camera in LNG carrier tank. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2017; 9: 568–576.
29.
IannacconeTLanducciGScarponiGE, et al. Inherent safety assessment of alternative technologies for LNG ships bunkering. Ocean Eng2019; 185: 100–114.
30.
ShuZGanHJiZ, et al. Modeling and optimization of fuel-mode switching and control systems for marine dual-fuel engine. J Mar Sci Eng2022; 10: 2004.
31.
FuYXiaoB.The development of an electronic control system for diesel–natural gas dual-fuel engine. Proc IMechE2018; 232: 473–480.
BayraktarM.Investigation of alternative fuelled marine diesel engines and waste heat recovery system utilization on the oil tanker for upcoming regulations and carbon tax. Ocean Eng2023; 287: 115831.
34.
BayraktarMYukselOPamikM.An evaluation of methanol engine utilization regarding economic and upcoming regulatory requirements for a container ship. Sustain Prod Consumption2023; 39: 345–356.
35.
LiuJQuJFengY, et al. Improving the overall efficiency of marine power systems through co-optimization of top-bottom combined cycle by means of exhaust-gas bypass: a semi empirical function analysis method. J Mar Sci Eng2023; 11: 1215.
36.
Díaz-SecadesLAGonzálezRRiveraN, et al. Waste heat recovery system for marine engines optimized through a preference learning rank function embedded into a Bayesian optimizer. Ocean Eng2023; 281: 114747.
37.
PerčićMVladimirNFanA.Life-cycle cost assessment of alternative marine fuels to reduce the carbon footprint in short-sea shipping: a case study of Croatia. Appl Energy2020; 279: 115848.
38.
ZhaoZCuiWQiY.Prospects of various ship power fuels under the transformation of marine energy. Marit China2022; 6: 42–48.
LiCHuY.Development of clean alternative fuel LPG in marine engines. Mar Equip Mater Mark2022; 30: 68–73.
41.
TuH.Comprehensive analysis on the adaptability of clean energy for marine use. China Ship Surv2022; 1: 58–62.
42.
YueY. Design and implementation of global LNG trade analysis system. Beijing: Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, 2022.
43.
BurelFTaccaniRZulianiN.Improving sustainability of maritime transport through utilization of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for propulsion. Energy2013; 57: 412–420.
44.
YangBZouJ.Optimization of liner operations and fuel selection considering emission control areas. J Environ Public Health2023; 2023: 6351337.
45.
BergmanJ.Competitive landscape of new marine fuels. China Ship Surv2023; 6: 77–78.
46.
BalcombePBrierleyJLewisC, et al. How to decarbonise international shipping: options for fuels, technologies and policies. Energy Convers Manag2019; 182: 72–88.
47.
International Maritime Organization. Guidelines on the method of calculation of the attained energy efficiency design index (EEDI) for new ships. London: International Maritime Organization Marine Environment Protection Committee, 2022.
48.
AhnJSeongSLeeJ, et al. Energy efficiency and decarbonization for container fleet in international shipping based on IMO regulatory frameworks: a case study for South Korea. J Int Marit Saf Environ Aff Shipp2023; 7: 2247832.
49.
KondratenkoAAKujalaPHirdarisSE.Holistic and sustainable design optimization of Arctic ships. Ocean Eng2023; 275: 114095.
ZamboniGScamardellaFGualeniP, et al. Comparative analysis among different alternative fuels for ship propulsion in a well-to-wake perspective. Heliyon2024; 10: e26016.
